Sitting of 27 November 2001

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

    EU Accession
    Jeff Ennis: What recent bilateral discussions he has had with those countries seeking entry into the EU. [115423]
    The Minister for Europe (Peter Hain): Between us, the Foreign Secretary and I have already met our Polish, Czech, Turkish, Hungarian, Romanian, Cypriot, Lithuanian. Latvian and Bulgarian counterparts. Our Government are champions of European enlargement.
    Jeff Ennis: Independent research has shown that EU enlargement will add approximately £1.75 billion to our gross domestic product. Does the Minister agree that any opposition to EU enlargement, including from Opposition Members, is not in this country's interests?
    Peter Hain: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. Enlargement is not just a favour for the applicant countries; it is a favour for ourselves. It is good for jobs and good for business. Every country that has come into the EU has increased its share of trade with Britain. It is also good for our security to bring additional members into the EU to co-operate on drug trafficking and anti-crime and anti-terrorism measures. That is why it is astonishing that Conservative Members voted against enlargement by opposing the Nice treaty. They have shown all the Polish, Cypriot and other communities in Britain that the Tories oppose their interests.
    Mr. John Redwood: Why does the Minister not come clean and admit that the centralising power grab of the treaty of Nice has nothing do with enlargement and that the applicant states want to know what his solution to the problem of the common agricultural policy is? They want the money and they want us to pay. How will the hon. Gentleman solve that?
    Peter Hain: The right hon. Gentleman is bewitched and besotted by his fanatical anti-Europeanism. The truth
    812
    is that this Government have strongly supported CAP reform, which will be hastened by enlargement, and that is another very good reason why he should support it.
    Mr. Jim Marshall: When my right hon. Friend met his Turkish counterpart to discuss Turkey's possible membership of the EU, did they mention the problems that now exist between the EU and NATO in respect of the EU's assured access to NATO assets in the event of the EU carrying out Petersberg-type tasks?
    Peter Hain: My hon. Friend raises a very important issue. Indeed, the Foreign Secretary discussed it in some detail with his Turkish counterpart during his visit to Turkey only last month. I can report to the House that significant progress was made in a very important meeting at Ankara, which involved ourselves, as representatives of the EU, and the United States. We are confident that progress can now be made, although there are still some obstacles to overcome. It is in Turkey's interest that European security and defence policy proceeds, to have a good relationship with the EU and, eventually, we hope, to accede to membership, when it satisfies all the conditions.
    Mr. Richard Spring: I remind the right hon. Gentleman that we clearly warned that all the extraneous baggage surrounding the Nice treaty might well delay enlargement. Given what has happened in Ireland and that it may happen again, what exactly is the fallback position on enlargement?
    Peter Hain: It is very important that the Nice treaty is ratified by the House and, indeed, by Parliament to secure enlargement and to welcome our friends from Cyprus, Poland, Hungary and all the other applicant states to join the EU, as they wish to do. The Government of Ireland have yet to notify the EU and their colleague member states, including ourselves, about their own advice on how the question should be addressed, but the Government of Ireland very strongly support the Nice treaty and enlargement, and the Conservative party should take heed of that as well.

    Ministerial Meetings (Pakistan)
    Mr. Clive Betts: If he will make a statement on recent discussions with President Musharraf on the situation in Pakistan. [154241]
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw): I met President Musharraf on Friday 23 November in Islamabad. I expressed continuing appreciation for his courageous stand in the fight against terrorism and the practical assistance that Pakistan has provided. I discussed with him the situation in Pakistan and sought his advice on how best to achieve our shared objective of a broad-based multi-ethnic Government in Afghanistan.
    Mr. Betts: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, and I am sure that the House wants to congratulate President Musharraf on the support that he has given the coalition at this difficult time. In those discussions, I am sure that the issue of Kashmir was also raised with my

    813
    right hon. Friend. I know that he is aware that many indigenous Kashmiris have been engaged in a struggle with the Indian army over the freedom of their country during past decades.
    Recently, some of those Kashmiris have most unfortunately chosen to side with terrorists in Afghanistan. I am sure that that action will be universally condemned, but will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that that action by some Kashmiris in Afghanistan will in no way change the British Government's policy, which is in favour of the right of the Kashmiri people to determine their own future? Does he agree that pressure should continue to be put on the Indian Government to ensure their compliance with UN resolutions passed more than 50 years ago?
    Mr. Straw: Sadly, on both sides of the line of control in Kashmir, thousands of innocent civilians—Muslim, Sikh, Hindu and people of no religion—as well as many members of the Indian armed forces have lost their lives. In our judgment, the Kashmir issue can be solved only by bilateral discussions between India and Pakistan. We are therefore encouraging the Government of India and the Government of Pakistan to resume the talks that they held in July in Agra. We would stand ready to provide assistance to those negotiations, but only in circumstances in which both sides agreed that our intervention would be helpful.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: Although I welcome the stand that President Musharraf has taken hitherto, can the Foreign Secretary say whether there is any truth to reports from Afghanistan about Pakistani planes flying in to take people out? Might that not have an adverse effect on any settlement in Afghanistan?
    Mr. Straw: I have seen those reports, but I have seen no information that confirms their credibility.
    Mrs. Lorna Fitzsimons: Further to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) about Kashmir, can I press my right hon. Friend on the issue? Does he agree that, post-11 September, we must work with people across the world and, more important, with our constituents and with people of Kashmiri origin? We must also work with the peaceable people in Kashmir who have pacifically been trying to get United Nations resolutions implemented so that they can enjoy the democratic rights denied them by the failure of the Indian Government and, I am afraid to say, previous Pakistani Administrations, to act on the resolutions passed by international institutions such as the UN. All that those people want is a vote on whether Kashmir should be able to accede to India or to Pakistan. Although they believe that they have been done a great injustice, they do not want terrorists to act on their behalf.
    Mr. Straw: In the Kashmiri dispute, it is possible for both sides credibly to claim the support of various international and bilateral agreements. Typically, those on the Pakistani side of the line of control refer to the resolutions of the Security Council of the United Nations while those who support the position of the Indian Government claim that the Simla agreement in the early 1970s superseded the UN Security Council resolution of 50 years ago. The crucial point is that, in the real world,
    814
    the dispute can be resolved only by bilateral negotiations between India and Pakistan. That is what we want to happen.
    Mr. David Chidgey: Does the Foreign Secretary agree with the view now being expressed in the United Nations that the acceptance by Afghanistan of a multinational force is an essential ingredient of any stabilisation and aid package? If so, what part does he propose that British forces should play? If not, what option would he pursue?
    Mr. Straw: I discussed this matter with the President of Pakistan. There are various possibilities for outside assistance in terms of multilateral forces to assist any interim authority, and then a proper Government, in Afghanistan. However, our view is that decisions must wait until there is at least an interim authority that can offer consent to such a force. The role that British troops might play will depend on the nature of the tasks required and, of course, on the consent of any interim authority.
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: What did President Musharraf say about bombing in Ramadan?
    Mr. Straw: As far as I recall, President Musharraf did not say anything about that.

    European Security and Defence Initiative
    Mr. John Wilkinson: When he last met his counterparts in the European Union to discuss future parliamentary scrutiny of the European security and defence initiative. [15425]
    The Minister for Europe (Peter Hain): At the General Affairs Council eight days ago.
    Mr. Wilkinson: I did not quite catch that reply, because it was a bit hurried and the Foreign Secretary was removing his brief from the Dispatch Box.
    Before the Government come to a judgment, will they examine the performance of the armed forces of European Union countries in the war against terrorism in Afghanistan? Before the intergovernmental conference, will the Government also assess the extremely effective role already played in European security and defence issues by the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe and the Assembly of the Western European Union? Surely, the IGC—and not now—is the right time and place to move things forward.
    Peter Hain: I acknowledge and pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman's long-standing work as a member of the WEU Assembly and to his expertise in such matters. The issues that he raises are being considered. There is an embryonic European security and defence policy in place in operations in Macedonia, Bosnia and Kosovo where we are co-operating on an ad hoc basis with fellow European armed forces, and commanders from other member states sometimes command our forces. It is working very satisfactorily and we are learning a great deal from it, which will help the European Union to determine exactly

    815
    how that capability can be made operational and contribute to peacekeeping humanitarian missions and crisis management.
    Rachel Squire: I thank the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) for raising this issue following a conference that we both recently attended in Brussels.
    Does my right hon. Friend agree that the arrangements for national parliamentary scrutiny of European security and defence policy are inadequate and that we are at risk of being overtaken by the European Parliament, which does not appear to want to await the outcome of the IGC? Will he give priority to a full debate on that matter and the relevant Select Committee reports? Will he facilitate a discussion between the relevant Committees and Members of the House on the WEU, the OSCE and the NATO Parliamentary Assembly to consider improving our national parliamentary scrutiny of European security and defence policy developments?
    Peter Hain: I will certainly consider the points raised by my hon. Friend, whose expertise is also valued by the House. We need to ensure that the initiative receives parliamentary scrutiny, that the discussions proceed and that the issue is addressed in the run-up to the IGC in 2004. We have no intention whatsoever of ceding scrutiny to the European Parliament. This is an intergovernmental matter that concerns the operational capacity of our troops, which is not something that we can cede to the European Parliament. We need national parliamentary supervision and accountability.

    Zimbabwe
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: What recent representations he has made to the Government of Zimbabwe relating to the land redistribution programme. [15426]
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw): Land reform was one of the central issues in the Abuja negotiations in September. I raised it again with Zimbabwe's Foreign Minister, Mr. Mudenge, in New York on 10 November and my noble Friend Baroness Amos discussed it during the Commonwealth ministerial visit to Harare in October.
    At Abuja, Zimbabwe agreed that its land reform programme should be fair, just and sustainable and in the interest of all the people of Zimbabwe. It also committed itself to restore the rule of law to land reform and to respect the Commonwealth's Harare declaration. Its actions over the past three months show its scant regard for these commitments and have seriously undermined the Abuja agreement.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw), set out Government policy on Zimbabwe in this mornings Westminster Hall debate. Let me emphasise again to the House that we remain profoundly concerned at recent developments in Zimbabwe, including violence against the Opposition, interference in the judicial system, moves to disfranchise Zimbabweans living overseas and, preposterously, labelling journalists as people who have been assisting
    816
    terrorists. Our European Union and Commonwealth partners, and neighbouring states in southern Africa, share those concerns.
    At the 29 October General Affairs Council, the European Union therefore opened formal article 96 consultations with the Government of Zimbabwe under the Cotonou agreement. Cotonou states that if there is no progress within 75 days "appropriate measures" may be taken. A United Nations Development Programme technical team is now in Zimbabwe to look at the prospects for a credible land reform programme. Once its report is available, we will discuss it with Commonwealth and EU partners, and key donor countries including the US. We shall of course consult southern African countries as well. I will at that stage make a further statement to the House.
    Mr. Winterton: I sincerely thank the Foreign Secretary for that considered and lengthy reply. As he said, the Abuja undertakings are being flagrantly ignored by Mr. Mugabe and his Government. Farms continue to be invaded and farm workers murdered, hundreds of thousands of Zimbabweans face famine, and the country is disappearing down a black hole.
    Will the Foreign Secretary ensure that the EU and the Commonwealth work together to bring Mr. Mugabe and his Government to their senses? The most unfortunate development is that Mr. Mugabe has recently indicated that he will not allow independent monitors to observe the presidential election, which would be a disaster for that wonderful country.
    Mr. Straw: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern, which is based on deep knowledge of Zimbabwe, and the manner in which he made his points. I have been concerned throughout to ensure that we work in partnership with Commonwealth countries, the European Union and other southern African countries. Apart from the poor people in Zimbabwe, who are suffering grievously from the results of President Mugabe's policies, it is the countries contiguous to Zimbabwe that are most affected by the disastrous economic and political management of Zimbabwe. We shall continue to work with all those partners.
    President Mugabe has to date refused to accept the involvement of election observers at the beginning of the electoral process, and not just at the end. We hope that he will change his mind, but I do not hold out much hope. What is striking about his refusal is that it appears to be in breach not only of various EU and Commonwealth declarations that he has signed, but of the declaration of detailed norms and standards for elections in the southern African region that he signed only last March and that specifically commits all southern African countries, including Zimbabwe, to the admission of independent election observers at the beginning of and throughout the process, and on polling day.
    Mr. Win Griffiths: Given what appears to be the total disregard by President Mugabe for the Abuja agreement and all the other events in Zimbabwe, including the President calling members of the press "terrorists", at what point does my right hon. Friend think

    817
    he will able to make a statement to the House saying that the Commonwealth has finally, alas, had to withdraw its recognition of Zimbabwe's membership?
    Mr. Straw: Such measures are, as my hon. Friend knows very well, a matter for the Commonwealth as a whole, not the United Kingdom. I will say only that nothing would play better with President Mugabe than if he were allowed to present the issue as one between black Zimbabwe and the old colonial ruler, the United Kingdom, rather than what it really is: a major issue of multinational and international concern.
    I spoke this morning to Don McKinnon, the Secretary-General of the Commonwealth, about the situation. We are likely to have a teleconference of the Commonwealth Ministers action group, of which I am a member in December, and a proper meeting in January, which should coincide with the end of the 75-day period under the article 96 process under Cotonou. In addition, we shall continue our discussions with southern African countries, because it is clear that there must be significant changes in the arrangements that President Mugabe is in practice willing to put in place for observers of the electoral process and for the process itself if that election is to carry any credibility with the rest of the world and with the voters of Zimbabwe.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: Surely the truth is that Mr. Mugabe's behaviour is now so gross that Zimbabwe should be excluded from the Commonwealth until he is removed from office.
    Mr. Straw: I understand the right hon. and learned Gentleman's concerns and instincts. We are all profoundly concerned about what has been happening, above all on behalf of the people of Zimbabwe, who have suffered badly from 80 per cent. inflation, a decline in the growth rate of what was once the bread basket of Africa and the impoverishment of what was a prosperous country. However, I counsel the right hon. Gentleman against suggesting that the United Kingdom take unilateral action, which would work to President Mugabe's benefit. The important thing is to work in partnership with the Commonwealth, the European Union and, above all, the southern African countries.
    Mr. David Lammy: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there remains a need for balanced, fair and just reporting of the situation in Zimbabwe? Given what the Zimbabwean Government have said about foreign journalists aiding terrorists, what are the British Government doing to protect our journalists in Zimbabwe?
    Mr. Straw: We would actually do more to protect UK citizens who are journalists in Zimbabwe than we can to protect Zimbabwean citizens. The journalists whom President Mugabe portrayed as assisting terrorism were Zimbabwean citizens and should be mentioned for the great courage that they have shown in reporting the situation in Zimbabwe when faced with flagrant intimidation by people acting on behalf of President Mugabe and ZANU-PF. Following the reports, our high commissioner in Zimbabwe, Brian Donnelly, made strong representations at my specific request to the Zimbabwean Government. We continue to work with independent
    818
    media, non-governmental organisations and others to ensure that as far as possible the media can report fairly and independently what is happening in Zimbabwe and that when they are prevented from doing so, the world knows.
    Mr. Michael Ancram: Does the Foreign Secretary recall the Prime Minister telling the Labour party conference on 2 October that there would be
    "no tolerance of … the activities of Mr. Mugabe's henchmen in Zimbabwe."
    Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the situation in Zimbabwe is deteriorating daily, with acts of murder and violence committed by Mugabe's agents on those who seek democratically to oppose him? Has not the time for hand wringing and waffling passed and the time to act arrived? Why do the Government not take a lead in building a new international coalition that can make it clear to Mugabe that failure to hold free and fair elections, starting with putting international observers in now, as voter registration is taking place, will result in severe political and economic consequences for him and his regime? That would demonstrate that when the Prime Minister talks about no tolerance, he means it.
    Mr. Straw: We have just had a good example of hand wringing and waffle. The right hon. Gentleman should think carefully; building coalitions is exactly what we have been doing for months and was the purpose of the Abuja discussions. It was crucial that we broke away from the parody that President Mugabe had allowed himself to invent of a bilateral dispute between the United Kingdom and Zimbabwe when it was nothing of the kind. The Abuja declaration was crucial because Nigeria, South Africa, Kenya, Jamaica and old Commonwealth countries signed up to it. The discussions between President Mbeki and our Prime Minister were also important, as were the decision of the General Affairs Council of the European Union to move from article 8 to article 96 and the meeting last week with Commissioner Patten and High Representative Solana in Zimbabwe.
    We are making those moves along with our partners to ensure that there is a coalition. Unlike the previous Administration who, in the early 1980s, sat on their hands while more than 5,000 people were murdered in Matabeleland, we are taking effective action based on an international consensus.
    Mr. Speaker: Before I call Question 5, I appeal for shorter questions and replies.

    Coalition Against Terrorism
    Syd Rapson: What assessment he has made of the continuing level of support by Muslim countries for the coalition against terrorism. [15427]
    Laura Moffatt: What assessment he has made of the continuing support of the Muslim countries for the coalition against terrorism. [15433]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Ben Bradshaw): Muslim countries were among the first to condemn the 11 September attacks and support the

    819
    campaign against terrorism. That support has strengthened further as they have witnessed the liberation of ordinary Afghans—fellow Muslims—oppressed so terribly and for so long by the Taliban.
    Syd Rapson: I thank the Minister for that reply. Is he aware that in less than 30 years' time a quarter of the world's population will be Muslim? To gain their support, and more importantly, their trust, in our campaign against worldwide terrorism, a vital step must be the settlement of the middle east crisis. Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that everything humanly possible is being done to achieve that aim?
    Mr. Bradshaw: Yes, the United Kingdom has been strongly engaged in trying to find a way forward in the middle east peace process. We welcome the statement made last week by United States Secretary of State Colin Powell, and his dispatch of the two envoys to Israel yesterday. We recognise the importance of a solution in the middle east in terms of public opinion in the Arab and Muslim worlds, and we recognise the importance of public opinion in the Arab and Muslim worlds not just in international relations, but in our domestic politics.
    Laura Moffatt: Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has clearly said that the actions of 11 September and associated activities are
    "neither connected to Islam, nor accepted by its principles."
    I know that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has been keeping in close contact with Iran. Following recent visits, can my hon. Friend assure us that those views still prevail?
    Mr. Bradshaw: Yes, I can. Many hon. Members will have been surprised by the strength of support for the campaign from some unlikely quarters, including Iran. Our relationships with Iran are extremely important. That is why my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has made two visits there in the past two months—the first visits by a British Foreign Secretary since the Iranian revolution. Iran has an important role to play, particularly in the future peaceful solution in Afghanistan.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: How many of those Muslim countries would continue to support the coalition if military action were launched against Iraq, as has been foreshadowed in the past 24 hours, without incontrovertible evidence? Is it not likely that their support would simply melt away? Is it not the case that the further risk of military action against Iraq is that Saddam Hussein, as he did during the Gulf war, would launch missiles against Israel, which would feel compelled to retaliate, leasing to the risk of conflagration throughout the middle east?
    Mr. Bradshaw: I do tot think that it is helpful to speculate about the possible expansion of the current military campaign and its effects on public opinion in the Muslim world. The UK Government have always made it clear that the campaign is targeted and specific, and that its aim is to bring to justice those responsible for the mass murder of 11 September Of course there are further
    820
    obligations on all countries—not just Iraq, but the United Kingdom—as a result of the two unanimous UN resolutions passed since 11 September.
    Mr. Crispin Blunt: While Pakistan's support for the coalition against terrorism is welcome, what assessment has the Minister made of the Pakistani intelligence service's continuing role in supporting terrorism in Kashmir?
    Mr. Bradshaw: We have done our utmost to urge the Pakistani Government to cease any support that they might have given in the past to the terrorists to whom the hon. Gentleman refers, and to cease any support that Pakistan has given through its intelligence service to the Taliban. We believe that Pakistan has undergone a sea change in its approach to those two issues, and we will continue to press the Pakistani Government to continue along the right path.
    Mr. Malcolm Savidge: Will the Government make it clear to our US allies that the support of Muslim and other countries has been dependent on action being commensurate and directly related to the atrocity on 11 September, and that, although there are problems relating to various other countries that the international community must address in various ways, injudicious military action could forfeit international support and would not have the unconditional support of the Government?
    Mr. Bradshaw: People should not speculate about expanding the military campaign beyond bin Laden and al-Qaeda, in the absence of any evidence of any other state involvement. There is no evidence of any other state involvement, as far as we are aware. We have always made it clear that the military campaign is limited and specific. However, the United Nations resolutions passed unanimously since 11 September place serious obligations on a number of countries, including Iraq, and pretty stiff sanctions if they fail to fulfil them.
    Mr. Alex Salmond: The Minister may not wish to speculate, but speculation is widespread and obviously has an impact on Muslim opinion worldwide. Can we have an unambiguous statement from him that it is not the policy of Her Majesty's Government to extend the military action and conflict to other states and countries without unambiguous evidence to that effect?
    Mr. Bradshaw: Yes.
    Mrs. Alice Mahon: I think that my hon. Friend has dodged around this issue. President Bush threatened Iraq yesterday with regard to the weapons inspections. Will my hon. Friend say unequivocally that we will not take part in bombing Iraq or any other Muslim country if America engages in bombing?
    Mr. Bradshaw: I would point out to my hon. Friend that Iraq could very easily solve the problem by adhering to the demands that are made of it by the United Nations. If Iraq implemented the United Nations resolutions, it would not find itself with this problem. I repeat to my hon. Friend that the UK Government's position has been absolutely clear all along during the military campaign,

    821
    which is directed specifically against those who are responsible for the mass murder of 11 September. There is no evidence of any other state involvement. In the absence of any such evidence, those military objectives remain as they have been all along.
    Mr. Alan Duncan: In commenting on the Foreign Secretary's visit to Iran and Pakistan, it grieves me ever so slightly that I have to say once again that I think that he has been doing the right thing. However, the continuing support of Pakistan and other Muslim countries very much will now depend on what happens next. On 4 October, the Foreign Secretary said that
    "there should be no safe haven for terrorists anywhere in the world."—[Official Report, 4 October 2001; Vol. 372, c. 689.]
    Notwithstanding the Minister's answer to the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell), will he tell the House which other countries are now under suspicion? Which countries might require action of any sort by the coalition so that the objectives laid out by the Prime Minister and President Bush will be met? Are there any, or are there none?
    Mr. Bradshaw: I am afraid that I shall not read out a list of the countries that may or may not be involved in helping or supporting terrorist organisations within their borders. I point out to the hon. Gentleman, to whom I am grateful for his kind remarks about the activities of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, that the UN resolutions place pretty stiff requirements on all countries, including the United Kingdom. Many of the complaints that we get from countries throughout the world suggest that we have not been terribly good in the past at extraditing or dealing with suspected terrorists in this country. We all have obligations and duties under the UN resolutions, and I think that it would be invidious to start naming names.
    Mr. Ernie Ross: Does my hon. Friend agree that, if we are to maintain the support of the Muslim countries, we must deal with the problems that concern them, such as Kashmir and the middle east? Does he also agree that the speech made by Colin Powell last week was very important in terms of ensuring that that is done? If we can keep the United States Government engaged, a strong signal will be sent to the middle east. Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the most important things that Secretary of State Powell said was that the US stands ready to contribute towards an effective mechanism to monitor the peace between the two sides? Will my hon. Friend encourage him to move forward very quickly on that issue?
    Mr. Bradshaw: Yes, I would agree with everything that my hon. Friend says. We do indeed encourage the Americans to move forward on that issue. However, I should say as a warning that while we can address all the political and regional grievances in the world, history has unfortunately shown us that the world occasionally throws up madmen and despots who have to be stood up to.

    Gibraltar
    Tim Loughton: If he will make a statement on the future sovereignty of Gibraltar. [15428]
    Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: If he will make a statement on his policy on the right of self-determination for overseas territories. [15431]
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw): The Government resumed talks with Spain under the Brussels process in July. We met again in Barcelona last Tuesday. In accordance with the terms of the Brussels communiqué that was agreed 17 years ago today, in November 1984, by the then Conservative Government, which included consideration of sovereignty, the talks are overcoming all the differences between the United Kingdom and Spain on Gibraltar. Our objective in relaunching these negotiations is to build a secure, stable and prosperous future for Gibraltar, greater self-government for the territory and better relations with Spain. We have invited the Chief Minister of Gibraltar to join the Brussels process meetings. Under the treaty of Utrecht, Spain has first refusal if the United Kingdom decides to relinquish sovereignty. We stand by the undertakings given in 1969 that the people of Gibraltar will have a right to vote on any proposal to transfer legal sovereignty.
    Tim Loughton: For brevity's sake, I ask the Foreign Secretary for a simple yes or no. Will he continue to uphold the 1969 Gibraltar constitution and guarantee the right of the people of Gibraltar to remain British citizens, living in a British sovereign territory for as long as they determine?
    Mr. Straw: The answer is yes; I have just said that.
    Mr. Hoyle: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that overseas territories such as St. Helena will have the same right to self-determination as the Falkland Islands? The right exists in the preamble to their constitutions, but will it be included in the main text?
    Mr. Straw: We stand by the principle of self-determination. The extent to which it can be applied in practice depends on the legal position, and the basis on which the United Kingdom acquired the territory. In some cases, we were able agree to total independence; in others, that is not possible. However, in every case, we are committed to a high degree of internal self-government.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: Will the right hon. Gentleman give two undertakings? First, will he state unequivocally that this country will not unilaterally renounce sovereignty under the treaty of Utrecht? Secondly, will he assure us that any referendum in Gibraltar will be binding on the people and the Government of this country?
    Mr. Straw: I can only repeat what I have already said. We stand by the terms of the 1969 ordinance, the law of this country that provides that we shall not transfer sovereignty in Gibraltar without the consent of its people. I have said that three times in three minutes.
    I hope that Conservative Members will, like Lord Howe and Lady Thatcher 17 years ago, recognise that the day-to-day position is not satisfactory for Gibraltarians. Their complaints are against Spain; Spain has complaints about Gibraltar. The only way in which to resolve them

    823
    and create a better future for the people of Gibraltar is by negotiation. In so far as it involves any transfer of sovereignty, it must be put to the people of Gibraltar.
    Mr. Kevin McNamara: Will my right hon. Friend give an undertaking that, whatever the outcome of the talks with the Spanish Government, the people of Gibraltar will have the right to vote in the European elections?
    Mr. Straw: Yes.
    Mr. Michael Ancram: Does the Foreign Secretary understand the genuine fears of the people of Gibraltar, which I witnessed last week, that a deal with Spain is being stitched up behind their backs and that there will be political and economic attempts to bounce them into accepting it?
    Does the right hon. Gentleman not accept that the people of Gibraltar do not wish their interests to be compromised in the current talks by being members of the United Kingdom delegation on only a consultative basis? Why will he not revert to the two flags, three voices formula, which would allow Gibraltar a true voice in the talks while preserving the status of the two sovereign Governments? Surely it is better to have Gibraltar participating in the agreements before they are put to a popular vote in a referendum.
    Mr. Straw: Of course it would be far better for the people of Gibraltar to be represented in the talks, and we have opened the door to participation in those talks on exactly the same basis as previous Administrations of which the right hon. Gentleman was a member. I understand the fears and anxieties of the people of Gibraltar. I am involved in the talks because I support a better future for them. Whatever the outcome on sovereignty, I want them to be able to exercise greater control over their daily lives and greater freedom over their actions. That requires negotiations between us and Spain. They would be greatly assisted by the participation of the Chief Minister; there is every reason for his participation. Unless the right hon. Gentleman is telling us—perhaps he should—that he is resiling from Lady Thatcher's agreement on the basis of the talks, they are the only way forward for the people of Gibraltar. The current position is not a good thing for them.
    Mr. Ancram: Is the Foreign Secretary therefore saying that he is offering the Gibraltar Administration the two flags, three voices formula? That is not their understanding. That was the formula offered by Lord Hurd when he was Foreign Secretary.
    On another matter, will the right hon. Gentleman come clean with the House to whether joint or shared sovereignty in any shape or form is on the agenda of the current talks with Spain? Is he aware that joint sovereignty has rarely, if ever, proved a sound basis for stable settlements? Does he not understand that sovereignty shared is sovereignty abrogated and that, in the case of Gibraltar, it would be regarded as the start of a slow-motion ride to the surrender of British sovereignty? The people of Gibraltar will not see their
    824
    British sovereignty surrendered by stealth, and they will not be browbeaten into abandoning it. We support them in that view.
    Mr. Straw: From that response, I take it that the right hon. Gentleman is now resiling from the Brussels agreement that was negotiated by Lady Thatcher 17 years ago and followed by every successive Conservative Government until 1997. The conditions that we have offered Chief Minister Caruana for participation in the talks will enable him to have his own voice alongside me at the table of the United Kingdom delegation, and the Spanish have accepted that they will respond directly to him. There is no reason for Chief Minister Caruana not to take part in the negotiations, and not to have full independence of expression in those meetings, as part of the United Kingdom delegation.
    On sovereignty, the position remains exactly as it was when Lord Howe spelled it out 17 years ago:
    "The process will be aimed at overcoming all differences between us over Gibraltar"—[Official Report, 28 November 1984; Vol. 68, c. 927]—
    and those include issues of sovereignty. That was Lord Howe's position 17 years ago, and it remains the position today.
    Joyce Quin: I welcome my right hon. Friend's reaffirmation of the Government's commitment to the 1969 constitution. Given that Gibraltar, although small, has a distinct history and identity, will my right hon. Friend agree that it would be desirable for Spain to pursue a policy of positive co-operation with Gibraltar if it wants to see a change in the relationship, and that creating difficulties at the border and trying to block EU legislation on Gibraltar-related ground are counterproductive?
    Mr. Straw: I strongly agree with my right hon. Friend. That point has been pressed on the Spanish Government in the negotiations and outside, and a lot more remains to be done by the Spanish side. As a result of the negotiations, however, we have already had an allocation of 70,000 additional telephone lines for Gibraltar—on top of the 30,000 that it currently has. That is a tangible benefit for the people of Gibraltar as a result of the negotiations.
    Mr. David Heath: That is welcome news, but does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that the attitude of the people of Gibraltar towards the Government of Spain would have been very different if they had not been subjected to nearly two decades of harassment at the border, in communications, and in terms of the airport and of NATO ships not being allowed to sail through Spanish waters to the sovereign base in Gibraltar? Will the right hon. Gentleman suggest to the Spanish Government that an early priority should be to sort out the status of the airport? Will he also suggest to his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that another early priority should be to sort out the enfranchisement of the people of Gibraltar?
    Mr. Straw: The airport will be one of the matters on the table. The hon. Gentleman should be aware that, although the UK unquestionably has sovereignty over the rock of Gibraltar under the treaty of Utrecht, one

    825
    complication in the negotiations when we come to the issue of sovereignty is that the legal basis for the UK's claim to the isthmus is different and has been challenged by Spain. Of course Gibraltarian people have a number of justified complaints about the way in which they have been treated by Spain, but it is also a fact that a number of complaints have been raised against Gibraltar by Spain and by the European Union and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, which require answers by Gibraltar.
    The best way to secure a better future for the people of Gibraltar is through the negotiations established 17 years ago by Lady Thatcher, which we have reopened, because the current situation of complaint and counter-charge and the people of Gibraltar increasingly being isolated is not in the interests of the people of Gibraltar.

    Afghanistan
    Mrs. Betty Williams: If he will make a statement about his participation in the United Nations General Assembly in New York on Afghanistan. [15429]
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw): While at the UN, I spoke to the full Assembly on 11 November and subsequently at two Security Council meetings. I also held a number of meetings with Foreign Ministers, the UN Secretary-General and the Secretary-General's special representative for Afghanistan, Lakhdar Brahimi.
    Mrs. Williams: In future discussions, will my right hon. Friend do all he can to ensure that full consideration is given to the women in Afghanistan, so that they are fully involved in international talks about a new Government; that the restoration of the rights of Afghan women is a high priority; and that boys and girls receive equal treatment when schools reopen?
    Mr. Straw: Yes. The oppression of women was one of the most terrible aspects of the Taliban regime. All parties to the Bonn discussions are committed to restoring rights for women and I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend that three of the 28 delegates due to attend are women. That is not enough, but the proportion is greater than that of women MPs representing the Conservative party.
    Chris Grayling: Following President Bush's comments yesterday, will the Secretary of State please tell the House what discussions he had at the UN about UN weapons inspections in Iraq? What information do the Government have about the situation there in respect of the production of weapons of mass destruction?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The question is about Afghanistan.
    Mr. George Howarth: Has my right hon. Friend seen the recent press reports about the upsurge in poppy field planting in Afghanistan in recent weeks? Will he enlist the support of
    826
    colleagues in the UN to make it clear to whatever regime emerges in Afghanistan that poppy planting and the heroin trade that stems from it are wholly unacceptable?
    Mr. Straw: I certainly will, and I have done so already. A key part of restoring the rule of law in Afghanistan is the eradication of poppy cultivation and the heroin trade. That forms a central part of all the discussions in which we are engaged.
    Mr. Nicholas Soames: Is it the intention of the Foreign Secretary, on behalf of the Government, that the major part of the planning for the overall reconstruction of Afghanistan be conducted through the UN, or does he envisage it being conducted through other organisations?
    Mr. Straw: Overall supervision of the reconstruction of Afghanistan must he conducted under the aegis of the UN, providing the framework and umbrella for discussions. Of course, a great deal of action will be taken multilaterally and bilaterally lo support Afghanistan. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development is already in the vanguard in ensuring that there is additional support for Afghanistan and for Pakistan and Iran.

    Terrorism
    Ms Oona King: If he will make a statement on his Department's definition of terrorism. [15432]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Denis MacShane): I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the definition of terrorism in part I of the Terrorism Act 2000, which refers to the use of violence to intimidate the public for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause.
    Ms King: Does my hon. Friend agree that any definition of terrorism must include the deliberate targeting of civilians? Does that not have implications for state activity that might fall within the definition? In the middle east, for example, while Hamas is obviously a terrorist organisation, is it not chilling that an Israeli tribunal has found Ariel Sharon responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Palestinian civilians? Can we look forward to a more consistent application of the definition post-11 September?
    Mr. MacShane: My hon. Friend might reflect on the fact that when acts committed other than by non-state organisations are then condemned by tribunals and public opinion, that shows democracy at work. We are now talking about terrorism in 2001. We are talking about non-state organisations that commit wicked, godless crimes to intimidate people and destroy civilian life for political ends. That is unacceptable, and that is what we should concentrate on fighting.
    Mr. Henry Bellingham: Does the Minister agree that it is illogical to try to distinguish between foreign and local terrorists? That, surely, is

    827
    exactly what the Bill currently before Parliament has tried to do. What representations has the Minister made to the Home Secretary asking him to examine the illogicality?
    Mr. MacShane: As there is no illogicality, the answer is none.

    Middle East
    Roger Casale: What assessment he has made of the prospects for renewing the peace process in the middle east; and if he will make a statement. [15434]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Ben Bradshaw): The UK remains engaged, with its EU partners and the US, in efforts to reinvigorate the middle east peace process. I particularly welcomed United States Secretary of State Colin Powell's speech last week, which set out the US Administration's vision of a comprehensive settlement, and the arrival of the two US envoys Bill Burns and General Zinni in the region yesterday. That represents an important opportunity for the process to be taken forward.
    Roger Casale: My hon. Friend will know that the historical record demands, as recent events dictate, that Britain and Europe show leadership, along with the United States, in the century-long search for lasting peace and stability in the middle east. We failed after the first world war and the break-up of the Ottoman empire; we failed after the second world war; and we failed after the Gulf crisis, despite the promise of the Mitchell report and the Oslo accord. Does my hon. Friend agree that only a just settlement can produce lasting peace in the middle east, and that in order to be just, the settlement must take account of the legitimate claims of all the historic peoples of the middle east?
    Mr. Bradshaw: Yes, and yes.
    Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Does not Israeli Foreign Minister Peres's statement that there is now broad agreement that a Palestinian state should be created represent a significant step towards a middle east peace settlement?
    Mr. Bradshaw: Yes, I think it is an important step. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Roger Casale)
    828
    says, we have a good opportunity to make progress post-11 September. As I think all Members realise, it will not be easy, but we are working hard towards that end.
    Richard Burden: If we are to promote a just settlement in the middle east, is it not important for us to demonstrate consistency in our application of international law? Must we not continue to say that Israeli settlements are illegal? Should we not also say, as a European Union, that we would object to Israel's exporting goods from illegal settlements to the EU on the pretext that they were made in Israel?
    Mr. Bradshaw: Yes. We are making progress in regard to imports from illegal settlements. Moreover, as my hon. Friend suggests, we continue to remind the Israelis that the settlements are illegal. In the end they will have to be dismantled. Their continuing growth does absolutely nothing to further the cause of peace in the middle east.

    EU Enlargement
    Tom Brake: If he will make a statement on the progress being made towards EU enlargement. [15435]
    The Minister for Europe (Peter Hain): The enlargement negotiations continue to make good progress, enabling candidates that are ready to join the EU to do so by 2004.
    Tom Brake: I welcome the Minister's response and the progress that is being made on accession. On Cyprus, will the Minister confirm that he agrees with Génter Verheugen, the European Commissioner with responsibility for enlargement, that our strategic goal is to take a united Cyprus as a new member, and that reaching that goal requires constructive and substantial progress towards a lasting solution? What does he think constitutes substantial and constructive progress?
    Peter Hain: I confirm that we strongly endorse the European objective of accepting a united island into the European Union as part of the enlargement process. The Cypriots want to join. If the island were not united, we would still accept Cyprus's entrance to the European Union. We would not allow anyone to veto that provided that the Cypriots had completed the full process of negotiation and closed all the chapters. Currently they are in the lead among all the applicant countries in doing so.

Pre-Budget Report
3.30 pm
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): The task of this pre-Budget report is to rise to the global economic challenge facing this country and to set out how, upon a foundation of stability and growth, we can and will build a stronger and fairer Britain even in an uncertain world.
I start with the state of the world economy. America is in recession, as are Japan and other Asian economies such as Singapore, Taiwan and Hong Kong. The euro area is slowing rapidly. World trade growth has slowed dramatically, from 12 per cent. last year to only 1 per cent. this year. Growth among the main G7 economies is expected to slow, from 3½ per cent. last year, to just 1 per cent. this year. Indeed, for the first time in three decades, each region of the world has slowed at one and the same time and more sharply than before. Independent forecasters expect the world downturn to be deeper and longer, with economic growth in 2002 of just 1½ per cent. in the euro area, 0.7 per cent. in the USA, and minus 0.6 per cent. in Japan.
No one country can insulate its economy from such a synchronised slowdown. In addition, no one can yet judge the full and final impact of the traumatic and tragic events of 11 September. These testing times demand decisive action. Therefore, in Britain, interest rates have been cut seven times in nine months, and Britain's interest rates are now the lowest for nearly 40 years. With public spending and public investment increasing this year, our fiscal policy is—at the right time of the economic cycle—complementing and supporting monetary policy and thus supporting stability and growth.
In the past, when the main economies of the industrialised world have gone into a downturn, Britain has invariably come off worst. Indeed, in every major global slowdown since 1945, Britain has entered weaker, suffered longer, experienced higher inflation and endured higher unemployment. So it is at a time like this that our new monetary and fiscal regime—Bank of England independence, the symmetrical inflation target, our new fiscal rules and the tough decisions we have taken to reduce debt—is being tested.
When the world turned down in 1998, decisive action by the newly independent Bank of England ensured that the British economy sustained its growth. Throughout 2001 Britain has continued to grow, and monetary policy has played its full part. First, the Bank of England has been able to take pre-emptive action because British inflation has been at or near our target of 2½ per cent. for four years, by contrast with inflation increasing to 10 per cent. when the world economy slowed last, in 1990. In the past two years, Britain has had the lowest annual inflation rate since 1963. Indeed, our average inflation has been lower than that of any comparable country in Europe.
Secondly, the symmetrical inflation target which was set in 1997 at 2½ per cent. means that inflation below that figure is as undesirable as inflation above it. Deflation is as unacceptable as inflation. It is because, in 1997, we put in place a symmetrical target—one that is pro-growth as well as anti-inflation—that, whereas Britain was unable to act decisively or acted too late at every other time since 1945 when the world faced a slowdown, this time the
830
Bank of England has been able to adjust policy at the right time and in the right way to safeguard both economic stability and growth. Consequently, during this world slowdown, our interest rates are now 4 per cent., by contrast with interest rates of 10 per cent—and 15 per cent. for one whole year—during the boom and bust of a decade ago.
I come to the forecasts for growth. At the time of last year's pre-Budget report, independent forecasters said that United States growth in 2001 would be 3.4 per cent.—they now expect it to be just 1 per cent. For Germany, they expected growth of 3 per cent: now actual growth is expected to be 0.7 per cent. For Japan, they expected growth of 2 per cent: now actual growth is expected to be minus 0.5 per cent.
Last year, we forecast that British growth in 2001 would come in at a range from 2¼ per cent. to 2¾ per cent., and we based our public finance projections on 2¼; per cent. I can tell the House that our expected growth figure this year is exactly that—2¼ per cent. So while some pre-Budget representations to me claimed that Britain was worst placed of any country to withstand the global slowdown, in fact the OECD and IMF have both forecast that Britain this year will have the highest growth of any of the G7 countries.
In the period ahead there are of course real risks for both Britain and the world. But it is because of the decisive action taken on monetary and fiscal policy that I remain cautiously optimistic about the prospects for the British economy. While next year independent forecasts expect the United States to grow by less than 1 per cent. and the euro area to grow by just over 1 per cent, we now forecast British growth next year of 2 per cent. to 2½ per cent., and then to rise in 2003 to 2¾ per cent. to 3¼ per cent. as the economy returns to trend in 2004.
While the British economy has been stable, it can and must be stronger. All countries are having to respond to unique economic circumstances: an overshoot and then a collapse in information technology investment in the United States and then in IT production, which are both down 12 per cent., a downturn that contributed to falling industrial production as a whole—it is now down 4.3 per cent. across the G7—and then a dramatic slowdown in world trade in industrial goods from 13 per cent. growth last year to almost zero now, along with the large increase in business uncertainty since 11 September.
With manufacturing output having fallen across the world—by an estimated 5 per cent. in the G7 countries—British manufacturing output has fallen over the same period by 2 per cent., after rising by 2 per cent. in 2000. There are consequent effects for both exports and imports and for business investment, whose share of national income none the less continues near an all-time high. The challenge for Britain—for manufacturing and across the economy—is both to maintain our hard won stability and to accelerate the productivity improvements that will increase output, jobs and wealth.
The global risks which demand continuing vigilance are both cyclical and structural. There are downside risks if America takes longer to recover or if there is a long-term change in oil prices or long-term changes in company or consumer behaviour after 11 September; that would lead to a much more uncertain world economy in which Britain would have to work even harder to make our productivity gains. Further out, there are upside risks of inflationary

831
pressures if, as a result of lower interest rates, consumer spending grows too quickly, but there is also an upside opportunity for growth if world recovery is accompanied here in Britain by productivity improvements.
So—far from deferring our enterprise agenda— this is exactly the right time to press ahead with supply side reforms to encourage new investment and higher productivity, and it is now right that we take forward the measures on enterprise on which we have been consulting. Further statements on manufacturing will be made in the next few days by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, and on the reform of our planning laws by the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, with proposals to increase the flexibility, speed and responsiveness of the planning land use system.
Today, I can tell the House that we will proceed with four tax cuts for enterprise and the abolition of one further tax in its entirety. To help British business, and particularly manufacturers, to invest in the technologies of the future, I have decided following consultation that we will in next year's Finance Bill legislate for a new research and development tax credit for large companies, which is a tax cut to boost innovation. To increase investment and reward entrepreneurship, we will from next April make a second tax cut—a cut in capital gains tax to 20 per cent. for business assets held for more than one year and only 10 per cent. for business assets held for two. Three quarters of taxpayers with business assets will pay only a 10p rate-overall a capital gains tax regime more favourable to enterprise than that of the United States.
To reward managers taking risks in new business ventures, I now propose to double the reach of our share option scheme to all businesses with assets of up to £30 million—a tax incentive that I will introduce immediately.
Because, for small businesses, I want to cut tax bills and red tape, I can confirm that the Budget will extend the lop corporation tax band, cutting taxes for small companies, and that from April a new flat-rate and simplified scheme for payment of value added tax will both cut form filling and save a typical small business up to £1,000 a year. There is a strong case also for cash help for small firms to bring their payroll and tax systems online, and I am publishing today, and consulting on, the Carter review.
In each year since 1997, I have abolished at least one tax, most recently abolishing betting duty. For 54 years since the 1947 Budget, tax has been levied on the football pools. I have agreed that the tax on pool companies will be 15 per cent. on their gross profits but, after an agreement with the industry that guarantees the continuation of its funding of the Football Foundation and the Foundation for Sport and the Arts, I am abolishing football pools tax altogether.
This change will take effect from 1 April and, just as people no longer have to pay tax when they bet, they will no longer have to pay tax when they do the pools. Every charity or local sports club that runs pools based competitions will see its tax liability abolished too. And the details of our consultation on the tax status of amateur sports clubs will be announced by my right hon. Friends the Minister for Sport and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury on Friday.
832
I turn now to jobs. Today, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and I are publishing our joint report on regional economic policy and on the work of regional development agencies—set up by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister—to tackle regional inequalities and achieve balanced economic growth across the United Kingdom.
The key focus is on local innovation, indigenous investment and improved infrastructure and skills in our regions. And to complement the locally based venture capital funds that we are forming in every region of the country, we are today publishing our prospectus for a new £50 million fund to help small firms in every region to access the risk capital that they need—capital that is often not available from the banks.
New investment, new businesses and new jobs are also the key to regenerating high-unemployment communities in our country. A new community investment tax credit, on which I am publishing details today, will match every £100 million of private investment with £25 million of additional public investment. And, as a special measure to help the slowest growing and highest unemployment areas of Britain, we will, in 2000 wards in constituencies throughout the country and for all property transactions for homes and business properties worth up to £150,000, abolish stamp duty from Friday. And in the Budget, I propose to legislate to take more business property transactions in these areas out of stamp duty.
The Government will do all they can to fight unemployment in normal times and in times like these. And I can report that Britain's unemployment rate is this year the lowest since the 1970s. For the first time in a century, unemployment in Britain is lower than in Japan, and lower than in America. Compared with Britain, the unemployment rate in the euro area is 50 per cent. higher—the equivalent of 1 million more British people in work.
Because we will not retreat from our commitment to full employment, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions will tomorrow announce in this House new measures to help the newly redundant and to expand the new deal to help the long-term unemployed back to work.
And because a third of the existing work force lacks basic or level 2 qualifications, and because the old voluntaristic approach has not worked, we have been investigating the joint Trades Union Congress and Confederation of British Industry proposals for a tax credit for in-work training. Following today's report from the performance and innovation unit we will, from September next year, pilot a new approach combining direct financial support for business—especially small business—with time off for training, under which employers, employees and Government each accept their responsibilities.
Because the skills of the future start in the schools of today, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills will be announcing further projects funded from the capital modernisation fund, as we meet our commitment to raise the share of national income spent on education.
This is also a testing time for our fiscal regime, so I now turn to the public finances. While in past downturns interest rates have come down too little, too late or,

833
because of high inflation, not at all, so, too, excessive levels of debt or deficit can make it difficult for fiscal policy to play its proper role.
When we came to power, debt was too high and debt interest payments ran at 3½ per cent. of national income. So we maintained spending limits, took the necessary tax decisions and cut debt. We also set tough fiscal rules for the long term—rules not just for a year or two but across the economic cycle: rules that demand a tighter approach in the best of times and allow the automatic stabilisers to work fully at a time like this, in both cases fiscal policy supporting monetary policy. And because from 1997 we tightened fiscal policy by 4 per cent. of national income, we have been able to reduce net debt, not just in one year but across the economic cycle.
I said in the Budget in March that we would repay £34 billion of the national debt this year. In fact, by cautious budgeting, we were able to repay in the last year not £34 billion, but a total of £37 billion of debt. In total, since we came to power, we have now repaid £51 billion of the national debt.
In 1996–97, debt was 44 per cent. of our national income. Two years ago we brought it down to 36 per cent. This year it has been brought down to 31 per cent. That is in contrast to nearly 40 per cent. in America, 40 per cent. in Germany, over 40 per cent. in France, over 50 per cent. in the euro area and in Japan, and 95 per cent. in Italy. Britain's debt is now the lowest share of national income of all these G7 countries, and the lowest of all our major European competitors.
We had a choice last year: we could use the mobile phone proceeds from the spectrum auction for current spending. In fact, by using the £22 billion for reducing our debt burden, we achieved a permanent saving of £1 billion a year in debt interest payments—£1 billion that is available, not on a one—off basis, but each year and every year.
Let me give the House the full figures. Debt interest payments were running at £29 billion a year when we came into power, and that was more paid out in debt interest than all the money spent on all our schools in the country. I can report that debt interest, which fell to £26 billion last year, will fall again to £22 billion this year, and we expect it to fall again next year to £21 billion, just 2 per cent of our national income.
Just as, last year, we paid off more debt in one year than previous Governments paid off in all of the previous half century, so this year debt interest payments will consume less of our national income than at any time in a century—since the time of the first world war.
The Government's determination to keep a steady hand on the public finances and the economy is for a purpose. With debt and debt interest payments down, it has been possible, even as corporate and other revenues have declined, to maintain our three-year spending plans for health, schools and public services, respond to the emergencies that have arisen, and now borrow at the right time for the economy to make essential investments in the national interest, while still meeting the fiscal rules that we have set over the economic cycle, even on cautious assumptions and even on our cautious case. Our cautious assumptions include deliberately cautious forecasts for equity prices, oil prices, interest rates and economic
834
growth. And I can report to the House that even while we project significantly lower tax revenues this year and next, we are still well within our first rule this year and every year—the golden rule that we balance the current budget over the economic cycle.
The current budget is projected this year to be in surplus by £10 billion and in future years by £3 billion, £4 billion, £7 billion and £8 billion. Net public borrowing is projected to be £2½ billion and in future years, £12 billion, £15 billion, £13 billion and £13 billion. We are also well within our sustainable investment rule: that debt be at or below 40 per cent. of national income, with debt projected to be 31 per cent. in every one of the next five years.
Taken together, the monetary and fiscal figures I am publishing today show we are also well within the Maastricht criteria. Consistent with our policy on the euro, we are undertaking the preliminary and technical work necessary to allow our assessment of the five economic tests.
Let me turn now to decisions on spending that have resulted from the terrible events of 11 September. I can report that for new equipment and immediate operational requirements an additional £100 million has been made available to the Ministry of Defence. To cut off the supply of finance to terrorists and to fund other anti-terrorism measures, we have set aside extra resources of £20 million for this year alone.
To fund the need for additional policing since 11 September, a further £30 million has been made available to the Met and to other police forces. To fund humanitarian assistance to Afghanistan, and elsewhere, and to meet the new international development obligations since 11 September, Britain is contributing an extra £100 million.
In addition to the extra responsibilities we have assumed since 11 September, we now expect tackling food and mouth disease and supporting the recovery of rural areas to cost £2.7 billion.
In this pre-Budget report we are also preparing for the Budget and for the coming spending round. As the Prime Minister has said, meeting our international development responsibilities is not an option but a duty. Out of the tragedy of 11 September a new sense of our obligations to each other across the world has been born, and a recognition that if globalisation is to work for all the people of the world, including the poor, then—as the Secretary of State for International Development has been urging—a new deal for prosperity must be forged between the richest developed countries and the poorest developing countries.
The UK Government will therefore propose to the financing for development conference of the United Nations that to meet the world's agreed 2015 development goals—every child in primary schooling, a two thirds reduction in child mortality, a halving of world poverty—the international community should now establish a new international fund leveraged up to $50 billion a year to help achieve for the developing countries after 2001 what was achieved for Europe with the Marshall plan after 1945.
I can confirm that in the next spending round we will not only raise significantly the amounts of our own overseas development aid but also raise its share in national income, a measure for which I hope there will be broad all-party support across this House.

835
This challenge of giving must of course be met by the Government on behalf of the people, but people too, encouraged by Government, should be empowered to give more themselves. For the first time, gift aid is providing a 28 per cent. addition to every donation by taxpayers to recognised charities and thus is now being widely used. Special end-of-year appeals to contribute foreign coins to charities can also receive the 28 per cent. addition. I have also asked the Inland Revenue to consult charities on an innovation that could take gift aid to a new level and allow taxpayers to donate directly to their designated charities on the annual tax form and so gain further tax relief for doing so.
The cause of the environment also reminds us of how closely our lives are bound up with what happens in the world. In the 21st century, as we now know, the global environment is the local environment. To stem the tide of global warming the Deputy Prime Minister is leading the pressure for new international agreements, and because these issues are also central to our Budget and spending review, we are consulting; from today on a total of 10 new environmental measures. They include additional tax relief for businesses investing in environmentally friendly technologies, and new tax incentives to encourage the fuels and the vehicles of the future—all the measures reflecting Britain's commitment to energy efficiency, innovation and conservation and to playing our part in safeguarding the environment.
We are investing £180 billion over the next 10 years in transport; and so that foreign lorries pay some of the environmental and other costs of using British roads, we are also publishing today our consultation document on introducing a charging system under which non-British companies and lorries pay: heir fair share.
I turn to the pre-Budget consultation on measures for families and for pensioners. The old welfare state that we inherited paid out benefits, too often without regard to individual circumstances or personal responsibility. Today, the working families tax credit is making work pay for nearly 1.3 million families—400,000 more than on family credit; 150,000 families are getting help with child care. Since 1997, lone parent employment in this country has risen by 20 per cent. and today 200,000 more lone parents in work are receiving the working families tax credit. Building on this, we will later this week introduce legislation for the next step: extending the principle of the working families tax credit to make work pay for those without children as well.
The children's tax credit, the first recognition of children in the tax system in a generation, provides up to £520 extra a year for 5 million families in this country. Later this week, we will publish the new legislation for that next step: on top of universal child benefit, we will integrate in one seamless payment all income-related support for children, as we advance towards our goal of abolishing child poverty.
For the first time, all support for children will now be paid to the main carer—usually the mother, and that is the best way to strengthen families. I shall return to the subject of children in the Budget next spring, when I hope to have a little more first hand knowledge to talk about these matters.
So our approach in modernising welfare is to seek not narrowly targeted benefits just for those at the bottom, but the right help at the right time for work, for children and
836
for hard-working families, with over 5 million—85 per cent.—now eligible for the children's tax credit or the working families tax credit.
For the first time, through tax credits, the tax system is paying money to families rather than taking it, with tax rates now ranging from 40 per cent. at the top to as low as minus 200 per cent. for low paid families; tax credits, therefore, are modernising the welfare state, encouraging work and helping families without stigmatising them.
Today the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and I are announcing new measures that will apply the same approach to pensions—more help for every pensioner in Britain, most help going to those who need it most. Next March, the pension will rise, as we have already announced, by £3 a week for individual pensioners and £4.80 for couples. But the long-term guarantees that we are proposing today not only tackle the poverty faced by the poorest, weakest and frailest, but reward, rather than penalise, the modest savings and occupational pensions of the majority. And they are backed up by a tax policy that is fair to those who have provided well for their retirement.
Upon the foundation of the basic state pension, we have already announced our first guarantee—no pensioner will have an income below £98 a week in April 2002, or £100 a week in April 2003, and no couple will receive less than £154 a week—at least £1,000 more a year than in 1997, a 24 per cent. real-terms increase in the minimum income guarantee.
Pensioner poverty is a reproach to us all. And the minimum income guarantee, which is already benefiting 1.8 million households, will rise in line with earnings for the whole of the Parliament.
Today we are also setting aside new funds, £2 billion in total, to provide a second guarantee from 2003. For all pensioners in communities around this country whose hard work has secured a small occupational pension or modest savings but who have, in the past, been penalised for their thrift and savings, I can confirm that any pensioner with income in retirement below £135 a week—and any pensioner couple with income below £200 a week—will see their hard—earned savings and occupational pensions rewarded with extra money, not penalised, as they were in the past, by losing the chance of benefits.
For a single pensioner on the basic state pension, with £1,000 a year in occupational pension, the pension credit will mean an extra £600 a year. For a pensioner couple with the basic state pension and occupational pension credit £1,500 a year, the pension credit will mean an extra £900 a year. Together, the minimum income guarantee and the pension credit will be available to half of all pensioner households, 5.4 million pensioners in total. The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions will set out the full details tomorrow.
For those pensioners who pay tax, we offer a third guarantee: when the new system is introduced in 2003, we will raise the pensioner's tax allowance at least in line with earnings for the rest of this Parliament. For all Britain's 11 million pensioners, I can also announce a fourth guarantee: that the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and I have decided that the basic state pension will always rise by at least £100 a year for single pensioners and by £160 for couples. In future, the state

837
pension will rise by at least 2.5 per cent., or more if inflation is higher—at least £100 more each year on the basic pension.
I can also confirm that we have set aside sufficient money so that the winter fuel allowance will be paid at £200 pounds for each year of this Parliament.
So these are our guarantees: for every pensioner an increase of at least £100 a year every year in the basic state pension; and for 5.4 million pensioners starting on the pension credit in 2003 up to an additional £1,000 per household; free TV licences for all pensioners over 75; for the poorest pensioners a minimum income guarantee of £100 a week; and for every pensioner household a £200 winter fuel allowance each and every year of this Parliament; every pensioner in Britain better off; meeting our obligations to those who in peace and war have worked for, fought for and served and built our country all their working lives.
I turn now to the long-term funding of the national health service and the decisions that we have to make for the 2002 spending review. Building the 20th-century health service was among the greatest achievements of an earlier generation. Renewing that health service for the 21st century is among the great challenges for our generation.
For decades NHS funding was decided on a year-to-year basis with no certainty for professionals or for patients. Having put the public finances in order and released extra resources in 1997, 1998 and 1999, the 2000 spending review provided an average real-terms increase of around 6 per cent. a year for the NHS to 2004—significantly above the historic average of 3.3 per cent.
Because we knew that money has to be matched with modernisation, the 10-year NHS plan is also implementing significant reforms: devolving 75 per cent. of the NHS budget to primary care trusts; setting national service frameworks for the main diseases and conditions; reforming contracts for family doctors, consultants and nurses; and changing working practices with greater diversity of choice and provision.
Within the framework of the 10-year plan, reporting to the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Health, further work is being done on management, accountability and incentives in a reformed NHS.
Today we can further support health service reform. Because of the prudence, debt is lower and debt interest payments are lower. And I am able to announce that, even in these testing times, while meeting all our fiscal rules, we are releasing for next year an extra £1 billion for the NHS. UK health spending in the coming year will now rise by £6 billion—by 9.6 per cent. in cash terms, 7 per cent in real terms. The Secretary of State for Health and his Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland counterparts will announce how this extra money will be spent.
But our resolve is to tackle the immediate, medium-term and long-term needs of the health service. The pressures on the NHS, the vital place it has in the fabric of Britain and the critical role it plays for the British people mean that we must plan not just one to three years ahead, but five years, 10 years and even 20 years ahead. So in the Budget in March 2000, 18 months ago, I said that to prepare for the next spending round an independent review should examine long-term NHS funding needs, over the next 20 years.
838
In the half century of the health service, no such review has ever been carried out. Taking the long-term view means honestly facing the scare of the challenges ahead.
The review is being conducted by Mr. Derek Wanless, formerly of NatWest. Today he is publishing his interim report. It is a 220-page detailed examination of future trends in health care and future funding issues on which he will consult widely. But the first question he said that he had to ask is whether a publicly funded tax-funded health service could itself be a significant pressure on costs and whether a tax-funded health service remained the best way forward.
So he has looked at other European and international methods of funding and finds that all health systems are facing rising pressures. In systems which rely on private medical insurance, he concludes that compared to the NHS, there is less cost control, more uneven coverage, and many left out. And in systems which rely predominantly on social insurance, he has found excessive administrative overheads, insufficient incentives for cost control and, for example in France, large costs for employers and for employees who pay charges for every GP and hospital visit even after their social insurance premiums.
Mr. Wanless's interim report states:
"my conclusion is that there is tic evidence that any alternative financing method to the UK's would deliver a given quality of healthcare at a lower cost to the economy. Indeed other systems seem likely to prove more costly. Nor do alternative balances of funding appear to offer scope to increase equity".
So having examined whether a publicly funded NHS is itself a pressure on costs and thus whether it is sustainable, Mr. Wanless's view is that the principle of an NHS publicly funded through taxation, available on the basis of clinical need and not on ability to pay, remains both the fairest and most efficient system for this country.
Mr. Wanless has also examined in detail the cost pressures facing the service for the future. He concludes that there will be significant pressure both from technological innovation and from rising public expectations, but less pressure than is commonly thought from an ageing population. He highlights the potential long-term gains, building on the reforms of the NHS plan, from a better use of work-force time and of resources generally, including the gains to be had from investment in information technology.
Mr. Wanless emphasises in particular a problem that goes back over decades to the foundation of the NHS—a history of under-investment over 50 years and a long-term lack of capacity. And comparing Britain to other European countries, such as France and Germany, his figures show a decisive difference in the area of finance, despite some significant closing of the gap in the past couple of years: that these countries have, over decades, committed significantly more public resources as a share of national income to health care.
The Wanless report highlights the difference it will make for patients if the NHS is put on a sustainable long-term footing and if we secure the best use of resources. Building on the 100 new hospitals, the 10,000 new doctors, the booked appointments of the 10—year plan, more new beds in single rooms, swift access to the best drugs and treatment, and greater patient choice, the goal is a world-class health service that meets the needs of all people in Britain and puts patients first.

839
Mr. Wanless will publish his final conclusions next year in time to inform the 2002 spending review, and he will consult in the next few months experts, patient groups, all interested members of the public and the doctors, nurses and all staff who work so hard and give so much of themselves to the NHS every day.
The spending review will be the time for final decisions. What can be done will depend on the economy and the public finances. Indeed, over the past four years, through savings on debt interest, reallocating resources and economic growth, we have been able to do more for the NHS. I believe that as we plan to make our Budget and spending decisions next year and to fulfil all our commitments to economic prosperity and to social justice, it will be right to devote a significantly higher share of national income to the national health service.
The decisions we will be making will be for a decade and more. And the way we make these decisions—whether we can forge a new consensus across parties and across Britain—will determine not only the long-term future of the NHS, but the character of our country. I believe that out of this debate an enduring national consensus can be built around the two central conclusions at the heart of this report: that a publicly funded national health service is best for Britain and that a modernised national health service will need significantly greater capacity and significantly more long-term investment.
Economic stability is the foundation. A steady and prudent approach to the public finances follows. I believe that we will have the strength to take the right decisions and to build a stronger, fairer Britain, and I commend this statement to the House.
Mr. Michael Howard: I begin by drawing attention to my declaration in the Register of Members' Interests, and by expressing my gratitude to the Chancellor for giving me sight of his statement fully 10 minutes before he got up to speak. Some of the pages, which were completely blank, were especially interesting.
I congratulate the Chancellor on his statement. He delivered it with great fore and he was, as ever, almost completely in command of his material. We welcome many of his announcements. I am sure that these warm words will come as no surprise to him. Praise from his political enemies is nothing new to him. After all, only last week, the Prime Minister let it be known that the Chancellor was probably the best Chancellor in the world. To the Prime Minister, he is the Carlsberg Chancellor. True to form, the Chancellor returned the compliment, saying that the Prime Minister was the best friend that he had had in politics. The Prime Minister knows that with this Chancellor one has to read the small print: the Chancellor used the past tense. It seems to me that his phrase had something of "Goodnight" about it.
The Chancellor laid great emphasis in his statement on what he called the fundamental strength of the United Kingdom economy, and to the extent that it is true, of course we all welcome it. Does he not agree, however, that there were serious concerns about the UK economy before the tragic events of 11 September? Those include concerns about the current account deficit, with Britain spending more than we earn. According to the Chancellor's forecasts today, that deficit is expected to continue, and indeed to grow. There are concerns about the long-term sustainability of spending plans that outstrip
840
the rate at which the economy is growing. There are also concerns about the impact of new taxes and red tape on the ability of British business to win orders and create jobs.
The Chancellor referred to the need to improve Britain's public services, but we have heard all this before. Year after year, we have had promises from this Government. In 1997, they said that there were 24 hours to save the national health service. In 1998, the Prime Minister said,
"we are delivering on our promises".
In 1999, the Chancellor said that the year would be
"New Labour's year of delivery".
Last year, Government advisers said that it would be the year
"when things really started to happen".
Six months ago, the Government said that they would put schools and hospitals first. Now, 2002 is almost upon us and the Chancellor is trying the same trick again. Every year they make these promises, and every year they break them.
Despite all the promises, all the tax increases and all the hype and hyperbole, services such as health, education and transport have got worse over the past four years.] Did the Chancellor read the recent front-page editorial in The Mirror on the state of the NHS? It said:
"Things haven't got better"
under Labour,
"they've got considerably worse. The Mirror's had enough of phoney pledges and promises on the NHS. Labour has been in charge for nearly five years. They can't hide behind the handy 'Tory policies' excuse any longer. It is now Labour's health services policies that are failing. And failing badly."
If the Government and the Chancellor can no longer convince The Mirror with their phoney pledges, such as those in today's statement, who on earth do they think that they can convince? They certainly cannot convince the chairman of their own party, the Minister without Portfolio, the right hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke). [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?] Indeed. He is certainly not one of the Chancellor's best friends, but he confessed at the weekend that the health service had indeed got worse under Labour. I hope that there will be no more argument about that.
Does the Chancellor agree that morale in all the caring professions and the public sector as a whole is now worse than ever? The chairman of the British Medical Association said,
"our morale has been driven to distressingly new depths".
The new head of Ofsted has warned that schools are facing the worst ever shortage of teachers. The chairman of the Police Federation described police morale as being at an all-time low. The Chancellor must explain why, this year, he is now only managing to spend half the increase in Government investment that he was planning to spend just six months ago.
The Chancellor made great play of the Wanless report which, of course, we shall study carefully. However, he must have forgotten the terms of reference that he set Lord Wanless—I am sorry, I mean Mr. Wanless—which asked him to consider a health service that was exclusively publicly funded. It should not surprise anyone that Mr. Wanless came up with the answer that the Chancellor

841
wanted him to find; that a publicly funded service would be better. If you ask a Labour question, you get a Labour answer.
Twelve days ago, the Chancellor said that the
"central economic theme of our Pre-Budget Report will be our support for enterprise".
We have heard all that before. Year after year, we have had promises front the Chancellor. In his 1997 Budget, he said:
"This Government will support the small businesses of Britain."—[Official Report, 2 July 1997; Vol. 297, c. 307.]
In 1998, he said that his measures would reward
"enterprise and entrepreneurship throughout the whole economy."—[Official Report, 17 March 1998; Vol. 308, c. 1097.]
Two years ago, he said that his Budget would encourage
"a dynamic Britain of enterprise and fairness"—[Official Report, 9 March 1999; Vol. 327, c. 173.]
Last year, he again promised to "reward enterprise and entrepreneurship" and earlier this year, he said that his Budget would "boost enterprise".
What is the result of all that so-called support for enterprise and business? As a result of the Chancellor's Budgets, the director general of the Confederation of British Industry now says:
"The reputation of the UK as a low tax economy where overseas investors…want to invest is under serious threat".
As a result of the Chancellor's Budgets, the British Chambers of Commerce now says:
"The bottom line is that the sheer quantity of red tape on business is damaging our economy, stifling enterprise, job creation and economic growth."
Every year the Chancellor makes promises, and every year he breaks them.
Of course, we welcome any measures to help business, and we will look carefully at the details of what the Chancellor has announced today. However, under his stewardship of the economy, Britain has fallen from ninth to 19th in the world competitiveness league. Is that not the real impediment to new job creation? Is it not the case that 3,865 new regulations were introduced last year alone, the highest figure on record? Why did a survey of 4,000 firms across Europe just last week say that companies run into more problems trading with the UK than anywhere else? Is not that alone a damning indictment of the Government's record? Is it any wonder that the last quarter saw the sharpest fall in manufacturing investment since the 1970s?
Is it any wonder that the burden on business is growing, when the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry says that her Department suffers from lack of focus, confusion for the customer, too many schemes, and inadequate leadership within the Department and by the Department across Whitehall? What a kick in the face for the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), all of whom held the post of Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in the last Parliament.
Nothing that the Chancellor has said today goes anywhere near addressing the £10 billion a year burden of extra taxes and red tape that he has imposed on
842
business. What about the benchmarks of success that he set up? He is always making promises about productivity. Year after year, we have had promises from him. In his first pre-Budget report four years ago, he said:
"The first challenge is to increase our productivity."—[Official Report, 25 November 1997; Vol. 301, c. 773.]
In his second report a year later, he said that productivity was
"a fundamental yardstick of economic performance",
and that he would
"set in place measures to improve productivity"—[Official Report, 3 November 1998; Vol. 318, c. 681.]
Two years ago the right hon. Gentleman said:
"Britain can now aspire to a new economic ambition for the next decade: a faster rise in productivity than our main competitors"—[Official Report, 9 November 1999: Vol. 337, c. 883.]
Last year he said that Britain had
"the opportunity to achieve high levels of productivity growth"—[Official Report, 8 November 2000; Vol. 356, c. 315.]
All the while, as the Chancellor has been making such statements, Britain's productivity growth has been falling. It has fallen from 2.2 per cent. in the last four years of the Conservative Government to 1.5 per cent. in the first four years of the Labour Government. Under the Conservatives, we had productivity growth above the G7 and Organisation for Economic Co—operation and Development average; under Labour, it has been below the G7 and OECD average. On productivity as well, every year the Chancellor makes promises and every year he breaks them.
Let us look at the growth figures—the Chancellor was rather proud of those. He pointed to UK growth in comparison with the rest of the G7. I very much hope that we will grow more quickly than our competitors, but if that is to be the Chancellor's new indicator of success, he cannot take one year alone. Why has he not mentioned the fact that in the first four years of the Labour Government, the United Kingdom economy grew at a slower rate than that of our competitors, slower than that of the G7, slower than that of the OECD, and slower than the United Kingdom economy itself in the last four years of the Conservative Government?
One of the many problems that the Chancellor faces is the extent to which he has to clear up the mess that he has made. He suggested that he would improve capital gains tax, but who introduced the current complicated structure in the first place? It was the Chancellor himself. He says that payroll services for small firms are to be made more effective and less costly. We all welcome that, but who introduced the additional burdens on small business payrolls in the first place? It was the Chancellor himself, asking them to administer schemes such as the working families tax credit and stakeholder pensions.
Of course, some of the other measures that the Chancellor outlined today are welcome. We welcome the extra spending for the armed forces and the security services, and the measures that he proposed to help alleviate world poverty. He gave more details of his pension credit, but he did not say much about the employment credit and the integrated child credit. I hope that he will tell us in his reply how much those will cost and how he proposes to pay for them. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will spell out clearly how he intends to pay for Government spending after 2003–04. After his

843
prevarication during the general election campaign, will he now tell us whether he intends to increase national insurance contributions?
We welcome the increase announced today in the retirement pension and the winter fuel payment, but what about tomorrow's pensioners, cruelly hit by the Chancellor's pensions tax? When he first introduced it in July 1997, he tried to justify it by saying that pension funds were in surplus and companies were enjoying pension holidays. He has helped to destroy the surpluses and put an end to the holidays. How does he now justify his savage attack on pensions?
Last week we challenged the Chancellor to deliver a pre-Budget report with a difference. We said that it was time to acknowledge the serious causes of concern about the UK economy, and the burdens that he has imposed on British business. We said that it was time for the Government to act on the state of crisis in our public services. He has failed those challenges.
The burdens on business remain. Public services will continue to get worse, to the growing distress of patients, passengers and parents. It is not only patients on the waiting list; it is not only passengers and parents on the waiting list; the whole nation is now on the waiting list—waiting in vain for the Government to deliver on their promises.
Mr. Brown: I shall answer in detail every point that the right hon. and learned Gentleman makes, but the country will find it difficult to take lectures from the shadow Chancellor, who quotes his Government's economic record, but was Secretary of State for Employment during the last world downturn, when we had 15 per cent. interest rates, 10 per cent. inflation, a £50 billion borrowing deficit, then 22 tax rises and cuts in public expenditure.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman speaks about regulation. He said that the minimum wage would cost 1 million jobs. We have 1 million more jobs as a result of what we have done. He opposed Bank of England independence and he was wrong. He has said in the past few weeks that we are the worst economy of any when it comes to facing up to the future, and we have the highest growth in the OECD this year—so he is wrong again. Of course, he was the architect of the poll tax, and he was wrong on that as well.
When it comes to the national health service—Mr. Wanless was mentioned—I listened very carefully to what the shadow Chancellor said. He did not welcome the £1 billion that we are putting into the national health service. He did not say that he would join a consensus that the NHS would remain a publicly funded service, that he would support increased investment in the NHS in future years or that he would support a rising share of national income going from public expenditure to the national health service. I sense in the comments made by the Leader of the Opposition and the right hon. and learned Gentleman in the past few months that what was an all—party consensus over the past 50 years that the national health service should be publicly funded and based on the ability to pay is now a consensus that is being abandoned by the Conservative Opposition. Why is that the case? The shadow Chancellor made it his business to start this job by saying that public spending is more than we can afford this year, next year and the year after. That means that he wants to cut public spending.
844
In a speech made in 1997 about policy for the next Parliament, the shadow Chancellor said that he wanted spending growth at only 1 per cent. a year. He said:
I believe our aim should now be to reduce the proportion of national output taken by the state towards 35 per cent…I believe that 35 per cent. is a realistic and attainable long-term goal."
That is £50 billion of public spending cuts. He must now tell us which schools and hospitals and how many nurses and doctors will be cut. If the Conservative party is to start this period of opposition by saying that we are spending more than we can afford this year, it has a duty to spell out where the cuts will be made. The Opposition have moved over the past few months from being right, to being far right, to being outright wrong on the issues of public spending.
I shall now turn to each of the points raised by the shadow Chancellor. First, on international competitiveness, as he knows perfectly well, in recent studies by Arthur Andersen and The Economist intelligence unit, we are first and fourth on attractiveness to business. He knows also that when he left power, we were behind France and Italy, the sixth largest economy in the world, and we are now ahead of them, and the fourth largest economy in the world. On the questions on burdens on business, the biggest burden named in the reports is the minimum wage. He must face up to this question: does he now admit that he was wrong on the minimum wage, or is he still prepared to say that, at the next election, the Conservative party will abolish it?
On growth, he knows perfectly well that our growth level in the G7 is the highest this year. It is also the case that, while manufacturing has fallen by 5 per cent. across the major economies, it has, unfortunately, fallen by 2 per cent. in Britain. The difference between him and us is that we are putting money into permanent capital allowances, a research and development tax credit, regional development agencies, a regional venture capital fund and manufacturing apprentices, and it is all public spending—this includes spending on education—that he would not make. Again, if he is going to tell us that we should he doing more, he must spell out which cuts he would make in public spending to get to his 35 per cent. target and which additional expenditures he is prepared to make on other areas.
When the Leader of the Opposition took over, he said that he wanted a fresh approach, new faces, a new beginning and a new start. Instead, we got the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard). The torch passed to the last generation.
The Conservative party has shown, by failing to support the basic principles of the national health service and the additional expenditure on it, that it is not fit for government. Even its fitness for opposition is being challenged. It was in government for 18 years; the way it is going, it will be out of government for 18 years.
Matthew Taylor: On the economy, this was a complacent statement from an extraordinarily complacent Chancellor. On the NHS, the right hon. Gentleman made an admission of failure. On pensions, he announced the biggest extension of means testing in history. After nearly 500,000 job losses in manufacturing since 1997, falling investment and a runaway trade deficit, will not the Chancellor's tax fiddling simply add more to the crippling burden of red tape and bureaucracy on industry and do nothing to tackle the overvalued pound?

845
The right hon. Gentleman is confronted with record waiting lists. Only a day after the chairman of the Labour party admitted that parts of the NHS have got worse under Labour, does the Chancellor understand that the implication of the Wanless report is that the Liberal Democrats were right and that the only way in which to tackle the problems of the health service is to accept that, in the long run, the tax burden must increase? Perhaps the Prime Minister has not yet persuaded him.
Another 40,000 pensioners are likely to die through fuel poverty this winter. Does the Chancellor understand that means-testing half of all pensioners is likely to mean that many do not receive the benefits that he announced? Currently, 500,000 the poorest pensioners do not get through the humiliating means tests that they are forced to take for the minimum income guarantee. Why will the new means test for half of all pensioners work when the old means test for the minimum income guarantee continues to fail to deliver to those who need it most?
Does the Chancellor remember that in 1993 he said that the next Labour Government would
"achieve…the end of the means test for our elderly people"?
Instead, so many who have never before faced a means test will be subject to one. Does he remember attacking the Conservative Government in 1996 when he said:
"Manufacturing output is actually falling…manufacturing investment is 4.5 per cent. lower…And business investment is recovering more slowly in this recovery than in any this century"?
Yet, today, manufacturing output is falling. Investment is 15 per cent. lower and business investment is decreasing. Judged on his own words, the Chancellor's statement on the economy is an admission of failure.
In 1997, does the Chancellor remember masterminding a manifesto that promised:
"We will rebuild the NHS"?
Yesterday, the chairman of the Labour party admitted that many parts of the NHS are getting worse.
The Wanless report proves that we were right to say that we cannot buy enough doctors and nurses to turn round the NHS without raising the tax to pay for that. Will the Chancellor give one simple, straight answer? At 6 pm, he intends to publish the national insurance rates. Will they increase today?
Mr. Brown: No to the right hon. Gentleman's last question. I am grateful to the Liberal Democrat shadow Chancellor. The House of Commons is in the unique position of having two shadow Chancellors: one sits in Folkestone and the other in Truro. It is rather like the mediaeval papacy: two hon. Members claim to hold the position of shadow Chancellor. I shall organise a play-off during the year.
The hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Matthew Taylor) asked three main questions on the economy, pensions and the NHS. On the economy, he knows, despite his comments, that the economy is growing by 2¼ per cent. this year. That is the highest growth among the G7 countries. He also knows through the forecasts that I have given him that we are cautiously optimistic about what should happen next year.
Of course, it is difficult for manufacturing. Last year, it grew by 2 per cent. and its productivity increased even more despite the weakness of the euro. This year, because
846
of what is happening around the world, it is difficult for manufacturing exporters. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will support our additional measures on research and development, regional development agencies and the new venture capital funds in the regions. I hope that he will support measures that are designed to increase investment and thus long-term productivity.
On the question of the national health service, I remember the 1997 election. When the Liberals said that we should be spending £500 million a year more on the health service. We ended up spending £5 billion a year more on it. I saw the Liberal manifesto at the last election; I think that it proposed £300 million for the health service for the first year. I have just announced £1 billion for the national health service.
If the Liberal party wishes, as I think it should, to join this new consensus on the national health service—which, unfortunately, those on the Conservative Benches refuse to join because of their dogma—we can win such a new consensus throughout the country on the idea that a significantly higher proportion of public funds should go into funding the health service over the longer term. We have funded the health service to 2004. The debate should now begin as to what happens after that. I hope that the Liberal party will join that debate and be on our side.
On the question about pensions, it is a bit rich for the spokesman for the Liberal party to claim that all his policies have been stolen by the Labour party, because the one that he is now criticising was in the Liberal manifesto in 1997. The move towards the integration of tax and benefits, for dealing with the problems of pensions, was proposed by the Liberals in 1997. I believe that that move is right for the country.
It is wrong that pensioners should be penalised because of their savings. It is wrong that they should get no advantage, and even lose benefits, if they have occupational pensions. It is also wrong—if we are to devise a pension system for the next 20 to 50 years—when many people like me and the hon. Gentleman are going to retire on generous pensions and will be in a position to do without either a pension credit or a substantial rise in the basic pension based on earnings. Sooner or later, we will have to face up to this question. If we are going to do more for those people who deserve to have more done for them by rewarding the pensioner who has an occupational pension and savings, the pension credit is the right way forward. Instead of complaining about means testing, the hon. Gentleman should be saying that a benefit that people claim the minute they retire, then once every five years, and in which the integration of tax and benefits is proceeding apace, is the right way forward for pensions.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will also welcome the fact that we have underpinned the pension credit by saying today that the basic pension will rise—no matter what the rate of inflation is—by at least £100 a year every year in this Parliament, as long as the Labour party is in power. In my view, that is the right policy for pensions and pensioners. I hope that, in addition to joining the consensus on the national health service, the Liberal party will support us on pensions as well.
Mr. John McFall: I congratulate the Chancellor on his judicious statement today, in the light of world economic events. The comments of the shadow

847
Chancellor were unworthy of a former holder of high office. He made no serious attempt to analyse the situation. The Chancellor has, despite the world economic situation, ensured economic stability in this country.
If the Chancellor had been at the Select Committee on the Treasury this morning, he would have heard Sir Eddie George and his colleagues on the Monetary Policy Committee say that one of the joys of maintaining the symmetrical inflation target over the past few years has been that we have ensured the lowest unemployment levels for 40 years. Does the Chancellor agree that economic stability and social justice should be the primary aims of the Government, to ensure that we keep up the level of public spending and have the best health service in the next five to 10 years in this country?
Mr. Brown: I thank my hon. Friend, who is the Chairman of the Treasury Committee, which I look forward to visiting in the next few days. He is right about the importance that we attach to maintaining levels of employment. He is also right to say that the levels of unemployment in this country are still the lowest for 25 years, despite the pressures of the world slowdown.
I should have thought that the shadow Chancellor—whom my hon. Friend mentioned—would want to point out that unemployment in his own constituency has gone down by 61 per cent. since Labour came to power. We have done substantially better than he managed to do when he was Secretary of State for Employment and unemployment was rising.
Mr. Howard: It was the ERM.
Mr. Brown: The shadow Chancellor now blames the exchange rate mechanism, as though he was not part of the Conservative Government who took the country into the ERM.
Mr. Howard: That was the Labour party.
Mr. Brown: The shadow Chancellor blames the Labour party, but it was the Conservative party—if the history books record it properly—that took this country into the ERM at the wrong rate. No matter how the shadow Chancellor tries to deny the record, 1 million manufacturing jobs were lost and unemployment went up by 1 million in the last world slowdown, when he was Secretary of State for Employment. He is not the answer to the Tories' economic problem; he is the problem.
Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I notice that the Chancellor has abandoned poor Prudence and taken up with a Mr. Wanless. May I ask him questions about the future health of the public finances, which are his responsibility and the subject of a Budget? Will he leave the details of national health service policy to other Ministers responsible and accountable to the House who may be able to devote more time to detailed study of it? We do not want the health service run from the Treasury, in my opinion.
Does the Chancellor accept that debt repayment, for which he continually receives half-hearted cheers from those on the Labour Back Benches, is a result of accident, not prudent design? He ha underestimated his revenues; the Departments did not pick up their spending after he
848
ended his freeze; and he had a windfall from the sale of third-generation telephone licences. That has given him debt repayment, but does he accept that the figures can rapidly change in a downturn when, suddenly, all the chances may go in the opposite direction?
Will the Chancellor confirm that departmental estimates as a whole, not just on health and education, are going up by 7 to 8 per cent. per annum, which is unsustainable, particularly when the economy is beginning to run down? Does he therefore accept that, if he does not stop himself and his colleagues expanding the role of the state at such a rate when the economy is turning down, he will before long squeeze out private investment and private consumption, causing great damage to the British economy and our long-term prospects?
Mr. Brown: Much as I admire many of the former Chancellor's achievements, I do not accept his analysis. First, it was right to cut debt. It was not an accident: it was a deliberate decision. The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows that, when he left the Exchequer, debt was 44 per cent. of GDP, which was too high, and the deficit was nearly £30 billion, which was unsustainable. That is what we had to act on with the difficult decisions that he said he announced, but would never have implemented, to impose tight limits on public spending. That is why we had to take tax decisions at that time and why we also made a deliberate decision to cut debt.
On the mobile phone sale, Conservative Front Benchers advised us to use the proceeds not to cut debt but for other things. We decided to cut debt, and did so by £22 billion as a result. That was the right decision for Britain. I do not accept the right hon. and learned Gentleman's analysis in that respect. Of course, there are downside and upside risks for the economy next year, and I hope he agrees that I mentioned both in my statement. Nobody is complacent, but I am cautiously optimistic about the prospects for the British economy. I hope that, in the end, he is too.
On the health service, as a former Chancellor, the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows that funding comes back to the Treasury, so the idea that we should do nothing to plan future funding either from the Treasury or within the decision-making process of Government collectively is wrong. Of course, he made that point to me because he is embarrassed by the policy of Opposition Front Benchers.
All the time that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was Health Secretary, he defended a health service that was publicly funded, paid for by taxation and available to people based on need. Then he found that the new leader of the Conservative party was saying in the leadership election that he favoured private medical charges and was considering private medical insurance tax relief and the French or German system—anything but the existing system of state-provided, tax-funded health care. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said:
"It is electoral suicide. Five years before the next election, Duncan Smith is saying he will cut spending and force people to pay for NHS treatment."
I agree with him.
Alan Howarth: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on being able to give such an impressive

849
account of the economy and its prospects, and I note that the Government have made clear their view that our competitiveness depends on the knowledge, skills and creativity of our people and intelligent collaboration between business and the universities.
Although I welcome the additional support for business research and development announced today, does my right hon. Friend accept that there is a pressing need to invest more of the resources that he is able to provide in the universities so as to ensure that enough people across a full range of disciplines pursue academic careers and that the universities are thereby able to play their part in sustaining the UK's global economic competitiveness?
Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for the work that he did at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. His long-term interest in universities should be recognised by all Members.
My right hon. Friend's plea for more funds for universities, and, in particular for their research arm, will have to be considered during the public spending round. As for the commercialising of university inventions, I think my right hon. Friend will agree that the university challenge fund and the enterprise institutes that have been created in every region are a means by which universities can capitalise on their inventions. We want to build on that. I hope that over the next few years more university-based inventors will see their ideas being used in small businesses, and as a result will contribute British products to the economy. My right hon. Friend's spending plea, meanwhile, I take as the first representation to the 2002 spending review.
Sir Peter Tapsell: Does the Chancellor understand that his statement will be seen as an admission that, far from overcoming boom and bust, the British economy is back at the "bust" stage of its trade cycle, and that the ratio between the pre-election boom that we had and the post-election bust that we are experiencing now is wider than it has been for a good many years?
Mr. Brown: Let me point out that it was the Opposition who raised the question of boom and bust. When the hon. Gentleman compares the last world slowdown with this, he will note that when the economy went into recession in 1990 it was impossible to cut interest rates, because inflation was running at 10 per cent. It was also impossible to take the action that was necessary on the fiscal side when it could have been taken.
The hon. Gentleman should look at the record of the last Conservative Government when he tries to suggest that there is boom and bust under this Government. It is quite the opposite. The policy we are pursuing is one of stability. This year that policy has yielded a growth rate of, we believe, 2¼ per cent., and we are forecasting a rate of 2 to 22½ per cent. next year. That is not boom and bust; that is an economy which is trying to achieve a degree of stability that we have not had during previous world downturns.
Mr. Peter Pike: I welcome what my right hon. Friend has announced. I also welcome what the
850
Government are doing for the low-paid and pensioners, and the investment that is being made in hospitals and schools in constituencies such as mine. May I make one plea, however?
In Burnley we have 4,000 empty houses, and the number is rising day by day. The position is becoming desperate. We need Government help to demolish at least 2,000 of those houses speedily. When we come to the spending review in a few months' time, can we be sure that the Government will respond positively so that the council—together with the Government—can tackle what is a major local problem?
Mr. Brown: Housing was one of the issues raised during the last spending review, and we provided more additional funds. I agree with my hon. Friend that there are real challenges and real problems in terms of ability to repair the housing stock, which result from not just years but decades of neglect.
I shall put my hon. Friend's representations to the relevant Department—and this, too, is a matter for the spending review.
Sir Michael Spicer: Why has the rate of productivity, which was rising until 1997, been falling since then—and why has a table showing that fact, which appeared in last year's productivity report, been airbrushed out of the current one?
Mr. Brown: The only years in which productivity has been negative were under the Conservative Government. [HON. MEMBERS: "Come on!"] The hon. Gentleman asked about rates of productivity. Is the rate negative, or is it positive? Productivity has been positive under Labour for three years: manufacturing productivity has been positive for two years, and productivity generally for one. It was negative under the Conservatives.
What is happening to the British economy, I believe, is what, in many ways, happened to the American economy in the early 1990s. There has been a large growth in employment—1¼ million—in the British economy. A large growth in employment took place in America in the early 1990s, which made possible the productivity growth that took place later.
Our productivity is rising, not falling. Our manufacturing productivity rose substantially last year. It is ridiculous for the hon. Gentleman to say that productivity is falling.
Sir Michael Spicer: Productivity rates.
Mr. Brown: Productivity is growing, and will continue to grow.
Mr. Martin O'Neill: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the decision to announce that the winter fuel allowance will be sustained for the next three winters. However, as he knows what the sums will be, will he reconsider the entitlement cut-off date? It is causing great difficulty for those who discover that, by an accident of birth, they will not receive the £200 winter fuel allowance that they may have been anticipating.
I also welcome the R and D tax breaks. As my right hon. Friend will be aware, however, in the past couple of years, some manufacturing companies have not been able

851
to invest because of the need to compete with the eurozone. Consequently, they have had to spend money on keeping prices down rather than on investment. Is it not time for tax breaks for run-of-the-mill investment rather than just for research and development? Productivity in many smaller companies would be assisted if they received a proper incentive to invest in increasing their productive capabilities.
Mr. Brown: I am grateful for those questions. The research and development tax credit currently goes to small firms, but it will now be extended in a different form to large firms. We are publishing a consultation document on that in the next few days. My hon. Friend also mentioned general allowances for investment. We have created a better regime for small and medium-sized companies so that capital allowances are permanent rather than temporary, as they were before. Allowance levels are also far more generous than they were before. I hope that that will allow companies to make the right decisions to invest even in a period of world slowdown.
Equally, we are trying to do more for start-up businesses by providing them with access to capital at a cheaper rate, which is the purpose of regional venture capital funds. There will be a fund in Scotland, a fund in Wales and a fund in Northern Ireland, as well as one in each region of Britain. I believe that the public and private contributions to the funds will make access to them possible for businesses that might otherwise not have that opportunity.
The winter allowance is available to people at 60 and it is difficult to say that it should be available to people at 59. We are, however, trying to be as fair as possible in implementing the allowance. If my hon. Friend would like to draw our attention to a set of anomalies, we will clearly examine it.
Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: I trust that by the time of the next Budget the Chancellor is experiencing the joys of fatherhood and the cost of parenthood under a Labour Government. In every year in which this Labour Government have been in power, the nation has spent more than it has earned. Is that sustainable?
Mr. Brown: That is not the case. We have been paying off debt for the past four years, and we have paid off £51 billion of debt. As for children and families, the hon. Gentleman knows that under this Government child benefit has increased from £11.05 to £15.50, which is a 30 per cent. increase. It is a far larger increase than was ever made under the previous Conservative Government. It is also our contribution to families and to relieving child poverty. The right hon. Gentleman will also know that 5 million families—including many in his own constituency—are now receiving the children's tax credit, which is worth £10 per week more. In other words, in the previous Parliament, child support doubled for 5 million families. That could not happen if the public spending plans supported by the shadow Chancellor were ever pursued.
Kali Mountford: I should have thought that today the whole House would want to congratulate the Chancellor on steering a very steady course in a major world economic slowdown. He announced that
852
manufacturing was growing at 2 per cent. Does he accept that that disguises a slowdown in some sectors and some regions? Is he confident that low interest rates and low inflation, regional development strategies—particularly to address the issue of the north versus the south-east—and the tax measures that he has announced today and previously will be sufficient to assist, for example, the textile sector—which particularly affects my own area—and to ensure that there is growth in all areas?
Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I know that she is a major campaigner on behalf of the textile industry in her constituency. At the end of the last Parliament, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry made provision on that issue, given all the difficulties that redundancies had caused for communities in which textile employment was falling. We can create a more balanced economy between the regions and we can tackle regional inequalities. My hon. Friend's region now has a regional development agency, like every other region, and those agencies are making a substantial contribution to planning a better future for the regions, based more on indigenous investment than ever in the past and on support for innovation and skills. I look forward to seeing the latest plan from the RDA in her region so that we can consider what more we can do there. Unfortunately, the Conservative party would abolish the RDAs.
Mr. Alex Salmond: The SNP and Plaid Cymru are delighted to join the Chancellor's consensus on the NHS, but—confidentially—is the Prime Minister with us or is he still hankering after the greatly enhanced private sector role that he was talking about only a few months ago? Has the Chancellor seen the Institute for Fiscal Studies report released this week, which says that total gross public investment has fallen continuously since the mid-1970s and, even allowing for the private finance initiative, the figure for 2000 will be half the 1985 level? Does he accept those figures? How does he reconcile them with his boasts of enhanced public spending in Budget after Budget and autumn statement after autumn statement, and what—if anything—does he intend to do about it?
Mr. Brown: We stood as a party and a Government on a manifesto that said that the NHS should be publicly funded, based on tax revenue, to meet the needs of all people in the country. That is the manifesto on which we stood and that is the manifesto that we are implementing. It is the right manifesto for all parts of the UK. Out support for greater investment in the health service is now shared by the Liberal Democrats, the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru, but unfortunately it is not shared by the Conservative party which believes that private provision is the way forward. We wish to increase public investment from £7 billion net at the beginning of our term in office to £18 billion, so we wish to double public investment. We have set in place moneys for transport, health, education and the various public services, and the private finance initiative is sponsoring projects worth £12 billion. It is not fair for the hon. Gentleman to say either that public spending is not rising or that it is not the Government's intention to increase public investment because that is what we are trying to do. Public investment in the economy is rising this year.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Chancellor aware that some of us on the Labour Benches heaved a

853
sigh of relief when he announced that he was not going to do what previous Tory Governments—and some others—have traditionally done in handing out money before an election and then taking it back straight after? This announcement is characterised by the Chancellor deciding, after four years of handing out money, to hand out even more. The people in the coal fields, in particular the miners who retired before 1975 on a paltry occupational pension, will be considerably relieved. Can I ask my right hon. Friend to wave his Harry Potter wand in the direction of pensions for sacked miners, equality of treatment for the canteen workers and speedier payments for chest conditions?
Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. On pensions, we will announce new commitments on pensions that we were not able to announce in the period before the general election. Those will include commitments for the length of the Parliament on the winter allowance; increases in the basic state pension in line with inflation or the Government's 2½ per cent. target, even if the index of inflation is lower, which will mean £100 a year; and the new pension credit, which will cost £2 billion. I also agree that we have to do more to speed up the money that miners should receive as a result of the lung diseases that they contracted working for this country in the national coal mining industry. We have set aside more than £1 billion for that provision. I understand that 170,000 miners have applied. Because of the nature of the court judgment, they will have to face legal and medical difficulties that must be resolved before the money gets to them. I am as anxious as my hon. Friend that they should get the money as quickly as possible, and we are considering new measures to ensure that. We are also considering mineworkers' pension funds, as my hon. Friend requested.
Mr. Nicholas Soames: Despite the Chancellor's near-hysterical rant at my right hon. and learned Friend the shadow Chancellor, I join my right hon. and learned Friend in warmly welcoming much of what the right hon. Gentleman has said. However, what advice would he give my constituents, who remain extremely anxious about a Treasury-run health service? The Treasury must of course have a hand in health service planning, but 21 people in the Princess Royal hospital in Haywards Heath had to spend last night on trolleys in the accident and emergency department. Moreover, 31 beds there are blocked by people who cannot get places in old people's homes. Does the Chancellor understand that, despite the huge sums of additional money that he is pouring into the NHS, PR stunts that imply that the health service is somehow getting better just do not wash in Sussex?
Mr. Brown: Clearly, the hon. Gentleman does not agree with the new policy on private health being propounded by Conservative Front-Bench Members, although I understand what he says about waiting lists at individual hospitals and about accident and emergency departments. We want to do more, but hon. Members of all parties must face up to the fact that a health service that delivers the operations and service that we all want has to be paid for. That means that the amount of money available to the NHS has to be increased, and that is what
854
we are doing. The hon. Gentleman must face up to the fact that Conservative Front-Bench Members do not want to spend that money. That is the dividing line between the parties.
Roger Casale: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement today. I especially welcome the renewed commitment to investing in our health service, to tackling poverty at home and abroad, and to further incentivising investment in small and medium businesses. However, the outstanding element in the statement was the prediction that forecasts of UK economic growth would remain unchanged, even against a backdrop of world-wide economic recession. Does my right hon. Friend agree that stripping £50 billion out of public spending, as the shadow Chancellor would like, would have a disastrous effect on public services and mean that we would have to revise forecasts of UK economic growth substantially downwards? Does not that show that the Opposition are committed to dogmatic economics, and that they are losing their reputation for economic competence?
Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question, and I agree with him that it is very important that we meet our international responsibilities with respect to overseas aid. I sense that the shadow Chancellor supports our policy of devoting a higher share of national income to overseas aid, and of significantly increasing the overseas aid budget. We are proposing a $50 billion international development fund, to which all the major countries will have to contribute. An element of private finance could be injected into that fund, as well as the public finance that will be contributed. However, if we are to have the sort of reconstruction in the poorest countries and developing areas of the world—and especially in Africa—that came after the second world war, a new bargain will have to be struck. That bargain will mean that, in return for stability, the liberation of those economies from corruption and the opening up of trade, there will have to be a transfer of resources to enable the development of health, education and anti-poverty programmes.
The problem facing the Conservative party is that, right at the beginning of its period in opposition, it has a shadow Chancellor who is committed to making cuts worth £50 billion in public spending. That is more extreme than the Letwin plan at the general election.
Mr. David Laws: Will the Chancellor acknowledge that an important part of the Government's health policy went missing from his statement today? I refer in particular to the announcement made on the Chancellor's behalf by the Prime Minister on the "Breakfast with Frost" television programme on 16 December 2000, when he said that he would bring the average level of spending on the NHS up to the European average by 2005. That commitment seems to be missing from the Chancellor's statement today. Will the Chancellor confirm that that remains the firm commitment of the Government, or is it still a mere aspiration, as the Treasury has wanted?
Mr. Brown: I think that I read out in the previous Budget statement the figures for national health service and general health service spending as a share of national

855
income. I think that the figures went up from 6.4 per cent. to 6.8 per cent., 7 per cent., 7.2 per cent. and 7.4 per cent. I said today that we want to see a significantly rising share of that national income for the national health service.
Mr. Peter Mandelson: May I congratulate the Chancellor on his pre-Budget report and the measures that he has announced today, and on his unrivalled stewardship of the economy'? As we all seem to agree that the problems affecting all our public services, including the transport system, have their roots in decades of underfunding, does he agree that this historic deficit will take years of consistently high investment to put right within a framework of clear policy and determined management? The public must be prepared, as I believe they will be, to back that investment for years to come and to make the personal financial sacrifices that may be necessary at some stage in the future if we are to get the quality of public services in this country that will match the best of those in Europe.
Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. He is absolutely right that there is significant public demand for the investment that we are making in transport, health and education. We are committed to a £180 billion programme of private and public financing for transport. It is a 10-year plan which is moving ahead and will continue to move ahead. As we have seen over the past few weeks, the important thing is that the money is not wasted but goes on improving our rail track and our rail and transport services. Equally, we are committed to significantly higher levels of investment in the health service and education.
As my right hon. Friend has taken a great interest in the regions, may I add that we are committed to ensuring that our investment secures greater regional economic balance in the country? When he was at the Department of Trade and Industry, his work in improving the country's regional policy and the continuing work of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Deputy Prime Minister are crucial. The investment will be crucial in bridging the regional gaps in our country.
Mr. Michael Jack: The spectre of unemployment is creeping inexorably across the face of north-west England. BAE Systems announced further job losses today, and there have been announcements from Rolls-Royce, Baxi, Cammell-Laird and Marconi. In addition to the welcome measures for small business, will the Chancellor look again at the point made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) that business is bearing an additional cost of doing business of anything up to £10 billion? Will the right hon. Gentleman look again between now and the Budget at ways in which some of those costs can be relieved?
In the light of the Chancellor's previous answer, may I ask him to give a commitment to business in the north-west that there will be investment in the M6 motorway and the west coast main line so that our transport infrastructure can assist at least the north-west to communicate with the rest of the United Kingdom and Europe?
Mr. Brown: On the right hon. Gentleman's first point, any redundancy is to be regretted. The men and women
856
who are losing jobs in these highly sophisticated industries, which face huge world pressures, have my sympathies as well as those of the right hon. Gentleman. It is one of the reasons why tomorrow the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions will announce new measures that will help, including rapid response teams, which will be in place where there are redundancies and people need advice on training to help them get the jobs that are available. A large number of vacancies exist in every region of the country, and we are determined to help people looking for new jobs to get these vacancies as quickly as possible.
On the right hon. Gentleman's second point about cutting red tape, I have announced today that we mean to go ahead with a small business measure that will make it far easier for businesses to do their VAT and save money at the same time. We are also considering—and we want this to happen—a means by which tax accounts and company accounts can be reconciled in a way that involves firms in far less bureaucracy. We abolished the audit requirement for many small firms, saving them a great deal of money, so we are doing our best.
The right hon. Gentleman really must look at where the £10 billion that he mentioned comes from. A great deal of it comes from the minimum wage. He must ask himself, as we must all ask ourselves, whether the minimum wage is the right policy or the wrong policy. I believe that even most of the employers who were sceptical at the time of its introduction believe that the minimum wage is fair and has been properly implemented. Unfortunately, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) opposed the minimum wage at the time. He said that it would cost 1 million jobs. He was absolutely wrong—1 million new jobs have been created, even with the minimum wage. I hope that we will have some clarity from the Conservative party regarding what they will do with the minimum wage in the future.
Mrs. Claire Curtis-Thomas: I welcome the announcements made this afternoon in connection with manufacturing industry, especially the announcement of further tax breaks for capital investment. Will my right hon. Friend consider possible tax breaks for the services that allow that capital investment asset to be realised? Capital assets are sometimes enormously complex and although small businesses want to take on the new technology they lack the internal intelligence and experience to utilise it fully. If we can afford them some tax breaks in that area, we will increase our productivity rates accordingly.
Mr. Brown: Perhaps my hon. Friend would write to me on the specifics—that seems to be a second Budget representation. There are considerable tax advantages and reliefs at present for businesses adopting information technology—going online and adopting e-commerce. Perhaps she could advise the small businesses in her community that those advantages are available.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I regret that we must move on. The statement has run for an hour and 40 minutes—I regret that hon. Members are still rising to speak.

NEW MEMBER
The following Member made the Affirmation required by law:
Christopher David Mole, Esq. for Ipswich

Speaker's Statement
5.13 pm
Mr. Speaker: I have a short statement to make in relation to the Employment Bill.
I note that right hon. and hon. Members who have tabled the reasoned amendment have very properly indicated a relevant interest on the Order Paper. The Bill concerns employment rights. As we all know, every Member who has staff in his or her parliamentary employment is an employer, but some Members may also be an employer in a different capacity, by virtue of activities outside their parliamentary duties. In my opinion, there is a risk that if every Member seeking to table amendments to the Bill indicates a relevant interest, based only on their position as a Member, the House, and those outside the House, will not be able to recognise any such additional relevant interests.
I propose therefore that in the case of this Bill, and any others of such a nature that may come before us, the whole House take a common-sense approach and that Members be expected to indicate a relevant interest only where that is plainly additional to their interests as Members of the House.
In that way, I think that the transparency which the rules on registration of interests are designed to demonstrate can best be ensured.

Point of Order
5.14 pm
Mr. David Cameron: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can you clear up some genuine confusion among Back Benchers? The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the Wanless report was looking only at public funding of the health service; but the terms of reference were so different—especially in the light of the 1998 annual report from NatWest, which shows that Derek Wanless, along with the other NatWest directors, was actually paid private health insurance as a benefit. Was that something that the Chancellor could have looked into in terms of expanding health funding?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman had better ask the Chancellor, not the Speaker.

Compulsory Voting
5.14 pm
Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Representation of the People Act 1983 to make voting compulsory in all Parliamentary elections; and for connected purposes.
I believe that everyone has a responsibility to vote, to cast judgment on those of us who are elected to the House, on the parties that we represent and on our handling of the important national issues of the day and key local constituency concerns. Even if a guarantee could be given that turnout in parliamentary elections was set to rise dramatically, the Bill would still be entirely justified, but the fact that the turnout on 7 June was the lowest since universal suffrage was introduced adds a particular urgency to the case for compulsory voting.
Elections are a test of opinion in the country. They are a way of holding politicians to account and legitimising our elected bodies. When the turnout is high, elections are more representative, the elected bodies more legitimate and politicians more accountable.
In addition, if rates of turnout are different between sections of the electorate—between different communities, or between those on different incomes—there must be a risk of political parties prioritising the concerns of those most likely to vote. We are not at that stage in this country—Labour Members are certainly not—but some commentators certainly believe that low turnouts in America have focused the collective minds of the parties on those who vote regularly and argue, in turn, that the sense of alienation from the political process has increased among marginalised groups.
Some members of the Labour party have asked me to justify proposing compulsory voting when it is possible that, for whatever reason, only a Conservative and a Liberal candidate had stood for election. I would not dream of asking any good socialist to make that appalling choice. Instead, my Bill would require voters to attend polling stations and vote either for one of the candidates on offer, as now, or to register their abstention—their protest at the system or the choice before them—on a new slot on the ballot paper.
Some people say that compulsory voting would mask wider problems of participation in the political process, Of course, I agree that political parties, we as politicians and other political organisations need to make more effort to champion political debate for its own sake, to promote a sense of citizenship, to engage with those groups least represented in the House and to celebrate the opportunity that politics offers to make a difference to the communities from which we all come, but initiating debate on how to tackle those wider issues should not be used as an excuse to put aside the specific debate that needs to be held again about voter turnout at elections.
I pay tribute to the work that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary did when he was at the Home Office to promote a series of experiments to drive up turnout, one of which—easier access to postal voting—was undoubtedly very helpful to many at the last election. Many people did not vote at that general election because they did not think that there was ever a realistic danger of the Tory party being elected. Nevertheless, the fact that more than 40 per cent. of electors did not vote rightly set alarm bells ringing across the political world.

861
What are the alternatives to compulsory voting? One alternative is to do nothing and to hope that turnout somehow improves. I certainly do not support that. Another alternative that has been canvassed is to offer people an incentive to vote—£10 off their council tax, or 1p off income tax. At the risk of provoking some of those who are genuinely engaged in the debate about turnout at elections, I suggest that there is something slightly odd about paying people to vote. What evidence is there to show that such a move would seriously drive up turnout?
Compulsory voting is not an unproven, alien concept. My hon. Friends the Members for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Watson) and for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami), in their excellent Fabian Society pamphlet on this subject last year, highlighted a study of 44 democracies around the world, and an element of compulsory voting was evident in 13 of the 44—30 per cent. of those studied. Compulsory voting operates successfully in Belgium, Luxembourg, Greece and, I understand, in four of the eight provinces in Austria, as well as in a host of other countries on other continents. It operates perhaps most effectively in Australia, where turnouts of more than 95 per cent. are regularly achieved and just 2 to 3 per cent. of people abstain, with just the threat of a $20 fine to encourage adherence to the law.
Some argue that appalling breaches of civil liberties would be committed were we to require people to register their abstention, but compulsory voting is surely just a logical extension of the legal requirement to register to vote. Is being asked to vote once every five years any more an infringement of liberty than having to fill out a census form once every 10 years or to do two weeks' jury service at some point in one's professional life? Compulsory voting involves a small decrease in freedom but—let us be honest—it is much less of a burden than other obligations that we place on our citizens, such as the requirement for compulsory school education or to pay taxes.
Some argue that a reluctant vote is worse than no vote at all and that those forced to go to the polls against their will be unlikely to cast a well-considered vote. Frankly, that view is insulting or deeply patronising. Indeed, there is absolutely no evidence to justify such nonsense.
Others argue that the enforcement of compulsory voting is a potential nightmare. In Australia, however, compulsory voting has delivered high turnouts without the need for heavy penalties. When a voter is recorded as not voting, the Australian Electoral Commission sends out a letter asking for an explanation. After the 1993 election, the AEC investigated almost 500,000 cases of non-voting. The vast majority—more than 462,000 people—gave valid explanations of why they had not voted.
The valid explanations included the fact that people were overseas at the time or that they belonged to a religious order that prohibited voting. Another 23,000 chose to pay the $20 fine straight away. That left a small group of just about 4,000 who went to court, where the fine increases to $50 on conviction. However, not all in that group were convicted.
In general in Australia, the penalties for non-voting are relatively small, as I propose that they should be under this Bill. When there is a wide acceptance of reasonable excuses—again, as I suggest there should be—there has been a marked increase in the number of people voting.
862
Another comparison—a domestic one—is worthy of note. In this country, one can be punished for failing to register to vote. Registration is compulsory but prosecutions for non-registration are infrequent and usually amount to just a handful every year. The power to prosecute, though rarely used, remains a valuable means of achieving a high level of compliance with the registration process.
We have reached the point where a serious debate about the merits of compulsory voting is urgent. Our forebears fought long and hard for the right to participate in elections. After all, elections are a test of political opinion like no other; they are the defining assessment of the Government and the political leadership of our country. Surely it is not too much to ask that we take 30 seconds out of our busy lives every five years to make a judgment on those who seek to lead us.
5.22 pm
Mr. James Plaskitt: I oppose my hon. Friend's Bill. Although he has raised a legitimate concern, he has identified entirely the wrong solution.
The freedoms of choice in a democracy must include the freedom not to choose. Some people might always wish a plague on all our houses and it would be wrong to force them to participate. Others might wish not to express their choice from time to time when they do not feel that the options available are good enough, and we cannot force them to participate. We need to avoid the arrogant assumption that whatever we and the political parties offer to the electorate at any time is obviously good enough for them to make a choice: sometimes, for some of them, it will not be.
My hon. Friend's Bill risks sending the unfortunate message to the electorate that we are saying, "We are offering you a choice. If you don't like it and it is not good enough for you, we are afraid that we shall still make you choose from among the options."
My hon. Friend suggests a way out in his proposal to allow space for a registered abstention on the ballot paper, but that is not a sufficient solution because an abstention expressed on the ballot paper may be no different from one recorded by staying at home.
My hon. Friend runs the risk of forcing many resentful voters to the ballot box. I fear that it would not be long before minority parties, extreme parties or fringe parties saw an opportunity to place themselves on the ballot and perhaps garner many votes that they would not otherwise have received from resentful voters who do not wish to be at the ballot box and who choose not to mark the abstention slot.
My hon. Friend should think about what it is in our system that imposes discipline on our political parties. Abstentions send a message to us from the electorate, and we are right to be concerned about that. We became used to participation in the 70 to 80 per cent. range, but it suddenly dropped to 59 per cent. at the last general election. The complacent view is that that does not matter because it reflects electoral contentment. I think that that is wrong.
A more realistic view is that there is some disengagement from the process and some question about the legitimacy of us all, not just the Government. After

863
all, allowing for errors in the register, approximately 35 per cent. of the adult electorate did not vote in the last general election, compared with 25 per cent. who voted for Her Majesty's Government, 19 per cent. for the Opposition and 9 per cent. for the Liberal Democrats.
If that unsettles us, instead of forcing people to the ballot box we should think about what choice we offer the electorate, how we communicate it and the nature of elective politics in the 21st century, because that would be the system responding to the message that the electorate are sending us via their abstention. It is an indirect response, but it is a response, and it will come about only if we consider the message and not obscure it by hiding it under forced participation. If there is an issue to address, as my hon. Friend believes there is, we need to confront it, not conceal it.
We also need to think about the process of democracy. Most of the responses that need to be produced to deal with my hon. Friend's concerns should be in the policies that parties offer the electorate and the way in which they communicate them to the electorate. Some of the answer lies in the electoral process. All votes are not of equal value in our electoral system and about 15 million of our voters are partially disfranchised by living in constituencies where parties of their first choice have no chance of winning. That in itself is a disincentive to participation. I do not suggest that changing the voting system will address all the issues that my hon. Friend raises, but it will go some way towards doing that and it forms part of the solution.
Finally, there is the matter of rights and duties. We speak in the House of the right to vote; and that is what it is—a right. It has been fought for, as my hon. Friend said, and as a democratic people we rejoice when others win that right and escape after years of tyranny. He was also correct when he said that with rights come responsibility, but as a true democracy we should hesitate before we forcibly turn those rights into an obligation and introduce sanctions to prevent the exercise of free choice.
We need to be more humble in the face of the message that the electorate are sending by their level of participation, less arrogant about the virtues of the choice that our political parties offer and far more careful about turning a right based on freedom into an obligation to the state. We should smarten up our act as politicians and improve our democracy, but I urge the House to reject compulsory voting.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 23 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business), and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Gareth R. Thomas, Fiona Mactaggart, Mr. Paul Marsden, Mr. Peter Kilfoyle, David Winnick, Linda Perham, Mr. Tom Watson, Mark Tami, Mr. Tony Colman and Martin Linton.

Compulsory Voting
  COMPULSORY VOTING
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas accordingly presented a Bill to amend the Representation of the People Act 1983 to make voting compulsory in all Parliamentary elections; and for connected purposes: And he same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 18 January, and to be printed [Bill 58].
Orders of the Day

  Employment Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): I must tell the House that the Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
  5.30 pm
  The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Ms Patricia Hewitt): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Earlier this afternoon, we heard from my right hon. Friend the Chancellor about the steps that he has taken to deliver a stable economic framework and thus to ensure that the United Kingdom is better placed than any other major industrial economy to withstand difficult times in the world economy. On the basis of that foundation of economic stability, our priority is now to deliver a high-skill, high-productivity economy. Productivity is not about working people into the ground; it is about skilled people in high-performance workplaces, where employers and employees work together in an effective partnership.
  That approach, the approach of a Labour Government, is supported by the TUC and the CBI in their recent productivity report, in which they argue that
  "new forms of work organisation, effective management leadership, a culture that encourages innovation, employee involvement and development tailored to organisational needs are all necessary conditions for adaptable, high performance workplaces."
  We aim to strengthen that approach through this Bill, creating a social partnership to enable businesses and the people who work in them to achieve their full potential.
  Nobody, not even a Member of this House, should have to choose between being a good parent and being an effective worker. We all know that stress in the workplace is on the increase, and that stress is bad for children, for parents and for business. Modern organisations with good workplaces have already recognised that family-friendly working makes sense. Good businesses recognise the link between effective employment relations and success in the marketplace. However, there are still too many workplaces that seem to be run by managers who believe that every worker has a wife at home, and who assume that the only way to organise a job is in the way it has always been done.
  Getting all our workplaces to adapt to the reality of modern families is a huge cultural change. The Conservatives, of course, believe that such changes should be left to the market, but if we left matters to the spread of best practice through a voluntary approach, it would take 20 years to secure the changes that we want, and parents and employers simply cannot afford to wait that long. By setting new legal standards, as we will do in the Bill, we will put family-friendly working on the agenda of every workplace and bring these changes forward by a generation.
  Mr. Kevin Hughes: The Secretary of State is proposing welcome new rights for paternity and paid adoption leave in the Bill, but does she share my

  865
  concern that about 2.5 million workers who fall below the Lower earnings limit will be left out of those excellent proposals?
  Ms Hewitt: My hon. Friend raises an important point. We have already reformed the national insurance contributions system to promote the employment of workers at the bottom end of the labour market. I am sure that my hon. Friend and other hon. Members will want to focus on the interaction between the contributions threshold and the system of employment protection when the Bill goes into Committee.
  Mr. Tony Lloyd: The Bill is bedevilled by a split definition, which defines someone as an employee, but not a worker. My right hon. Friend will be aware that that is a fundamental point in industrial: legislation. How will progress be made on that and other aspects of labour law? When will the review take place? Will my right hon. Friend give a guarantee that, where change is necessary, legislation will be introduced during this Parliament?
  Ms Hewitt: My hon. Friend makes an important point which I know is of concern to many Labour Members. As I have already made clear, we shall shortly embark on a review of the provisions of general employment law that relate to the distinction between an employee and a worker. As my hon. Friend well knows, these are enormously complicated legal matters on which we want to consult carefully. I anticipate that the review of the employee/worker distinction will begin early in the new year.
  It is not the job of Government to tell parents how to Lead their lives, but it is our job—and a responsibility that the Labour Government take seriously—to help parents choose how best to combine earning a living with bringing up children. In the past four years, we have done a great deal to help families fulfil their double responsibilities: 1 million women and 500,000 men benefit from the national minimum wage; more than 3 million workers have enjoyed four weeks' paid annual holidays for the first time; we have introduced the working families tax credit and higher child benefit, with a new children's tax credit to come; there are 800,000 new child care places, another 800,000 on the way, new rights for part-time workers, and, of course, the right to trade union recognition.
  Not one of those measures was supported by Opposition Members. If they are shown fair standards for working people, all they can do is complain about burdens on business. The Bill builds on the achievements that we delivered in our first term. It will improve conditions for working parents, simplify and improve procedures for resolving disputes between management and workers, and strengthen support for training and learning at work.
  Chris Grayling: While no one could disagree with the principles of what the right hon. Lady is trying to achieve, does she not realise the practical impact on small business of tilting the balance of regulation heavily in favour of the employee and against
  866
  the employer? In small organisations with a handful of workers that will make it very difficult indeed to run the business effectively.
  Ms Hewitt: I have spent most of my working life running, and working in, small organisations. As the hon. Gentleman will find when I come to some of the Bill's detailed provisions, all the way through, we started with the needs of small businesses and the people working in them uppermost in our minds.
  Part 1 will enable mothers to take up to six months' paid maternity leave and will extend paid time off to fathers and adoptive parents, as my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster. North (Mr. Hughes) said, for the first time. Separate regulations will increase maternity pay from £62 a week to £100, and extend maternity leave so that mothers can take up to a year off work to look after a new baby.
  Norman Lamb: Does the Secretary of State regard the two weeks' paternity leave provision as an end point or, alternatively, a staging post on the way to the ultimate goal of better provision? I am aware of the Government's intention to try to balance better the mix of work and parental responsibilities, but the provisions for unpaid parental leave introduced in the last Parliament have resulted in an extremely low take-up of that right. By contrast, in many other European countries, the right is taken up to a considerable extent, because it is paid. It seems to be a case of tinkering at the edges. Is the Secretary of State prepared to set a goal of improving rights to paid leave, or is this the end point?
  Ms Hewitt: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. We are determined to improve conditions for fathers, as well as mothers. Two weeks' paid paternity leave is an enormously important reflection of the responsibilities that a new father is taking on, but we have also already introduced, for fathers as well as mothers, new rights to parental leave. The new rights to family-friendly working, with which I shall deal in a moment, will apply to fathers of young children, as well as to mothers.
  Dr. Stephen Ladyman: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend; she has been most generous with her time. What she is doing through the Bill is wonderful, and she knows that it has my full support. During the consultation period, the possibility was considered that when the relevant period for maternity pay was calculated, it could be changed from eight weeks to 26 weeks. That would help people on very low and fluctuating wages, such as shopworkers. That is not in the Bill at this stage. Will my right hon. Friend give the matter further thought?
  Ms Hewitt: My hon. Friend is right—that provision is not in the Bill. We consulted on it, but it is not in the Bill because we are trying to simplify an extraordinarily complicated system of administering maternity pay and leave. It became clear from the consultation that although the provision to which my hon. Friend refers would have offered some benefits, it was too complicated and too onerous, especially for small organisations.
  The Bill, and related regulations, will simplify the system for maternity pay and leave, making it easier for businesses to understand and administer. We are also,

  867
  separately, increasing the support that small businesses receive for administering maternity pay, with the result that about six out of 10 of all firms paying maternity pay will be able to reclaim their costs in full. We are also introducing changes that will allow firms to claim back the money that they pay out in maternity pay in advance—a particular bonus for small firms.
  Mr. Philip Hammond: Can the Secretary of State confirm that, for the 60 per cent. of firms that can reclaim their costs in full, those costs will include the employer's national insurance contribution, as well as the pay, in full, recoverable by the firm?
  Ms Hewitt: Yes, I believe that that is the case.
  As I announced last week, we will include in the Bill new provisions to promote family-friendly working. In Committee, we will table amendments to implement the recommendations of the work and parents taskforce, which I published on 20 November. Those provisions will set new legal standards for family-friendly working, ensuring that where parents—fathers as well as mothers—of young children ask for changed working hours, employers will have a duty to find a solution, wherever possible, that suits both the worker and the business.
  In drawing up these measures, our priority, and that of the taskforce, has been to adopt a light-touch approach, working with the grain of existing best practice and taking particular account of the needs of small firms. I thank all the members of the taskforce, particularly its chair, Professor Sir George Bain, for their hard work in preparing the report.
  Mr. Hammond: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt the Secretary of State, but for guidance, would you advise us whether it is in order for Members to discuss matters which are not in the Bill before us, but which might be introduced at a later stage, or whether all Members are limited to discussing only what is in the Bill?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: This is a Second Reading debate, so provided the matters being debated are relevant to that, they are, by and large, allowable.
  Ms Hewitt: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I note that the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) calls for a wider debate on these issues. I should have thought that it was helpful to him, as well as to the House, to know our intentions in respect of amendments to the Bill.
  Mrs. Joan Humble: Among the excellent measures in the Bill are the provisions to simplify the regulations for maternity pay and maternity leave. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that the Government will publicise those changes? When I speak to many of my constituents, they are bewildered by the existing rules and regulations, and look forward to changes. I am concerned that they may not be aware of some of the changes that are to be introduced.
  Ms Hewitt: My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. Everybody is bewildered by the existing
  868
  system of maternity pay and leave, which is quite incomprehensibly complicated. The new arrangements will take effect in April 2003. In the months leading up to that time, and also subsequently, we will ensure that employees and employers alike are aware of the new arrangements and the benefits that they will bring.
  The new arrangements on flexible working that we will introduce by amendment to the Bill have been described by Digby Jones, Director General of the Confederation of British Industry, as
  "a workable deal for employers and employees, which will raise awareness of the benefits of flexible working."
  The Trades Union Congress said:
  "They will give parents a new opportunity to seek flexible working. The best employers already agree flexible working patterns because they can see the advantages."
  The Equal Opportunities Commission has welcomed the fact that
  "for the first time employers will have an explicit duty to properly consider fathers as well as mothers' requests to work part time."
  Of course, many employers in both the public and private sectors are already leading the way in raising productivity through effective partnerships with employees. However, there are still far too many cases of bad practice that harm both the employer and the worker. Some hon. Members may have seen in the news recently the case of Neil Walkingshaw, a car mechanic who went to the employment tribunal after being refused shorter working hours to enable him to care for his young son. He wanted shorter hours because he and his wife had decided that she should return to work full time. The employer's refusal to change Mr. Walkingshaw's working hours cost the latter his job, cost the business a skilled and experienced employee and led to considerable expenditure of time and money in a tribunal case—time and money that would have been much better expended on a small reorganisation of working hours to enable Mr. Walkingshaw to keep his job and continue contributing to the firm.
  Chris Grayling: Surely the Secretary of State is not saying that employers should no longer have the right to judge whether they need a post to be filled on a full-time or part-time basis. If the Government go down that road, they will do enormous damage to the competitiveness of small businesses.
  Ms Hewitt: When the hon. Gentleman studies the report of the taskforce and reads the amendments that we will table, he will see that we are putting in place a very sensible set of provisions to ensure that, when an employee in a position such as Mr. Walkingshaw's asks for his working hours to be changed, his employer will be under a duty to consider the request seriously and to look at how it can be accommodated within the needs of the business. Of course there will be circumstances in which such a request cannot be accommodated, but it is clear from the practice in firms that have already taken the proposed route that it is possible in most cases to accommodate such requests to the benefit not only of the employee, but of the business.
  Mr. Andrew Turner: Will the Secretary of State explain whether the benefit has to be extended not only to the employee in question and the employer, but to other employees of the business?

  869
  For example, in a small care home, it will be difficult to rearrange the working hours of a single person without affecting those of other employees.
  Ms Hewitt: That is one of the issues that we would expect the employee who is making the request and the employer who is considering it to take into account. Very often, once an organisation starts considering the possibility of flexible working for one individual, it will find that it can meet other employees' flexible working needs in a way that also makes it easier for the business to meet the needs of its customers. We will support both employees and employers in implementing the changes. We will also monitor their impact after three years of operation. Let me make it clear that if we still find that a large number of businesses are refusing to take the claims of children and their parents seriously, we will take action accordingly.
  Minimum standards provide incentives for businesses to increase their productivity. That is exactly what we have seen in respect of the national minimum wage. We were told by Opposition Members that the national minimum wage would be a disaster, that it would cost a million jobs and that businesses would close as a result of its introduction. Of course, nothing of the kind has happened. The Low Pay Commission, which is also chaired by the excellent Professor Sir George Bain, found that the national minimum wage had helped many employers who pay it to perceive their work force as an asset in which to invest rather than a cost to be minimised. Consequently, they get better quality and results.
  Parts 2 and 3 provide further incentives for businesses to raise productivity, and to follow best practice. The Bill gives incentives to employers and employees to resolve disputes in the workplace through dialogue rather than litigation. Most organisations already have proper procedures for dealing with disagreements between the management and an employee. However, half of all cases that end up before tribunals are from firms that have no proper internal grievance or disciplinary procedures. They waste taxpayers' money because they have not bothered to put proper procedures in place. The Bill provides for simple, three-step disciplinary or grievance procedures in workplaces where they do not already exist.
  Rights and responsibilities go together in the Bill. For example, employers have a responsibility, if they are unhappy with an employee's performance, to tell that employee what is wrong and to deal with the problem. Employees have the right to fair procedures in the workplace; they also have a responsibility to use them.
  One would imagine that it was pure common sense for managers and staff to talk to each other. Yet it does not always happen. Not only are there cases before tribunals in which an employer has no procedure or has failed to follow it; we also hear from some employers that receiving the copy of a tribunal application is the first they know about an individual's grievance. The Bill will ensure that the procedures are in place and that they are used in most cases.
  Of course, some cases cannot be resolved in the workplace. Employers and employees must then be able to rely on an effective tribunal system to determine the Issues. The Bill and the work of the employment tribunal system taskforce will help to provide a better tribunal service to employers and employees.
  870
  As with the proposals on family-friendly working, those on better dispute resolution are based on extensive consultation and dialogue. I welcome the fact that the director general of the British Chambers of Commerce has said:
  "These proposals will help businesses to help themselves, by ensuring that they follow good practice in their employment relations."
  William Sargent, chairman of the Small Business Council, described the proposals as
  "very clear measures, which are fair both to small businesses and their employees."
  Helen Jones: Although many of the provisions for dispute resolution are welcome, does my right hon. Friend agree that the extension of costs orders in employment tribunals is likely to deter many of the people who need them most? They will deter those who are in small, non-unionised firms without back-up who do not have legal training and to whom even the thought of such costs will be frightening. Such employees do not have the legal training to understand the cases in which those costs are imposed. Will my right hon. Friend consider the matter carefully when the measure is in Committee?
  Ms Hewitt: Of course we will consider carefully the position of individuals who do not have legal knowledge or representation. I hope, however, that I can reassure my hon. Friend by stressing that, of 18,000 cases, only 252 resulted in a costs order. We must deal with employers who persist in defending a case although it is crystal clear on all the evidence that they are in breach of the law—for example, by refusing holiday or notice pay that is due to the employee. We must also tackle an employee or former employee who withdraws his application the night before a hearing, having led the employer to waste a substantial amount of time on preparing a case that is never heard. I have described a minority of cases, but we need to tackle the problem.
  The Bill covers several other matters that contribute to the overall purpose of making the workplace function better. We are placing union learning representatives on a statutory footing because they are a key element in our drive to improve the quantity and quality of workplace development, especially for those who are most likely to miss out on training—for instance older workers, part-time employees and people from some of our minority ethnic communities.
  Mr. David Chaytor: On union learning representatives, does my right hon. Friend agree that today's publication of the performance and innovation unit report on work force development means that the debate has perhaps moved ahead of the Bill? It provides opportunities only for workplaces that already have a trade union recognition agreement. The major problems to do with work force development and lack of skills in the work force are in places where trade unions are not recognised. Will my right hon. Friend consider extending the rights to workplaces that do not have trade union recognition agreements?
  Ms Hewitt: We will consider the PIU report with interest. The Government's steps to promoting learning and training, especially among those who lack even the most

  871
  basic skills, are not confined to the Bill. None the less, it will increase the availability of training and learning in organisations in which unions are recognised, but which continue to have the problem, especially at the bottom of the workplace, of people without adequate skills.
  Mr. John Whittingdale: The Secretary of State has cited business organisations that approved of specific provisions. Do any employers' organisations support the proposals for a statutory right for paid time off for trade union learning representatives?
  Ms Hewitt: The Confederation of British Industry.
  Mr. Hugo Swire: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
  Ms Hewitt: No, I have given way extensively and I want to conclude my remarks.
  The Bill also tackles discrimination against employees on fixed-term contracts. We ire introducing work-focused interviews for partners of working-age people who are on benefits—
  Mr. David Heath: Will the right hon. Lady give way on that point?
  Ms Hewitt: Let me finish the sentence. We are introducing such interviews so that we can help people to build on their skills and potential, and tackle any obstacles to work.
  Mr. Heath: Will the Minister give way?
  Ms Hewitt: I have already said that I have given way several times and that I would prefer to conclude.
  We are introducing equal pay questionnaires to make it easier for people who believe that they may be suffering an injustice to request key information from the employer from the start, when they are deciding whether to bring such a case.
  Good employers treat then employees with respect. They invest in people's skills, help people balance work and family and have sensible procedures for resolving disputes.
  Millions of employees already enjoy good working conditions in the best organisations, whether large or small, in the public or the private sectors. However, too many employers do not follow that good practice. The provisions will help to raise standards in the workplace and will thus help to close the productivity gap between the United Kingdom and our competitors. That will help to provide higher standards and a better quality of life for us all.
  The measure is supported by employers, unions and family groups. It will raise standards for employees and promote higher productivity. It could never have been introduced by a Conservative Government; the Labour Government proudly introduce it. I commend it to the House.
  5.59 pm
  Mr. John Whittingdale: I beg to move, To leave out from "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "this House regrets that a wider debate has not taken place on how the benefits and burdens arising from the Employment Bill are shared between individuals and the workplace; declines to give a Second Reading to the Bill because, although it contains welcome measures which promote family friendly practices in the workplace and which seek to improve dispute resolution procedures, it depends excessively on secondary legislation which is likely to impose significant extra burdens on business, especially small businesses; and because it will impose extra costs on business, further damaging British competitiveness at a time when manufacturing industry is already in a fourth successive quarter of recession."
  Let me start by declaring an interest as the employer of an assistant who helps me with my constituency work. Following Mr. Speaker's earlier ruling, I would like to withdraw the interest that I registered against my name on the amendment to the Bill, as I understand that it is now no longer necessary for it to be there.
  The Bill has come as a surprise to the House and to business. Just five months ago, the Queen's Speech contained no mention of an Employment Bill. In the debate on the Loyal Address, the Secretary of State spoke about an enterprise Bill, for which we are still waiting, and about the Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates) Bill, but she made no mention of the 53 clauses of further employment legislation that we are debating today.
  Some of the measures in the Bill are welcome, and I shall set out our approach in detail in a moment. Overall, however, the Bill represents yet another raft of rights and entitlements for employees and trade unions, which will have the effect of adding still further to the costs, burdens and work load of businesses, and of small businesses in particular. It is extraordinary that, in the press release that announced the publication of the Bill, the Secretary of State claimed that the Bill would reduce red tape for employers. The truth is exactly the reverse, as almost every organisation representing business has made clear in their detailed comments about the Bill.
  The Bill needs to be viewed in the context of the present state of the economy. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) has already done a great deal today to puncture the balloon of self-confidence that envelops the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is crucial, when considering employment measures of this kind, to keep in mind the climate facing British business today. Across the world, economies are slowing and business men are having to operate in a harsher climate in which competitiveness counts above all. Although the British economy as a whole may escape a recession, manufacturing industry has been experiencing one for almost a year. Every business survey has shown a worsening outlook, with increased uncertainty and pessimism. When asked what the Government could do to help, business men have time and again pleaded for relief from the burden of regulation.
  The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development's report on the UK economy highlighted the
  "considerable volume of new regulations."
  In its pre-Budget report, the Engineering Employers Federation said:
  "The growing burden of regulation remains a serious concern for business—increasing costs, reducing flexibility and diverting management time from efforts to increase productivity."

  873
  The British Chambers of Commerce stated earlier this month that
  "there is a mountain to climb in halting the tide of regulation sweeping business."
  The European Commission has said that the regulatory burden on companies is heavier here than anywhere else in the European Union. Even the Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke this afternoon of the need to cut red tape. Yet, within a few minutes of his sitting down, we are faced with another Bill that will add a little bit more to the burdens on business. The result will be that we slip a little bit further down the international competitiveness league.
  Mr. Lloyd: Will the hon. Gentleman do us the favour of saying which of the existing protections for people in the workplace the Opposition regard as the red tape that they now want to get rid of? It would be helpful to have a specific answer to that question.
  Mr. Whittingdale: The Secretary of State made it clear in her opening speech that we have opposed the imposition of extra burdens on business on many occasions. Such measures have to be taken cumulatively. We have to consider the overall effect of all the regulations taken together.
  Mr. Swire: Does my hon. Friend agree with me and, more importantly, with Ruth Lea, the head of the policy unit at the Institute of Directors, who has today pointed out an increase in the regulatory burden on business, and who goes on to say that
  "there is now little doubt that the cumulative increase in the regulatory burden on business over the last four years has been considerable and is beginning to damage business's flexibility and competitiveness"?
  Mr. Whittingdale: My hon. Friend is right, and it is not only the Institute of Directors saying that. Every business organisation that one cares to consult says that the biggest problem facing business in this country is the burden of regulation, yet the Government are steadily increasing it.
  Mr. Frank Doran: If the hon. Gentleman will not tell us which of the regulations introduced by this Government he would get rid of, will he tell us which of the 3,000-odd regulations made in each of the 18 years of Tory Government he regrets?
  Mr. Whittingdale: I must point out to the hon. Gentleman that, as my right hon. and learned Friend the shadow Chancellor made clear in his response to today's statement, the number of regulations introduced under this Government has reached an all-time record.
  Mr. Chaytor: Will the hon. Gentleman be more specific on the question of which regulations he would abolish? Does he, for example, think that investment in
  874
  human capital and in the skills of the work force—which is partly what the Bill is about—are measures that he would like to do away with?
  Mr. Whittingdale: I am all in favour of investment in human skills in the workplace, but we cannot achieve that through compulsion and regulation. I will deal with that specific element of the Bill in a moment.
  Rob Marris: I should like to declare an interest in that my constituency received money from the Transport and General Workers Union before the general election was called.
  I want to turn the question around and ask the hon. Gentleman what regulations he would keep. It is a simple question. Which ones does he think are worth having, and which ones would he get rid of?
  Mr. Whittingdale: Unfortunately, it seems unlikely that we shall be in a position to make that judgment for a few years. When we do form a Government, we shall need to consider all the regulations, and I am afraid that there will be a whole lot more by the time that happens. This flow is relentless, and we know that there are more to come. I hope that the Secretary of State will be able to listen to and answer the pleas of business, and to make it clear that she will not introduce further regulations after the many that are contained in the Bill.
  Part of our problem is that the cost to business of the regulations in the Bill is extremely difficult to judge. As is often the case with legislation introduced by this Government, the Bill contains enabling legislation that will result in many of the new regulations being introduced by statutory instrument at a later date. Business is in no doubt as to the overall effect of the Bill, however. My hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) quoted the Institute of Directors. I would cite the example of the Federation of Small Businesses, which has said that the Bill is a
  "raft of legislation too far."
  The Confederation of British Industry has said that this must be the only piece of new employment legislation in this Parliament. As I have already suggested, we know that that is not going to be the case. Only two weeks ago, we had the consultation paper on flexible working. We are now informed by the Secretary of State that many more regulations are to be incorporated into the Bill in Committee. In two weeks, another consultation paper will be published, this time on discrimination in the workplace on grounds of age, religion and sexual orientation. There is, therefore, no prospect of the halt to the flow that business asks for time and again.
  Any measures that help to resolve more disputes in the workplace without recourse to litigation are desirable and necessary. The Secretary of State has on several occasions drawn attention to the trebling of the number of claims to employment tribunals in the past 10 years, and the cost that that has imposed on business. The CBI estimates a total cost to British industry of £633 million a year. The Government's own consultation document estimates the average cost to an employer of each application at around £2,000. Many employers put that figure considerably higher.
  Yet it is this Government who have extended employment rights to whole new categories of workers, shortened the qualifying period before appeals can be

  875
  made to an employment tribunal and increased the ceiling on compensation payments. It is therefore hardly surprising that there has been a large increase in applications in relation to those rights.
  We support the proposal to require employees to use internal grievance procedures to resolve disputes in the workplace without going to a tribunal, but we are concerned that the Government have significantly watered down their original suggestion in the face of pressure from their Back Benchers and the trade unions.
  Like the Federation of Small Businesses and the Institute of Directors, we are disappointed that the Government have dropped the proposal to require applicants to pay a charge for bringing a claim. The Government suggest that it did not receive widespread support, but a Forum of Private Business survey found that 80 per cent. of respondents supported it.
  The Government have made optimistic forecasts that their proposals will cut applications by a quarter with savings to employers of about £70 million, but significant costs will fall predominantly on small employers. Those are acknowledged in the Bill's regulatory impact assessment, and a number of legal experts have already cast doubt on the effectiveness of the remaining provisions.
  The Secretary of State seemed to suggest that there may be a probationary period in which to consider whether the flexible working proposals have been taken up. If they are not, the Government may have to revisit the issue. Will she give the same undertaking on these proposals? If the number of employment tribunal applications does not decrease, perhaps she will reconsider whether further measures are necessary, in particular the proposal she made in the consultation paper to introduce a charge for applying to a tribunal?
  Mr. Lloyd: Let us follow the logic of the hon. Gentleman's argument that there is a need to provide a deterrent. Does he also accept that charging those who respond to tribunals would provide balance and prevent the rogue employer from taking cases to tribunals?
  Mr. Whittingdale: The employer does not take a case to the tribunal and legislative provision has already been made for costs to be awarded, but that failed miserably, as costs are awarded on hardly any occasion. If a deterrent is needed, it is one against the people who bring cases in the first place, and those are the employees.
  The proposals to help families to meet their responsibilities at home and at work have their attractions. It is clearly a good thing that new mothers and, indeed, fathers should be able to spend time with their children. There is, however, no doubt that such entitlements carry a price that will be borne by employers and other employees.
  Large employers face the cost of having to find 8 per cent. of the amount payable to mothers, fathers and adoptive parents and, indeed, the national insurance contributions, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) referred. The Government estimate that that will lead to an annual cost to business of up to £200 million, with a one-off additional cost of up to £30 million.
  Although small employers will not be required to contribute to the cost, the provisions could have an even more serious effect on them. Large employers will be able
  876
  to provide cover for absent workers without too much difficulty—they can more easily deal with the administration of the new entitlements—hut as the CBI says, those new rights pose significant challenges for smaller firms, which may struggle with the increased absence of key staff members.
  In a small firm employing four people, two pregnancies would result in losing half the work force, possibly at a key time for the business' future.
  Mr. Swire: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill's similar treatment of small and large businesses is regrettable? The small tourism-related businesses, small residential care homes and farms in my constituency were hit hard by foot and mouth. Some provisions are insensitive and untimely but not only need to be revisited to take account of the seasonal nature of those businesses and their smallness.
  Mr. Whittingdale: I entirely share my hon. Friend's view. There is no doubt that the Bill will impose increased costs on all businesses, but the small businesses will bear the biggest burden. As my hon. Friend rightly makes clear, this is already a difficult time for business people and some small businesses are unlikely to be able to bear the additional costs imposed.
  Chris Grayling rose—
  Mr. Chaytor rose—
  Mr. Whittingdale: I give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling).
  Chris Grayling: This question involves not simply businesses small, medium and large, but the impact on schools and other small public service providers. Many head teachers are genuinely concerned that they will be unable to deliver the same quality of teaching if they lose key people. The issue goes much further than business.
  Mr. Whittingdale: I agree. I have no doubt that in my hon. Friend's 0constituency, as in mine, schools find it almost impossible to get staff to cover teacher absences. If teachers are to be given longer absence entitlements, the pressure on school staff will increase, making it almost impossible for head teachers to provide the cover that they need.
  Mr. Chaytor: If the hon. Gentleman owned a small firm with four employees and two became pregnant, what would he do? Would he sack them or work them on the shop floor until their waters broke? He should tell the House.
  Mr. Whittingdale: The vast majority of small and large firms will give entitlements. They want to help employees who find themselves in such circumstances. The answer is not legislation, because there will be occasions on which such firms simply cannot afford to give longer leave entitlements. They will suffer as a result of the Bill.
  I must touch on the provision to allow smaller firms to apply to the Inland Revenue for advance funding should they find it difficult to meet the extra payment required.

  877
  Although I welcome the fact that small employers will be allowed to apply for advance funding, the procedure involves a significant extra administrative burden. As the Federation of Small Businesses points out, it is almost impossible to see how the Bill will reduce red tape.
  Employers will not be alone in incurring an extra burden as a result of those rights, as there is growing recognition that extra rights for parents will inevitably result in extra burdens on non-parents in the workplace. Big companies offering more generous leave entitlements and benefits to parents already consciously discriminate against non-parents, although there may be good reason to do so. Parenthood is desirable for society generally and it should be encouraged, but it is bound to lead to resentment among childless women and men if they have to work harder for less reward than their colleagues who have children. Yet that aspect of the debate on family-friendly work practices has been ignored by the Government. Again, the matter deserves far more consideration.
  Some of those arguments apply equally to the Government proposals on giving employees the right to request flexible working hours. Although they are not yet in the Bill, the Secretary of State confirmed that additional measures will be inserted in Committee to take account of the announcements made a week ago. Like the CBI, we welcome the fact that employees will not be given an automatic right to expect flexible working, but there is no doubt that the proposals will result in another category of cases that must be considered by employment tribunals, adding to their work load.
  As proposals to reduce the number of cases going to employment tribunals are to be included, it is ironic that the Government are introducing a new category through their amendments. Again, the measures will result in greater costs to small firms, in particular the expense involved, the additional time required and the disruption to their business.
  The Bill seeks to extend to employees on fixed-term contracts the rights enjoyed by permanent employees. In fact, it is already possible to claim unfair dismissal to an employment tribunal in connection with failure to renew a fixed-term contract. The Government now wish to give fixed-terns employees equivalent rights, including rights involving pay and pensions, that were not covered by the original European Union directive on which this part of the Bill is based.
  That bit of gold-plating by the Government will make some employers ask what is the point of taking on employees on fixed-term contracts. Employers may feel that if such employees are to enjoy terms and conditions identical to those enjoyed by permanent employees, they may as well make them permanent employees and then sack them.
  In fact, many fixed-term employees benefit from higher rates of pay, as they do not enjoy other benefits such as pension entitlements. It is therefore essential for the equal-treatment requirement to apply to the overall package of terms and conditions if employers are to retain the flexibility that they need.
  Mr. Russell Brown: Has the hon. Gentleman ever worked in a company in which fixed-term
  878
  or short-term contracts have operated? Has he ever witnessed what people go through when working on an entirely different basis and in an entirely different environment from others, and the disadvantages experienced by those on fixed-term contracts?
  Mr. Whittingdale: The hon. Gentleman appears to be confirming that the Government intend to remove fixed-term employees from the work force. That certainly appears to be the direction in which they are moving. We do not know, however, because—again—we have not yet seen the detailed regulations covering this provision. Not until they are published will we be able to judge properly its impact on business. I hope that the Minister will make it clear that the Government will resist the pressure that has already been exerted from the Government Back Benches today to extend the provision to cover fixed-term workers, such as those supplied by agencies.
  The Bill also gives statutory rights to so-called union learning representatives. As the Government's consultation paper states, they constitute a new category of union activists. There are already about 3,000, and under the Bill they will have a statutory right to paid time off.
  Earlier, I asked the Secretary of State whether any employers' organisations supported the proposal. She told me that the CBI supported it. In its submission on the Bill, the CBI said that
  "the proposed right for unions to appoint union learning representatives without the employer's agreement is a step in the wrong direction."
  That strikes me as a pretty curious way of expressing support.
  Mr. Chaytor: Surely the CBI's objection is not to the establishment of learning representatives as such. Indeed, its submission supports the concept. Its objection is to inability to influence the number of representatives and, hence, inability to control the amount of time off.
  Mr. Whittingdale: The CBI's principal objection, and that of many other employers' organisations, is that the arrangement will be imposed on them through compulsion.
  Mr. Chaytor: The hon. Gentleman is not answering my question.
  Mr. Whittingdale: With respect, I am.
  Of course employers support the idea of increasing the amount of training given in the workplace. What they do not support is the mandatory requirement imposed by the Bill for them to accept union learning representatives and to have no say in who those representatives are, or indeed in how many are appointed. We share their objections. As the Engineering Employers Federation has said, this will not improve employee relations, productivity, or the learning levels of employees. Learning representatives will add value only when they work in partnership with employers. Compulsion will add to costs, and will do nothing to increase employers' commitment to training.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Malcolm Wicks): The hon. Gentleman should meet some.
  Mr. Whittingdale: With respect, let me tell the Minister that I am quoting what has been said by employers' organisations.

  879
  Under the Bill, the number of learning representatives and their selection will be a matter solely for trade unions. That will clearly be open to abuse: employers must be given some say if trust is to he preserved in the workplace.
  Finally, let me deal with the provisions requiring partners of benefit claimants to undertake work-focused interviews. At the beginning of my speech, I said that the Queen's Speech had made no mention of an Employment Bill. What it did foreshadow was a welfare reform Bill. I ask the Minister to confirm that this is it: that the Government's much-vaunted intention of achieving fundamental reform of the welfare system has been reduced to a group of clauses headed "Miscellaneous" at the back of the Employment Bill. Of course we welcome measures to help benefit recipients return to work, but this piece of bureaucracy is unlikely to have much effect.
  A recent survey showed that in the past four years there had already been more than 50 changes in employment law. Small firms estimate that it is taking them up to 12 hours a week to deal with statutory requirements, at a cost to each of £8,900 a year. Some measures in the Bill are welcome, but its overall effect will be an addition to demands in terms of cost and time which many small businesses simply will not he able to meet.
  At any time those measures would be damaging to British business, but they are being introduced at a time when the outlook for many firms is already grim. The sad fact is that, while increasing employees' rights, the Bill is likely to lead in the long term to a decrease in the number of employees, because it will make the burden for some firms unbearable.
  6.27 pm
  Ms Joan Walley: I am pleased to speak about a Bill that will introduce so many improvements, and benefit so many of our constituents. I agree with the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) that competitiveness is all-important, but we should view the position in the long term. If we share the hon. Gentleman's short-sighted approach to employment relations, how can we end up with a skilled and flexible work force who want to make their company as competitive as possible? I was very disappointed by his mean contribution.
  Before I go into the details of the Bill—which will, as I have said, improve things substantially—let me say something to the Minister for Employment and the Regions. I much appreciated his taking the trouble to visit my constituency to discuss, in some depth, the many provisions in the Bill. I believe that similar consultation has taken place not just in my constituency but with the business community, and throughout the country. The fact that the Bill has not prompted a great deal of dissent is surely a measure of the success of the consultation undertaken so effectively by the Secretary of State and the Minister. I also thank the Minister for taking up in correspondence issues raised at a meeting that I had in Stoke-on-Trent.
  I should say at the outset that I am a member of Unison, and also that UCATT—the Union of Construction Allied Trades and Technicians—has a close working relationship with my constituency Labour party.
  I welcome the introduction of paid paternity leave, which has been well received by constituents to whom I have spoken. I am also g ad that we are at last making
  880
  real improvements to maternity leave and pay arrangements. That is great news for women, and I know that it will be welcomed in my constituency.
  Reference has also been made to the introduction of a questionnaire procedure for equal pay claims. If we had had such a procedure in the long years of the previous, Tory Government, and if that Government had introduced legislation properly as they were directed to do by Europe, we would not be in the current situation in which many women who worked in the mining industry are unable to claim what should have been theirs by right. That is an advance to be welcomed.
  Another advance is the right to time off for union learning representatives, underlining the important role played by unions in developing the skills of the work force. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) was absolutely right to say that we as parliamentarians and as a Government are nowhere if we cannot recognise the importance of investing in the skills of the work force.
  In 1999, we were very fortunate in north Staffordshire to have one of the first union learning fund pilots which was operated by the Ceramic and Allied Trades Union. In a time of great change in the pottery industry, entailing much that we would prefer not to have seen, the pilot has grown to 18 learning representatives operating in most factories and pot banks across Stoke-on-Trent. Forty representatives at the CATU learning centre—which is funded jointly by Government and the Stoke-on-Trent college of further education, and with the support of manufacturers—are taking the learning agenda out to people, encouraging them to take up basic skills and take on relevant work, increasing their confidence and contributing to competitiveness. Those advances are welcome, and in the long term they will be as important as the advances in health and safety.
  I am very pleased that the Government have not heeded the siren voices calling for the introduction of charges for tribunal applications.
  Mr. Swire: I think that I am right in saying that the hon. Lady has in her constituency one of the most successful British companies possibly in the world and certainly in the United Kingdom. Has she at any stage taken the trouble to go and speak to that company to discover whether it believes that any of the Bill's provisions will make it less competitive?
  Ms Walley: I am very proud to say that we have many world-class manufacturers and other businesses across north Staffordshire. We have consulted with the chamber of commerce, with which we agree on some issues while having slightly different shades of opinion on others. None the less, I believe that we would not be treating our work force properly if we were to introduce a general costs regime that required the losing party to face all costs. The proposal in the consultation document to establish a presumption in favour of awarding costs was entirely wrong, and I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on the current proposals.
  The Government have recognised that charges and the risk of having to pay costs will deter lower-paid applicants from pursuing a case, however strong that case may be. Such an arrangement would in practice deny people the opportunity of exercising their statutory rights.

  881
  Nevertheless, there may still be a problem which I hope that my right hon. Friend will examine both during proceedings in another place and in the light of the letter that I received from my hon. Friend the Minister for Employment and the Regions.
  The problem is that the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2001, which were introduced in July, added to the list of circumstances in which an employment tribunal can award costs. Before the regulations were introduced, costs could be awarded when proceedings were brought vexatiously, abusively, disruptively or otherwise unreasonably. However, the word "misconceived" has now been added to that list. Consequently, not only poor behaviour but poor knowledge of employment law is to be penalised. The other change that was made in July is that the maximum costs that tribunals can award on the spot were increased from £500 to £10,000.
  I ask the Government to re-examine the changes. I am very grateful that a review body has been established, and I recognise that the Secretary of State said in reply to an intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Conwy (Mrs. Williams) that costs had been awarded in only 2.52 cases. I wonder, however, whether the new regulations will substantially change that number. I ask her to examine the issue very closely. I would not want people without a union representative or someone else to turn to for help to be deterred from making a genuine case. I hope that we can make some progress on the issue.
  Mr. Mark Prisk: Does the hon. Lady recognise that whereas it is true that many employees are not fully familiar with the law, millions of self-employed small business proprietors also are not legal experts and cannot afford a legal adviser when presented with a legal case? Is it not important that we also recognise their difficulties? Is it not important that the Government ensure that any changes protect them equally?
  Ms Walley: I am very happy to agree with the hon. Gentleman on that. It is absolutely right that access to employment tribunals should not be based on the ability to appoint very expensive lawyers. There should be a basic right of access to information, and that right should apply as much to small companies and businesses as to those who are employed in those places. I greatly regret the fact that although the citizens advice bureau in Stoke-on-Trent, where I know a little about the situation, is able to give advice, it is not able to represent people at employment tribunals. I recognise that there are two sides to the issue. I would be very pleased if people were more knowledgeable, had better access to information and could better exercise their employment rights.
  Mr. Hammond: The hon. Lady seems to hanker after less formal proceedings in employment tribunals. Does she therefore think that the Government should have awaited the outcome of the Leggatt review on tribunals before introducing changes to the employment tribunal regime?
  Ms Walley: That is a very interesting question, and, in the interests of ensuring joined-up government, it might
  882
  have been worth awaiting the long-term results of action taken by the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Department of Trade and Industry. The real world, however, does not work quite like that. It is critical that the Government should act as they have done whenever an opportunity and slot to legislate comes along, and especially when there are injustices that need to be addressed, women are waiting for paid maternity leave, and we want to introduce paternity leave. The Government have made their necessary proposals. They may need to be reviewed in he fullness of time, but if they are, I hope that it is done sensibly.
  I also ask Ministers to consider the location of employment tribunals. In my constituency, employees and employers who become involved in an employment tribunal have to go to Shrewsbury. I cannot think of any other reason—although I am sure that hon. Members from Shrewsbury could give me one—why anyone in my area would go to Shrewsbury. This morning I checked the bus timetables, and they showed that one would have to catch a 6.50 am bus to arrive at 8.45 am in Shrewsbury. The next bus would arrive too late for the start of the tribunal. Moreover, a train journey to Shrewsbury requires a change at Crewe and would take longer than a train journey to Birmingham. Incidentally, a bus journey from Stoke-on-Trent takes longer to Shrewsbury than to London.
  I simply wonder whether the location of many employment tribunals is no longer convenient, and whether we should consider siting them better in many constituencies so that we can better meet people's needs. That would do much to improve knowledge about the work of employment tribunals and how they are used.
  I have consistently supported proposals to assist the resolution of disputes in the workplace. I welcome the principle of statutory disciplinary and grievance procedures, because that would encourage employers to adhere to appropriate disciplinary procedures and employees to follow that grievance procedure. It is right that a dismissal will automatically be found to be unfair if the statutory disciplinary procedure has not been followed.
  The problem with the statutory disciplinary procedure is that it is simply an empty shell. It contains no requirement for the employer to hold a fair hearing, other than to set out allegations and hold a meeting. There is no requirement to investigate the allegation, no reference to questioning of witnesses and no mention of rights of representation. Given the fact that ACAS has a well thought out code of practice that employers have been encouraged to follow, perhaps we could reconsider those two different sets of recommended disciplinary procedures during the Bill's passage, and try to satisfy some of the wishes expressed by Opposition Members for more simplified regulation of business.
  Mrs. Betty Williams: On that point and on the question of review, does my hon. Friend agree that a review of the Employment Relations Act 1999 is necessary, especially in view of the experiences of some of my constituents employed at the Friction Dynamics

  883
  factory in north-west Wales? They were sacked by a ruthless employer, a move that has involved them in a long-drawn-out appeal before an employment tribunal.
  Ms Walley: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend, and if that review were to take place, I hope that she would have an opportunity to ensure that the views of her constituents were represented.
  The second problem with the statutory disciplinary procedure is that it incorporates a modified procedure to deal with summary dismissal for gross misconduct. That procedure contains only two steps and differs from the standard procedure in that no provision is made for any kind of hearing. Has it been assumed that summary dismissal is synonymous with instant dismissal? I was under the impression that summary dismissal referred to dismissal without notice. When the Minister replies to the debate, I would be grateful if he would address that point.
  Another important issue is the failure of employers to provide written statements of terms and conditions. From the cases in my constituency, I know that that is one of the major stumbling blocks to the resolution of disputes in the workplace. Current legislation requires employers to issue written statements in the first two months of employment. In view of the briefing that I—and many other hon. Members—have received from the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, perhaps we could find a way to ensure that employers issue those written documents when required, because the Bill contains no right to make a free-standing complaint to a tribunal about the absence of a written statement. I do not want to make more work or create more bureaucracy, but it is important that both employer and employee have a written statement. If it is not issued, the solution may be for people to request it once they know more about their rights. I hope that the changes introduced will achieve that, but it will not happen in the prevailing culture.
  Reference has been made to clause 45. I welcome many of the Bill's provisions and I was interested in the comments by the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford about gold plating. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on the gold plating in respect of fixed-term workers. I am pleased that the Bill will grant the Secretary of State the power to make regulations that will give effect to the directive on fixed-term work. I am especially pleased that the regulations will go further than the directive and prevent pay and pension discrimination against fixed-term employees. I give praise where praise is due.
  I am slightly disappointed, however, that the proposed regulations will apply to the narrow definition of "employee", rather than the broader category of "worker" and I support the intervention made earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd) on that issue. The regulations affecting part-time workers apply to the broader category of workers, and the directive that gives effect to part-time work regulations and the directive that gives effect to the fixed-term work regulations contain identical definitions of "worker". On logical and, perhaps, on legal grounds, it is unsatisfactory for the proposed fixed-term work regulations to have restricted application. That would give rise to uncertainty and confusion for workers and employers and I wonder whether the Secretary of State's forthcoming review might be completed in time to go hand in hand with the Bill.
  884
  On the extension of employment protection rights, it is the workers who do not fall under the legislative definition of employee, such as casual workers, agency workers, home workers and contract workers, who are among the most vulnerable members of our work force. I see from cases in my constituency surgery that those workers are a fast growing category, but they have the least protection in terms of employment rights. The broader category of workers is protected under the working time regulations, the national minimum wage legislation, the sex, race and disability legislation, the part-time workers regulations and by the right to be accompanied at disciplinary and grievance procedures and, hearings. However, key rights restricted to the narrow definition of employees include the right to claim unfair dismissal, the right to claim a redundancy payment and the right to take maternity leave. It is wrong that some workers should be denied those rights at work simply because of the category into which they fall. I hope that the Government will consider the extension of employment protection rights to all workers to reduce some of the unfairness inherent in the system.
  UCATT recently carried out a survey of bogus self-employed workers. Perhaps this is the time to consider their situation and to consider in further detail the concerns of some in the public sector about a twin-track system of employment. Unison has made proposals for a fair wages clause, in relation to the TUPP: regulations, and I hope that the Government will consider including such provision.
  I am grateful for the chance to contribute to the debate. More and more people come to my surgery who are experiencing real problems at work and the Bill will make some real and significant improvements. It will be good for British business and the people who work in British business. I look forward to further detailed discussion during the Bill's progress.
  6.49 pm
  Dr. Vincent Cable: In general, the Liberal Democrats broadly support the Bill and, in particular, the key elements of tribunal reform and family-friendly employment are a step forward. However, when I talk to the key representative organisations, whether on the business or on the union side, it is obvious that they are unhappy about some aspects of the Bill. My assessment is that unions' unhappiness about the clauses that relate to them roughly cancels out the unhappiness felt by the Engineering Employers Federation about the provisions that relate to them. In that sense the Bill is well balanced, but there is clearly work to be done in Standing Committee, where detailed legislative points will have to be taken into account.
  Employers have made two general comments about the Bill. First, they have said that there is no case at present for major, far-reaching labour legislation. One reason for that is that labour relations in this country are generally very good these days. Even though low levels of unemployment could create a lot of wage pressure, that pressure has not manifested itself. In addition, there are very few stoppages at present—about one fifth as many as in the 1970s and 1980s. There are various reasons for that, one of them being a structural move towards small firms and services. Also, one has to acknowledge that, to an extent, the labour reforms introduced by the previous Conservative Government have made a contribution,

  885
  and the unions now have a much more constructive approach towards working in a positive way with employers. The cultural change in the trade union movement has to be acknowledged.
  The second general point is that employers are concerned about over-regulation. I share some of the worries expressed by the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale), but he came dangerously close to arguing against regulation, as such. Regulation is not the problem: the problem is the way in which it is carried through.
  The classic example of bad regulation in employment matters is the working time directive. It is bad because neither employers nor trade unions were consulted when the regulatory detail was being drafted. In effect, the parliamentary draftsmen and officials at the Department of Trade and Industry were let loose, and produced an enormously convoluted set of detailed regulation running to some 80 pages. If they had talked to their partners on both sides of industry they would have learned, among other things, that one page of instructions had sufficed in Holland. That was gold plating on an epic scale, and the experience has left behind a lot of ill will.
  I regret that the Secretary of State has left the Chamber, as it appears that the Government want to counter some of the ill will generated by over-complex regulation by making somewhat hamfisted pro-business initiatives. The most recent was the announcement that senior business people would be seconded to operational jobs in the Department of Trade and Industry.
  That initiative is appallingly badly thought out and dangerous, for many reasons. For example, if I were a trade unionist I should be extremely alarmed that an employer with a dubious labour relations record could in future draft employment legislation.
  Mr. Chaytor: Does not the hon. Gentleman accept that that initiative establishes the interesting precedent that, in the future, leading trade unionists might also be seconded to the Department?
  Dr. Cable: To be frank, I do not think that that would be any better. What is required is an element of neutrality and detachment in the people who give advice and prepare legislation. The initiative sets a very bad precedent. I have worked in a big company, and I know that people from big companies tend to have no background in small business and do not understand its concerns. They will always be suspected of representing their companies' sectional interests. The initiative is a very bad way to counter the ill will generated by inappropriate legislation.
  I turn now to specific elements of the Bill. The core provisions of its family-friendly sections—the new paternity rights, and extended maternity leave and pay—seem very sensible, both in terms of their benefits for families and in terms of the economy.
  The modern British economy faces the potentially long-term problem of increasing the supply of skilled and unskilled workers. Much of that supply will have to come from older workers who have retired prematurely, and from women who, traditionally, have taken long and often involuntary absences from employment. Any provisions such as maternity and paternity rights that make it more
  886
  comfortable for women to return to work should be welcomed and encouraged, as long as they are properly balanced.
  We must get away from th3 old-fashioned attitude to parental leave. That attitude was captured in the story—I am sure that it is apocryphal—of the naval rating who asked his senior officer for a little time off to attend the birth of his child. The rating was told that he had totally misunderstood his duties as a naval officer, and that they meant that he had to be present when the keel was laid but not when the ship was launched. Too many employers have applied the moral of that story to the families of employees for too long.
  Some of the more critical comments made about the Bill have captured the practical problems that it poses. Some small employers—and not through bloody-mindedness or obscurantist attitudes—have genuine difficulty in accommodating absence. I welcome the small provision in the Bill that requires that the paternity leave be taken in a block, with the result that it is less disruptive. I hope that consideration will also be given to ways of ensuring that people taking such leave signal their intent well in advance, so as to give employers adequate notice. In small ways such as that, the provisions in the Bill can be made much more palatable to employers.
  I was a little confused about what the Secretary of State said about flexible working. The logic beginning to emerge from the commission that the right hon. Lady established was that workers should not merely have the right to ask for flexible working, but that they should have the right to have a request considered sympathetically. In addition, it suggests that employers should be required to make a commercial case if they have to refuse a request for leave. If that commercial case were not made adequately, an employee would have the right to go to a tribunal.
  If I heard the Secretary of State correctly, she did not confirm that such provisions would appear in the Bill. She seemed to say that there would be a probationary period of indefinite length before the Government took action, as she put it. I hope that the Minister for Employment and the Regions, when he replies to the debate, will say whether the more balanced approach that I have outlined, and which includes the right to a tribunal hearing, will be incorporated in the Bill, or whether it will merely be an eventual recourse.
  The Minister is nodding, which suggests that that balanced approach will be contained in the Bill. If that is so, I welcome it.
  The third element in the Bill that relates to family-friendliness but which is distinctly unfriendly to families is clause 47. The hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford rightly said that the Bill is being used to introduce bits of welfare reform that are completely unrelated to its overall logic. I will go further, and say that the provisions are not only inappropriate but extremely reactionary. I suspect that the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is trying to get another Secretary of State's fingerprints on the weapon that he is using to attack the rights of disabled people.
  The clause will mean that, in future, the partners of disabled people in receipt of a variety of disability benefits will be required to submit to the work test. If they fail that test, as currently defined, benefit sanctions will ensue.

  887
  That worries us deeply, because there is no evidence that the process will encourage disabled people's partners to work. However, there is a lot of evidence to suggest that many such partners, although they are not being paid, are working, in the sense that they are carers. Driving those people into work would be inhumane in some cases, and enormously costly to the state, which would have to fulfil the caring responsibilities.
  Those familiar with the way in which the present incapacity benefit tests work know that some cases of real hardship are being generated. That is especially true for people with degenerative illnesses such as early Alzheimer's disease or Parkinson's disease, motor neurone disease or multiple sclerosis. In such cases, the early diagnosis of disablement does not entitle people to the higher levels of incapacity benefit.
  There is a danger that many of the people who care for sufferers of such diseases will be pushed out to work, at a time that will be exactly wrong in terms of their caring obligations. I am worried that the good that the Government are doing with the more progressive family-friendly elements in the Bill will be countered by that extremely retrograde and damaging provision in clause 47. We shall vehemently oppose those provisions.
  Mr. Prisk: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the clause is deeply intrusive with regard to the relationship of a couple, as defined in the Bill?
  Dr. Cable: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We are no longer concerned about the work test for disabled people but about the way in which they balance their family relationships and caring responsibilities. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will support our objection to the clause when it is debated.
  There has been a substantial escalation in the number of tribunal referrals—something like 25 per cent. in the past year and 300 per cent. in the past decade—along with substantial associated costs. I have read some of the analytical work on tribunals, and it is clear that this is not simply a question of people becoming more litigious or trade unions becoming more aggressive.
  There are good reasons why more references are made to tribunals. For example, there are more women in the work force, and, as many of their problems are not addressed through existing procedures, they have to go to tribunals. Many tribunal references relate to redundancies in manufacturing industry which have been taking place on a large scale. A growing proportion of people work in small enterprises which often do not have these internal dispute settlement procedures, hence the need for tribunal references. So there are good reasons for this rising curve of tribunal activity—it is not necessarily a matter of blame.
  The Government are right to say that there must be obligatory use of an internal dispute settlement procedure. There is consensus on that among employers and trade unions, and it would be a big step forward. I think that the Government are also tight to have backed down on their proposal to impose fees for using a tribunal. That could have penalised many low-income people, particularly those making repeat appearances. I am glad that the Government have listened to the criticisms of that proposal.
  There are problems regarding tribunals which we will explore in Committee. However, I will refer to some of the queries that have been raised with me. The legislation
  888
  seems to contain a new screening procedure. At first sight, it seems sensible that cases do not automatically go through to a full tribunal hearing but have to be screened. It seems sensible to get rid of vexatious litigants. However, as I understand it, there is already a requirement to place a deposit and many people who do so subsequently win their tribunal hearings. It would be good to hear evidence from the Government about that experience before they press ahead with a new and more complicated procedure.
  The other doubts that I have about this, which the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) and others have also mentioned, relate to cost orders. It seems sensible to tell people that there must be discipline and they must take account of the cost. However, it is all too easy to understand how someone in a dispute, particularly involving a large company, would put on the balance sheet the cost of half a day with the director of human resources, who is paid £100,000 a year, and a couple of QCs. The cost could quickly become astronomical, prohibitive and inequitable. That aspect of costings needs careful consideration.
  It was clear from the consultations I have had on the Bill that there is a lot of unhappiness on the business side about the compulsion element of learning representation. Businesses are concerned that they are being asked to pay for—not simply to accept—learning representatives, some of whom might use their position to take an aggressive approach to industrial relations and destabilise them. That is the argument. My view is that that concern is probably overstated, one reason being that these rights will apply only in unionised companies, many of which will not have such learning representation. On balance, the provisions are probably about right, but the Government will have to deal with employers' concerns.
  To conclude, I think that the Bill is balanced and represents a step forward. We shall support it. However, I agree with the amendment in one respect. We must be careful that secondary legislation does not produce a plethora of red tape such as that which we have seen all too frequently in the past.
  7.4 pm
  Mr. Frank Doran: I start by declaring an interest. I am a member of the GMB and secretary of the GMB parliamentary group.
  I have another interest to declare. We have heard much from Opposition Members about the problems of business, particularly small business. I used to run a small business when I practised as a solicitor; I employed about 10 people before I came to this House first in 1987. I agree to some extent about the problems of small businesses and the difficulties caused by any change in legislation. People in business want stability and certainty. Even good regulations made me unhappy because I had to spend some time thinking about how to manage their implementation. However, we must balance that against the interests of employees. The Bill contains some important provisions, which I welcome.
  Mr. Prisk: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that his qualification as a solicitor made him uniquely qualified to deal with many such proposals? Many people who go into

  889
  business, whether they run a local post office or a corner shop, are not as qualified and therefore will struggle with the proposals.
  Mr. Doran: I have practical experience of the fact that the gardener's garden is usually the untidiest one in the street. Somebody in the office looked after those matters for me.
  My experience is relevant, but I want to concentrate on two aspects of the Bill with which I am less comfortable: both have been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) and, in his intervention on the Secretary of State, by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd).
  I am concerned about the provisions that will lead to greater formalisation of the employment tribunal system. I worked for 10 years as a solicitor and was involved in many tribunal cases, mostly under the provisions of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974. I know that the system has changed and that there have been modifications, but the basic principles have not changed.
  The 1974 Act was about accessibility. It allowed workers to present cases relatively informally and ensured that workplace grievances had an outlet. It did not change the basic relationship between an employer and an employee. In the absence of clear statutory guidance, courts and tribunals interpreted that relationship in the context of the common law, which militated against the interests of employees. The common law provisions, with which I am sure most people are familiar, were fairly straightforward. The employer had the right to hire and the right to fire—full stop. There was not a lot in between. The employment tribunal system introduced under the 1974 Act was extremely important as it gave rights to employees for the first time.
  I had a glorious start in the old industrial tribunal system. In my very first case, I represented an employer. When I look back at the case now, as a Labour MP, I take a bit of pride in it. The tribunal decided to make an award of compensation against the employer, and at that time it was the largest ever made against an employer by a tribunal in Scotland: no class betrayal there, then.
  I acted for employees as well as employers. I represented many trade unions. As most Members know, trade union officers tend to conduct their own industrial tribunal cases, but for their more complex ones they employed legal advisers. I was privileged to represent trade unions in a number of cases.
  Mr. Hammond: Given the hon. Gentleman's background and experience in this field, how does he feel about the proposals to make third-party representatives personally liable for awards of costs when they are remunerated, as in the case of a solicitor, but not when they are unremunerated, as in the case of a union representative?
  Mr. Doran: If the hon. Gentleman wants an honest answer, I would have to say that it is not such a good idea and will be difficult to implement in practice.
  When I represented employees—in many cases, former employees—I experienced some difficulties. Access was relatively easy for the employee. There was no legal aid
  890
  scheme for the tribunal hearing, although at that time most solicitors who were prepared to engage in such work on behalf of employees were able to make fairly constructive use of the legal advice and assistance scheme. The schemes in Scotland and in England were slightly different, but the difference was not so great as to be relevant.
  The case could be prepared under the legal advice scheme, usually with extensions of the basic limit. Representation was on a no-win, no-fee basis, which put considerable pressure on the agent to try to find a settlement. I certainly felt such pressure when acting for employees. ACAS—the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service—was involved, and we tried to negotiate in many cases and were usually successful.
  It is wrong to proceed on the basis that the fault always lies with the employee. In my 10 years of practice, I handled many cases in which employers refused to negotiate—-partly because they were that kind of employer, but partly because their legal advice suggested that they should not settle. In many cases, employers did not come across with an offer until the eve of the tribunal. Many people might suggest that they did so because they had realised that the legal costs were ticking away, but usually offers had been made and employers had refused to accept them.
  My only industrial tribunal case that resulted in the award of expenses against anyone involved an employer in exactly that situation. That fact is important. I was concerned when I read the consultation document—"Routes to resolution: improving dispute resolution in Britain"—published earlier this year, because its language suggests that employees are the problem.
  I was also concerned about the report's use of the word "litigation". Lawyers have taken over the industrial tribunal, mainly because employers have become so defensive and have brought them in. It is not unusual to go into an industrial tribunal and see a row of QCs, not because they are necessary or because the cases are of such legal complexity, but because employers have decided that they or the business require that level of advice. Any push that the Government give towards increasing the degree of formality in the Bill will cause serious problems for the tribunal system. It will have to adjust to the participation of many more lawyers and to a new ethos.
  The current ethos is not unhelpful to the unrepresented applicant. I have been on the other side of a tribunal from an unrepresented applicant and, in my experience, chairmen bend over backwards to help such people, ensuring that, even when they do not understand the legal complexities, they receive as much help as necessary. I have seen union officers helped in the same way.
  I was consulted recently by a woman—she has asked me not to give her name—who had cause to take her employer, a public body, to an industrial tribunal. She decided that, as the public body was employing solicitors and a QC, she, too, needed legal representation. For a three-week tribunal hearing, she received a legal bill for £42,000. That is a recent case. She was fortunate in that she could afford to pay that amount, although it has taken most of her savings, but if that is where the industrial tribunal system is heading, the ethos that was introduced and practised after the 1974 Act will disappear.

  891
  The Law Society of England's briefing on the Bill states:
  "In our view the reforms in the Bill will increase complexity and make it less likely that employment tribunals could ever return to the simplicity envisaged by Leggatt."
  It is instructive that the Law Society makes such comments. Many of its members who make money from industrial tribunals will be happy with those remarks, which should be welcomed as an honest assessment.
  Colleagues have mentioned the Leggatt report. I find it difficult to understand why we cannot wait for the report before implementing legislation, although I appreciate the difficulties of the parliamentary timetable. I accept the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North about the practicalities of government, but it would be helpful if the Minister could assure us that, if the Leggatt report—which will be issued before the conclusion of the Bill's passage—makes specific recommendations about the employment tribunal system and on the increased formality and greater legalisation of that system, he will find time to consider how such recommendations might be implemented. The Secretary of State has already warned us that we might be asked to accept several amendments, so it would be helpful if we could have some assurance about the implementation of the Leggatt recommendations.
  Mr. Mark Francois: The hon. Gentleman touches on an important point. Does he agree that if one of the original intentions of the industrial tribunal system was to protect employees, there is now—especially given what he says—a real danger that the system will become so complex and so expensive that it could have the opposite effect?
  Mr. Doran: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, but the system is already complex. Last night, I spent some time in the Library trying to read through some industrial relations cases; the system is extremely complex and is difficult for the layman to understand. The key is the removal of barriers to access. Employers will not welcome that, but the importance of a safety valve for grievances in the workplace cannot be underestimated.
  Another of my concerns has been raised by my hon. Friends the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North and for Manchester, Central: the definition of worker and employee. That may seem a pedantic point and not one that should detain us, but that is not the case. Definition of the individuals who will benefit from the legislation is fundamental to it.
  I want to take the House back to the publication of the "Fairness at work" White Paper, which introduced some basic principles and set out the way in which the Government intended to legislate. I was fortunate to serve as the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the then Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry and, because of my legal background, was involved in many of the policy discussions and preparations. I sat in on the presentation made by the TUC and the CBI to the then Secretary of State.
  Before the publication of the White Paper, the Government had, in effect, said to the unions and the CBI: "These are the parameters, go off and sort out what you can agree on, what you don't agree on but think you can negotiate on, and what you positively can't agree on. Then
  892
  come back to us and we will proceed." The hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) recommended the same process of: consultation between both sides of industry.
  At the presentation, everyone in the room was taken aback at the degree to which the CBI and the TUC were able to find agreement. That was an important occasion: for both sides of industry to move forward in that way was a landmark in industrial relations. That was recognised in the White Paper.
  Paragraph 1.9 of the White Paper set out the three main elements of the framework that the Government proposed for industrial relations. The first was
  "provision for the basic fair treatment of employees. Unless minimum rights are established, effective relationships in companies cannot prosper. The White Paper establishes new ground rules for fair treatment, allowing employees to form effective relationships with employers—including new rights which recognise the changing nature of work. People must not be deterred from contributing to competitiveness through flexible working arrangements."
  What was recognised in the White Paper and what the Government implemented in subsequent legislation was the principle that the work force needed to be flexible to compete in the modern age and that business sought that flexibility, but that there had to be a basic level of minimum standards in the workplace. One of those basic: minimum standards was the need to ensure that legal devices could not be used to exclude workers from the benefits of the legislation that was subsequently implemented.
  One of the most fundamental ways in which that was done was to get away from the old common-law definitions of employer and employee. The concept of "a worker" was introduced under the National Minimum Wage Act 1998, and the categories of worker to whom the Act would extend were clearly defined. At a stroke, all the legal devices that had been created by employers—home working, agency working, part-time working, casual working—came within the ambit of the minimum wage legislation. Those devices were not excluded; employers could not use them to argue that their workers were not entitled to the minimum wage.
  That definition of the term "worker", adjusted for various purposes, was applied to other legislation—the Employment Relations Act 1999 and regulations on working time—introduced mostly because of European social chapter obligations. The definition has continued and it represents the fundamental protection for workers. I am deeply concerned that the Bill contains a different definition of the persons to whom it will apply.
  I am not sure whether I have got the numbering right—it is so complicated—but under clause 2 and proposed new section 171ZJ to the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992, employees are described as those
  "gainfully employed in Great Britain either under a contract of service or in an office (including elective office)"—
  so it will apply to us as Members of Parliament—
  "with emoluments chargeable to income tax under Schedule E".
  Tribunals and courts will once again be encouraged to apply the Bill to a much more narrowly defined group of people. That will open the door to unscrupulous employers to extend the use of home workers, agency workers and so on.
  Mr. Hammond: The hon. Gentleman has twice implied that unscrupulous employers seek to define

  893
  workers other than as employees. Will he consider the fact that the national health service is probably the largest employer of agency workers, who are not employees, in this country?
  Mr. Doran: The NHS is a good employer that recognises its unions, regularly negotiates terms and conditions and ensures that agency employees have minimum standards. That is crucial, but many employers will not operate in that way. All those various categories were created, on the basis of legal advice, to avoid giving workers the full benefit of the legislation.
  Mr. Lloyd: Does my hon. Friend agree that this is an important debate because its thrust is not to say that different employment structures are illegitimate, but to offer legitimate protection to those who are not brought within the ambit of the law? That is the implication of my hon. Friend's remarks, but I am rather worried about the Opposition's intentions.
  Mr. Doran: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend; we are as one on that. It is important that we get back to basic principles. That is why I referred to "Fairness at work", which contains fundamental principles; my worry is that we shall move away from them under the Bill. I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State said that there would be a review, but my worry is that the Bill's reintroduction of the term "employee" will lead some people to pre-empt the decision that she makes in the review.
  We certainly do not want to introduce the possibility that the fundamental protections for workers that we have introduced under the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 and the Employment Relations Act 1999 could be weakened. There are many good things in the Bill. I have raised two issues that need to be seriously addressed by the Government, but, of course, I support the Bill in principle.
  7.25 pm
  Mr. Mark Prisk: At the beginning of this debate, the Secretary of State said that the Bill is friendly to families. It is true to say that the Bill sets out a range of improved maternity rights, new paternity rights and rights for adoptive parents. Like many or my Opposition colleagues, I certainly welcome any acknowledgement of the role of fathers. Over the years, bolstering and supporting the role of fathers has been neglected, and there has been an understandable focus on motherhood. It is important, however, that we try to encourage fatherhood wherever we can, through policies and positive role models. I welcome the acknowledgment of that fact in the Bill.
  A further point is recognition of the crucial role of single fathers. Very often, when we talk about single parents, we assume that we are talking about single mothers, so it is important that we recognise the role of single fathers. I want to ensure that they are not overlooked in any way. I acknowledge the importance of adoptive families and the fact that they will be included in the legislation. It is sadly still the case that, even now, too few people are willing to come forward as adoptive parents. Anything that can be done to promote adoptive parents is important, and I commend the recognition of that fact in the Bill.
  894
  However, the Bill is distinctly unfriendly to a very large number of families. The hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable), who is not in his place, has already mentioned the intrusive nature of clause 47, with regard to families who have disabled members. Although I support his view, there is another very important and large group of families to whom the Bill is rather negative. I am referring to the 4 million self-employed families, who work long hours each week and try to bring up their children. Those families often live and work in the same place and find that, to comply with many of the Government's regulations, they have to work right through their weekends or evenings, so they are not able to spend time with their children.
  Indeed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) said, most small businesses now expect to spend 48 hours—five normal working days—each month trying to keep up with the raft of proposed regulations. That involves days lost at weekends and evenings lost with children—a very important matter for those families. I suspect that hon. Members on both sides of the House will know the families to whom I refer—the husband and wife who run the local post office; the father and daughter on the farm; the two brothers who may provide a local plumbing or decorating service; or the local family butchers. Many of those businesses have been handed down from one generation to the next.
  My father set up and ran his own business, so I know all too well that, no matter what age those involved may be, they are always involved in the success or trials of the business. Thus, the nature of work and family is intertwined in every self-employed home. Those families—the self-employed, the small business proprietor—represent not only the hard work and enterprise that the Government are trying to promote, but the kind of close family relationships that we are all keen to support. It is therefore with great sadness that I have to say that many of the Bill's proposals represent an unwelcome and unhelpful burden for the self-employed and small businesses.
  The House will know that, even before the Bill's provisions were outlined family businesses already had to cope with a raft of regulations affecting the employment of staff in a variety of ways. In many senses, small businesses are now not only unpaid tax collectors, but unpaid benefit officers.
  I suspect that those who do not run a business or have no direct experience of doing so will assume that the only thing with which small businesses need to concern themselves is compliance with regulations. I wish that were true. In reality, small businesses are required to administer many of the regulations. For example, the stakeholder pension scheme costs small businesses £15 million per annum; the working families tax credit costs them £105 million every year to administer; and the student loan repayment schemes costs them £210 million per annum. The national minimum wage costs £330 million, and that does not include the money that goes into the staff's pockets; it is simply the administrative costs that fall on small businesses. We will now have the cost of administering the new regulations set out in the Bill.
  Mr. Kevan Jones: The hon. Gentleman says that the minimum wage is a burden on small businesses. Is the Conservative party now opposed to the national minimum wage?
  Mr. Prisk: If the hon. Gentleman had listened, he would have realised that my point was about the administrative costs involved. When the Government put forward apparently generous social programmes, they often fail to mention the fact that they do not administer them. The burden of administration falls on small businesses. That is the bas s of my criticism.
  Mr. Lloyd: This is a fascinating little lecture. The hon. Gentleman has used the minimum wage as an example of the burden of regulation, but my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) was right to suggest that the Opposition now support it. What is the cost to an employer of checking the present rate of the minimum wage and paying it?
  Mr. Prisk: The key point with the minimum wage is that the administration of regulations involves not just the process of putting systems in place, but proprietors' time in ensuring that they comply with them. That is the challenge, and I say that as someone who has had the opportunity to run his own business.
  The Government's figures for the Bill say that the cost to business will be £369 million in the first year alone. In years two, three, four and for ever after, the costs will be £272 million each year. If that were not enough, the Government have admitted that small businesses will again disproportionately have to bear the brunt of the proposals. [Interruption.] I hope that the Minister for Employment and the Regions is listening.
  The Minister for Pensions (Mr. Ian McCartney): My hon. Friend always listens.
  Mr. Prisk: It is nice to know that.
  Earlier today, the Chancellor said that he intended at some stage to recognise the costs of the working families tax credit on small firms. I welcome that small step, even though I had hoped that he would recognise those costs today. Sadly, he has not. However, given that a precedent has been set, will the Minister for Employment and the Regions advise the House whether he proposes to help small family firms with the cost of administering the proposals in this Bill? I would welcome his comments on that.
  Some will say that the proposals in the Bill are driven in part by what comes from the European Union and the social chapter regulations—I think here particularly of the fixed-term contract provisions in clause 45. However, if the Government are simply following EU requests, why have they chosen specifically to include pay and pensions in the terms of the Bill? My hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford said that pay and pensions requirements are not included in the directive, but they have been added to the Bill. Such gold plating of European legislation is very unwelcome for the simple reason that it puts United Kingdom businesses at a disadvantage. That should concern all Members.
  My worry with these over-prescriptive measures is that, in many different ways, they will put our businesses, large and small, at a disadvantage. For the majority of people
  896
  who work for decent, small, local family firms, they are an unwelcome and unnecessary intrusion into the good working relationship between employer and employee. Heavy-handed Government interference can only ever be counterproductive in the workplace.
  The Bill is certainly right to acknowledge the difficulties of balancing work and family life. However, it has not been drawn up with the good of self-employed families in mind. For those 4 million households, the regulations will simply bring additional costs that they can ill afford. The red tape created by the regulations will rob people of many hours that could be better spent with their families or making the business more successful. These measures will also make those who work for small businesses—they currently represent nearly 40 per cent. of all employees in the private sector—more expensive to employ.
  For all those reasons, the Bill will hinder some families as much as it will help others. It will deter many local firms from creating the jobs that all families need and, in making family firms pay to run the schemes, the Government are setting self-employed families against their staff. That is why I specifically ask the Minister to give serious consideration to excluding the smallest family businesses from the burdens that the Bill represents. Give them a chance to compete and families the chance to get together. I appreciate the intention behind the Bill but, when we talk about family-friendly policies, we must consider not just those in salaried work but the 4 million self-employed families who play such an invaluable role in local communities and in creating jobs in all our constituencies.
  7.37 pm
  Mr. Tony Lloyd: In the light of earlier comments, I should declare my interests. I am a member of the GMB union and the chairman of the trade union group of Labour MPs. I say that with considerable pride, because trade unionism is a staple feature of modern Britain. It is widely accepted that the trade unions play an invaluable role in the social partnership that the Government have sought to build.
  The debate so far has been marked by the views of Conservative Members, who have relapsed into an oldspeak that describes a world that does not exist. We heard enough of that when they were in government. However, ramblings such as those of the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) are now confined to the hypothetical. They will not be in government for a considerable time.
  The high noon of the speech of the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford occurred when he began to whip up an anti-parent rhetoric. Perhaps the Tories see their future as an anti-parent party representing those workers without children who deeply resent the rights given to those with children. That would be dangerous if it were not so silly.
  The Bill will extend welcome rights to people with families and will give people in the workplace the opportunity to consider more flexible working arrangements. Working relationships that are in the interests of employees and their families are probably in the interests of employers as well as society more generally.
  Mr. Hammond: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that this Bill, which will greatly improve the position of fathers and mothers in the workplace, involves the making of choices? Other employees in the same workplace will also be carers—although not of children—and they will not be advantaged in the same way.
  Mr. Lloyd: If that is the general thrust of the Opposition's argument, it might find some sympathy on the Labour Benches, but there is a world of difference between that and trying to whip up anti-parent rhetoric, which seemed to be the intent of the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford.
  We are extending legitimate rights based on what we now accept as understandable demands. They are not necessarily requested by people who will benefit from them now. Those who did not have the facilities available when they were parents are also interested in providing them. The Government will receive a strong welcome for the proposals from Labour Members, the country as a whole and, perhaps, some Members on the Opposition Front Bench.
  We heard, grudging comments about red tape from Opposition Members who suggested that the Government are imposing a burden on business, but it is nothing of the kind. People will welcome the extension of maternity pay and maternity leave, and they will strongly welcome the introduction of proper paternity pay and paternity leave. In fairness, the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk) said that he welcomed the extension of leave for adoptive parents. The Government are making strong and sensible moves.
  Mr. Prisk: What would the hon. Gentleman say to a newsagent in my constituency, Mrs. Moy, who suddenly found that the costs of her part-time staff doubled? She has no means of recouping the costs of enforcing employment regulations, because all her prices are fixed. How is she meant to run a business when the regulations add to her burdens? She does not have a legal department or the relevant expertise. She has to deal with the regulations day in, day out.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that interventions must be brief.
  Mr. Lloyd: Unfortunately, Madam Deputy Speaker, I think you interrupted the hon. Gentleman before he made his real point. I cannot say why Mrs. Moy is experiencing those problems, although I advise her to get another MP who would be more succinct in putting her case.
  As well as the provisions for the different types of parental leave, I also strongly welcome the introduction of union learning representatives. That is an important step forward. We know that we do not train enough, or train properly, in the world of work. That has been a feature for many years in Britain and we have to address that fundamental problem. The right of trade unionists to have learning representatives is widely welcomed throughout the world of work, both by employees and by those employers who are rational about the problem, although there are strong arguments on the need for more affirmative action in training.
  The wonderful concept of the gold plating of the fixed-term contract directive is only in the minds of Conservative Members. Most people would accept that it
  898
  is common justice for people who have different types of employment contracts to be offered equivalent pay and pensions. It is also a sensible thing to do in terms of an efficiently labour market. It prevents the bad employer from using a legal device to undercut the better employer. That has been an issue for a long time, ever since the debate on the wages councils, which Winston Churchill introduced many years ago. We should take the argument seriously. I am pleased with and proud of the Government for recognising that concern in the progress that they have made on the fixed-term contract directive.
  There are, however, some things that I hope we will consider in Committee and during the Bill's proceedings in general, in order to improve it. My hon. Friend the hon. Member for Aberdeen, Central (Mr. Doran) talked at length about the employee/worker split. It is an important consideration that permeates industrial legislation and will exercise the mind of anyone who examines the issues. It was not ignored when the minimum wage was introduced, because we used a wider definition of worker. It is understood that problems emerge if we stick with the narrow definition of employee.
  Three aspects of the Bill use the more restrictive employee definition instead of the worker definition, which I regret. In terms of the implementation of the fixed-term directive, the various types of parental pay and the disciplinary procedures, some rights will not be extended to a significant number of people who are de facto employees even if they are not so defined by the letter of the law. I hope that we will debate those matters in Committee and consider extending employment protection to everyone engaged in productive employment.
  I also hope that we will examine aspects of employment tribunal legislation in Committee. My hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) and for Aberdeen, Central made some telling points about the ways in which we can improve the Bill. In particular, I draw the Minister's attention to charges and costs. I strongly welcome the Government's decision not to proceed with charges, because they would be a disincentive for people to go before the tribunals. It was interesting that the Opposition saw that as a major issue and urged that charges he reconsidered. I hope that they will not pursue that, because we know that charges have a deterrent effect.
  My hon. Friend knows that I did not have the highest opinion of the increased costs that were introduced earlier this year. As the Government managed to slide them through somewhere before the end of the previous Parliament and the beginning of the new Parliament, they were not perhaps properly examined by us. I hope that we will not fall into that trap, with the possibility of adding on costs for employers' time. It is important that we recognise that costs can have a deterrent effect.
  I draw my hon. Friend's attention to a case that I think I have mentioned to him before. Two women, Ms C and Ms D, work together in a company and were both sexually harassed by the managing director. I am sure that the House accepts that workers should be given proper protection against sexual predation by senior staff. They both rejected the managing director's propositions and eventually complained about his behaviour. One of them was sacked for gross misconduct after she arrived late at

  899
  work one day and the second was also sacked, although it was termed as redundancy. They made claims for sex discrimination with the help of the local law centre.
  The employer's solicitor sent a letter to the law centre threatening costs, explaining that it was likely that substantial sums will be awarded
  "against people who bring claims on the spurious grounds of discrimination, such as we are sure you will alert your client can be up to £50,000."
  The solicitor acting for the employer is wrong about the amount of the cost. However, the same letter threatened to sue the two women for libel and perjury, and they were anxious as a result, which is not an unnatural reaction to intimidation by a solicitor. Indeed, there are questions about the probity of the solicitor's actions. The women's representative at the law centre took the letter up with the employer's solicitor, who said that it was standard practice to nip such cases in the bud. The last I knew, that case was ongoing.
  My point is that there was a clear attempt by a solicitor to intimidate and put people off gaining access to a tribunal. We should deplore that and recognise that costs can and are being used to prevent access. I hope that my hon. Friend will recognise the strong feelings on the Labour Benches about the possible deterrent effect of costs.
  Mr. Hammond: I understand what the hon. Gentleman says, and no one would support such conduct by a solicitor. However, will he recognise that many employers face vexatious and trivial claims, which is exactly what the changes in the Bill are intended to tackle? Employers will incur substantial management time costs in dealing with them and it is only reasonable that they should have an opportunity to recover costs if claims are found to be vexatious or trivial.
  Mr. Lloyd: There has always been provision for tribunals to issue costs against those who bring vexatious or trivial claims. We are talking now about the level of costs and the fact that tribunals will now be able to take into account the time involved. We must understand that there are very few vexatious cases, and there are other mechanisms, such as the pre-tribunal screening process, by which we can begin to tackle them.
  As Members of Parliament, we are all aware of the cranks in our society—those who get a bee in their bonnet and become obsessed—and we should not flood tribunals with such cases. However-, we should not be under the illusion that they are the cause of the enormous increase in the number of cases going to tribunals—there are other reasons for that—or we would do no service to the many good employers and employees who resolve difficult issues in tribunals. We need tribunals to determine fair practices in industry.
  I turn now to the wonderfully named Polkey judgment, and the way in which it will be thrown into doubt by the Bill. I understand that the arguments on these matters are technical and detailed, but if we dismiss employers' legitimate need to operate due process, and say that clue process is of only marginal use, there is a real danger that we undermine an important principle at a time when we are telling employers that they must introduce proper disciplinary and grievance procedures. If we expect those procedures to be honoured, and not only in the breach, we
  900
  need to show that honouring them brings employers reward, and dishonouring them might put them in jeopardy.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North pointed out, there are serious concerns that employers may not, for example, even be required to carry out proper investigations into cases of alleged misconduct, and that would be allowed under the reversal of the Polkey principle. It would leave employees open to abuse by employers. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will take that issue seriously. It is technical in concept, but very important in the practical impact that it will have on some of the most vulnerable people in the workplace.
  I turn now to provisions that I would like to see in the Bill, or at least in legislation. I asked the Secretary of State whether, if the review of the Employment Relations Act 1999, undertaken by the Prime Minister demonstrated the need for legislative change, she could guarantee that we would see that legislation in the lifetime of this Parliament. Alas, my right hon. Friend forgot to respond to that question, so I hope that the Minister of State, in his winding-up speech, will give that commitment. I notice that the Minister for Pensions, is on the Front Bench. He deserves enormous credit for the present state of employment relations and industrial partnership. He will recall that the need for review was accepted by all parties when the Employment Relations Bill was going through Parliament.
  There is now time for a review, and we already know that some of the events that followed that legislation have been unsatisfactory. I refer in particular to the sacking of 87 people by Friction Dynamex in north-west Wales. It is a scandal that people can be sacked for taking part in a legal strike because that strike lasts for over eight weeks. Such provisions have no place on the statute book, and I hope that the Minister accepts the need to consider that during the passage of the Bill. We might use this opportunity to improve on that legislation, which would do an awful lot to demonstrate this Government's good faith, not only to the trade union movement but to people in the workplace who deserve better. I hope that the Minister will also seriously consider other aspects of employment law where the need for change has already been demonstrated.
  The Bill is already good and offers people in the workplace many new rights and opportunities, including the chance to be part of the social partnership between employer and employee. However, we can improve it in Committee and when it returns to the Floor of the House. I hope that the Minister will listen to the pleas from hon. Members on the Labour Benches but recognise that the views of Opposition Members are totally backward looking. The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) used the word "dinosaur", and I agree with him that he is one. We should not allow Opposition dinosaurs to bludgeon our Government, who are committed to progress, into looking backwards too. Let us look forward and build on the Bill to develop a better industrial relations climate.
  7.55 pm
  Mr. Gregory Barker: Before I commence, I make a small declaration of interest as a modest employer of domestic and child assistance, although I assure Labour Members that I am not in the same league as the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Woodward).

  901
  Several organisations representing parents and families have welcomed certain family-friendly measures in the Bill, and so do I. Notable examples include the Equal Opportunities Commission and the citizens advice bureaux. As a Conservative, it is natural for me to support not only certain measures but the principle of family-friendly practices in the workplace. Furthermore, as the father of three young children, the youngest born only earlier this year, I fully understand the pressures under which employees throughout the country frequently find themselves.
  I know the demands of balancing a young family and employment, but ultimately parenthood has to be enjoyed and relished. It is certainly more important than any job, and ultimately it is what we are all here for. As my own father recently reminded me, we should all take time to enjoy and appreciate our young children before they slip through our hands into adulthood while we are not watching. The value of parenthood cannot be overestimated.
  It seems that recent tribunal cases, such as that of PC Chew, who won her case against Avon and Somerset police, and Neil Walkingshaw who, as the Secretary of State mentioned, won the right to care for his six-month-old son, have sent a clear message to employers that wherever possible they must agree to reasonable requests from parents. Improved maternity pay and leave and the introduction of paternity leave should mean that more parents have choices about how to combine their work and family responsibilities. These welcome advances recognise the changing roles of women and men at home and at work.
  In my view, personal choices in balancing a demanding job and a demanding family are ultimately down to the individual, not the state. It is for individuals to prioritise how much time to give to work and their career, and how much to their family. Sacrifices have to be made, and it is a grown-up choice in a grown-up world. Although the intent of the Bill is admirable, the drafting is not. It is likely to backfire on the very people whom it aims to support. The result could be perceived as special treatment leading to a backlash against working parents.
  Workplaces are already becoming more flexible, and we all welcome that. It makes sense, and is widely recognised by businesses, that as parents and employees we have conflicting duties that must be recognised and balanced in the interest of employers and employees. Although the adoption of new best practice is to be welcomed, we must be careful that increasing legislation does not create an intolerable burden on small business, the result of which, particularly in current economic conditions, could be to put many family breadwinners on the dole. The legislation that the House is currently considering will add another layer of administration for good employers and may result in bad employers sticking to the letter of the law, thereby limiting the choice open to working parents.
  Common sense should prevail so that family-friendly policies do not dilute the competitiveness of the British economy and British industry. If we look at a few key facts, we see that the current outlook for the British economy is not good. Figures released by the Office for National Statistics on 21 November show that
  902
  manufacturing investment has fallen to its lowest level for seven years, at the fastest rate for more than 30 years. The problems are now spreading to the services sector. The Chartered Institute of Purchasing and Supply recently reported that activity in the services sector fell in October at the fastest rate since it launched its survey in October 1996. Unemployment has started to rise for the first time in a decade, and figures released by the Office for National Statistics show that the number of dole claimants increased by nearly 4,500 in October. To choose to load further burdens on business will push many of our smallest firms into the red and possibly into receivership.
  I should like to concentrate briefly on the issue of competitiveness. During the Labour Government's first term, red tape costs increased by £15 billion, according to the British Chambers of Commerce. The £15 billion red tape bill is based on the Government's own regulatory impact assessments—compiled from the BCC's "Burdens Barometer 2"—and does not include the financial cost of the national minimum wage. In the same period, according to the International Institute of Management Development, the United Kingdom fell from ninth to 19th in the world competitiveness league table. Employers have given the Bill a mixed reaction for precisely those reasons; the measure is likely to impose significant extra burdens on business—particularly, as I have said, small business.
  I shall give the House just two examples. The requirement for companies to recognise trade union learning representatives may lead to problems when agreement has not been reached with the employer. Some companies have reported that learning reps provide a useful service, but that needs to be in partnership with employers. When workplace relationships are fragile, imposing learning reps is unlikely to add any value at all to businesses. The inclusion of pay and pensions in comparable employment conditions under the fixed-term work regulations will be complex for business and likely to lead to significant additional administrative burdens. Benefits such as pensions and company cars may be inappropriate for people on short-term contracts but, to ensure equality, employers will be required to calculate and compensate for their relative value.
  The Federation of Small Businesses echoed those sentiments:
  "Our members broadly support family-friendly policies but there is no doubt that parental leave is generous to employees and hard on employers, which can only harm productivity. We are also concerned that over-prescriptive regulations soon become outdated and damage relationships in small firms where most proprietors do their utmost to help in times of emergency."
  As my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) said, the Institute of Directors supported that line. Indeed, Ruth Lea, the head of the IOD policy unit said:
  "Whilst the family friendly policies contained in today's Employment Bill look very attractive, they will undoubtedly increase the regulatory burden on business. I am aware that some people believe we cry wolf, but there is now little doubt that the cumulative increase in the regulatory burden on business over the last four years has been considerable and is beginning to damage business's flexibility and competitiveness. This damage will, we fear, become all too evident as the business climate deteriorates."
  It is admirable that the Government are attempting to help families and working parents, but that should be achieved without hurting employers through over-prescriptive

  903
  regulations. British business is already under considerable pressure; when it says that enough is enough, why do the Government not listen?
  In conclusion, I greatly welcome measures that seek to improve dispute resolution procedures and promote family-friendly practices in the workplace, but I oppose Second Reading because of the Bill's excessive dependency on secondary legislation and the significant extra burdens that it will impose on British industry, particularly smaller businesses. We all agree with the Bill's principles, but ultimately a balance between best practice and new legislative burdens must be found. The Labour Government have got that balance dreadfully wrong.
  8.5 pm
  Rob Marris: I have already declared an interest as I have links with the Transport and General Workers Union. I should also tell Opposition Members who are keen on such things that I have run small and large businesses and have worked in the public sector as well. My background in this stuff is therefore pretty wide ranging. I welcome many aspects of the Bill, including the provisions on statutory paternity pay and statutory adoption pay; I also welcome the provisions clarifying paternity leave and adoption leave, as well as maternity leave pay and rights. I welcome the provisions on fixed-term work and equal treatment of fixed-term contract workers; I also welcome the provision on union learning representatives.
  I thought that I would make that preface because often in these debates one goes on to make criticisms of a Bill's drafting and suggest ways in which it might be improved. The Opposition are constantly banging on about red tape and gold plating, but when I asked the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) which regulations he would keep, he would not say, nor would he tell my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester. Central (Mr. Lloyd) which regulations he would get rid of. It is difficult to engage in political debate when all Conservative Members seem to talk about is cumulative effect. The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Barker) talked about £15 billion of cumulative red-tape and extra costs since 1997; I think that that was the flavour of his remarks. That figure may be right, but we are talking about quality of life. Simply to focus on financial cost; is to be like an old-fashioned Stalinist and say, "It is all about material gain; the quality of human life does not come into the equation." Of course it does; increased regulation in many parts of our life is desirable. Regulations and laws are the basis of civilised lives.
  Mr. Barker: Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that we all seek a better quality of life for working parents? However, the Bill will impose more regulation, which will put working parents on the dole; that is not something that any of us want to achieve.
  Rob Marris: I agree that none of us wants to put anybody on the dole; that is why, under a Labour Government, millions more people are in work than under the Conservative Government. The Bill's provisions are not at all likely to put more people on the dole. The hon. Gentleman and I may disagreebut I do not think that the Bill will do that.
  904
  It is not surprising that there has been a threefold rise in the past 10 years in applications to industrial tribunals, and now employment tribunals; I want to focus on the part of the Bill that deals with that. Arguably, the Conservative Government fostered poor industrial relations during their period in office. Until recently, there was a continuing decline in union membership—happily that has stopped—and a decline in collective action to resolve disputes. A more individualistic approach was adopted; individuals are more educated and aware of their rights, so are more likely to seek to enforce them. We have had more rights, not only under the Conservative Government and, I must acknowledge, under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, but, in the past four years, under the Labour Government, including considerably more rights for workers. When people have more rights, it is unfortunate that occasionally employers do not respect those rights, so employees have to go to industrial tribunals.
  The thrust of the Bill, which is to encourage employees—sadly, not workers, but that is another debate, which I hope we will have—and employers to resolve disputes in the workplace, and not to bring them into the tribunal arena, is commendable, particularly the disciplinary and dismissal procedure in schedule 2. However, I am concerned that parts of the Bill seek to squeeze people out of their rights at industrial tribunals and their rights to go to those tribunals.
  The nub of the problem that we face when legislating is that in many cases we would like—Opposition Members would certainly like—to simplify legislation. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, Central (Mr. Doran), who practised as a solicitor before he entered Parliament, mentioned the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974, which arose from the Donovan report of 1968. That referred to setting up tribunals which would be "speedy, informal and inexpensive". We are not going back, however much hon. Members on either side of the House may wish it, to such loose tribunal arrangements.
  The regulatory impact assessment in the explanatory notes—which I know are not part of the Bill, but they attempt to explain the Bill's provisions—explains how some parts of the Bill will decrease costs and some parts will increase costs. As I said earlier, the issue is not merely cost, but quality of life. I have a slight difficulty with the explanatory notes, with which I am sure my hon. Friend the Minister will help me in due course: no source is given for the figures. Presumably the notes are taken from a more compendious document, but without that sourcing, some of the figures appear to be mere conjecture.
  When the Bill reaches Committee, assuming that it receives its Second Reading today, I ask the Minister to consider producing some dummy orders, such as those that were provided to members of the Standing Committee on which I was privileged to serve, which considered the Export Control Bill. Such dummy orders would flesh out the many provisions which allow the Secretary of State to make orders or regulations.
  The statutory dispute resolution procedure in schedule 2 is one such matter. The wording of the schedule on that procedure could and should be tightened, and I urge the Government to reconsider it. Arguably, the standards in the schedule are too low and below the current ACAS standard. The ACAS code was amended last year and

  905
  appears in the ACAS handbook "Discipline at Work". The statutory floor in schedule 2 is lower than the standard that ACAS recommends.
  There is nothing in schedule 2 about informing employees of their right to be accompanied if they are members of a recognised trade union. The schedule does not state that the outcome of the disciplinary procedure should be transmitted to the employee in writing. There are four limbs to the procedure, only one of which, the modified grievance procedure, refers to the outcome being communicated to the employee in writing.
  Like my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, Central, I have conducted industrial tribunals on both sides—for employers and employees—and like him, the first one that I did was for an employer, and I lost it. Those tribunals often grapple with different recollections of events. If only there had been at a crucial time a letter from an employer stating, "This is what I am doing, and this is why I am doing it," that would have helped a great deal.
  The crux of my problem with the Bill, which I am sure can be resolved in discussion with the Government and in Committee, is clause 34, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd) referred. The clause would overturn the Polkey case. In Polkey v. A E Dayton Services Ltd., the decision was made by the Judicial Committee of the other place in 1987. At the time it was said—I think that this is a contemporary quote from the late 1980s—by Michael Rubenstein, who some hon. Members will know is a distinguished commentator on industrial relations matters and is a long-time editor of the Industrial Relations Law Reports:
  "Failure to follow a fair procedure will now"—
  that is, after the Polkey case—
  "lead to a finding of unfair dismissal in a far higher proportion of cases…This, in turn, will re-emphasise to employers the importance of adopting a fair procedure before taking the decision to dismiss. That will lead to fewer employees being unfairly dismissed."
  I make no apologies to the House for getting a little technical. Some hon. Members might think that the matter ought to be dealt with in Committee, but the problem with clause 34 overturning the Polkey case of 14 years ago goes to the crux of what the Government are properly and laudably trying to achieve through the Bill—a statutory floor for disciplinary and dismissal procedures. The clause encourages employers to dismiss first and ask questions later.
  With the precedent of Polkey, the regime of the past 14 years required employers to do three basic things: to warn an employee if that employee was at risk of dismissal; to discuss what might or might not occur and what dissatisfactions the employer might have; and to consult the employee over dismissal. That is a pretty basic, low-level requirement. Even then, an employer could go before an employment tribunal and say that it would have been utterly futile to go through the procedure.
  The procedures post-Polkey and until the Bill were minimal anyway. Now the Bill introduces a sea change in the minimum standards, as set out in schedule 2, which all employers are to adopt as a floor, though employers can and should adopt better procedures, not least the ACAS code that I mentioned. The standards in schedule
  906
  2 will be reflected in the contract of all employees. Everybody is supposed to work together, but under clause 34 the employer can go along to the tribunal and say, "Well, it would have made no difference if I had gone through a proper procedure. I would have still fired the so-and-so."
  The employer can be lackadaisical and need not carry out a thorough investigation, the hearing and the internal appeal process can be a travesty, but the employer can go to the tribunal and say, "I would have fired the employee anyway. I don't like him," and get away with it. As far as I can tell, the increase in awards under clause 31(3) will not apply. Those are percentage uplifts, and a percentage uplift on nil is, of course, nil. It is unclear to me, and I hope the Minister will clarify this, whether under clause 34(3), an employee dismissed in those circumstances would get an award of four weeks' pay for the employer's failure to follow the minimum statutory disciplinary procedure.
  In the explanatory notes, paragraph 153 states that the get-out clause for an employer, if I may call it that,
  "will only apply for procedures that go over and above the 3-step procedures"—
  that is, the schedule 2 procedures—
  "that will now be part of the contract of employment."
  Search as I might, I cannot find that in the Bill—that the get-out applies only if the employer has a better procedure but says that he did not follow it. I hope that the Minister will clarify the matter.
  Mr. Lloyd: Does my hon. Friend agree that one way round the problem of the Polkey case would be to raise the minimum standard of the disciplinary structures to the level of the ACAS code?
  Rob Marris: I agree that that would take us forward, but we would need to amend clause 34(2), which inserts new section 98A(2), which states that
  "an employee who is dismissed shall not be regarded for the purposes of this Part as unfairly dismissed because of failure by the employer to follow a procedure in relation to the dismissal if the employer shows that he would have decided to dismiss the employee if he had followed the procedure."
  My hon. Friend's suggestion would assist by raising the standard to that of the ACAS code, but that subsection drives a coach and horses through the Polkey decision. That is unfortunate and would have consequences not intended by either side of the House, particularly by the Government. That is the case because one of the effects would be to enable an unscrupulous employer to get around the procedure by saying. "I would have dismissed this so-and-so anyway," while the good employer who follows the procedure is more likely to be at risk.
  The summary of the regulatory impact assessment at the back of the explanatory notes states at paragraph 154 that employees will lose between £4 million and £6 million from the change. That is my interpretation of that paragraph. The median award for compensation in unfair dismissal cases in 2000–01 was £2,744. On that basis, the £6 million figure for losses to employees would mean that 2,200 employees were losing out. The £4 million figure produces a total of "only"—I put that word in quotation marks—about 1,450 employees. Thus, if I am reading paragraph 154 correctly, an awful lot of employees will still be losing out. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister can help on that point.

  907
  Unless I am misreading the Bill, it is a little unbalanced. Of course, it is always difficult to consider Bills, as one may misread them and Ministers will be much better read on them than me. None the less, clause 33 ensures that the Secretary of State can make regulations effectively precluding the making of a claim to an employment tribunal unless the employee has complied and done their bit on the schedule 2 procedures, which include statutory disciplinary procedures and so on. If I am reading the clause rightly, it therefore locks out the employee—the applicant who initiates the employment tribunal proceedings—but not the employer.
  Notwithstanding what Opposition Members say—one of them suggested that the Bill was tilting towards employees—that provision seems to tilt towards the employer. Through the pre-hearing process and so on, and depending on the regulations made by the Secretary of State, the employee can effectively be locked out and prevented from going to an employment tribunal at all. As it is employees who initiate employment tribunal applications, employers cannot be locked or freezed out in the same way, as they arc the respondents.
  In conclusion, I find the provision on costs a little worrying, although I shall not comment on it in great depth. I think that a proportion of 242 out of 240,000 was mentioned in relation to costs orders. The order on vexatious litigant costs is very rarely used, although I obtained one against a respondent company in the employment appeal tribunal indeed, I was very pleased, as the appeal was a vexatious one. None the less, the provision is very rarely used. It has a deterrent effect on both applicants and respondents, which is fine. One never knows how many people have been deterred and have not made the application, so in one sense the raw figures that have been given do not tell us a great deal.
  I would like the Government to address the question of preparation time. The tribunal can make an award in that regard, although it is unclear how it will do so. The Bill seems to be ambiguous as to whether the calculation will be made on the back of an envelope or whether there will be assessment-of-costs proceedings. None the less, the tribunal can in certain circumstances make an award against an applicant or respondent requiring them to pay the other side for its preparation time. The provision could include not only the preparation time of professional representatives, who would fall under the usual costs elements that have traditionally applied, albeit in a small number of cases, but, say, the time spent by a managing director in putting together the papers to fight what turned out to be a losing application.
  I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister can enlighten me on that point, especially as I am not aware of any other part of our legal process in which such a procedure is allowed. For the past 13 years, the bulk of my work has been in civil litigation, but it has also involved some criminal and tribunal work, and I have never come across awards for preparation time. As a solicitor, when I succeeded—I have to tell the House that I mostly did so, as one picks good cases and hopes to give good advice—my clients would recover my legal bill, but no form of recompense for the time that they spent on the case as clients.
  In a personal injury case, for example, much time could be spent by a client who has to go from their home in Wolverhampton in my constituency to Birmingham to see a specialist doctor, for an MRI scan or whatever, but they
  908
  would not recover their time for going to Birmingham for a medical appointment in a personal injury case. When I failed to win in a case in which an employer was being sued, the employer's managing director did not add to the bill their time by including it in what used to be called taxation, but is now called assessment of costs. They added on their solicitors' time, yes, but not their own.
  This seems a very curious provision and I am very uneasy about it, especially as it could, I believe, involve up to £10,000. That may not be a lot of money to a large business, but it would be an awful lot to a small business or an applicant. I hope that the Government will explain that point, as I am very uneasy about this novel concept of recovering costs for preparation time.
  Mr. Hammond: Ever trying to be helpful, I think I am not mistaken in saying that the arrangements for recovering costs following planning appeals include the possibility of recovering preparation time. The hon. Gentleman might like to check out that point.
  Rob Marris: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I shall very happily check that point and I hope that I will do so with the assistance of the Minister.
  I was slightly taken aback when the hon. Gentleman intervened, as I was about to sit down anyway, having finished my remarks.
  8.26 pm
  Hywel Williams: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to speak in the debate.
  Other hon. Members have welcomed the Bill and we in Plaid Cymru also welcome parts of it. I am sure that the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), who is leaving his seat, will be pleased to hear that. However, we also have some reservations. We welcome the proposals regarding parental leave, adoption leave, maternity pay and the equal pay questionnaire, among others, but we have reservations about the work-focused interviews for working-age partners of benefits claimants. We agree with the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux when it says that these plans could put vulnerable couples, including disabled people and partners who care for them, under pressure. We are also concerned that the inadequate minimum procedural standards for internal dispute resolution may become the only standards for employers, and we think that the proposal for costs awards might become disincentives. Those are, very briefly, some of the points that we want to make.
  However much we welcome the Bill, our welcome is qualified because of its failure to address the deficiencies of the Employment Relations Act 1999, specifically in section 16 and schedule 5. The Government have an opportunity to remedy an injustice and they have been pressed to do so, but they have failed to take advantage of that opportunity in the current Bill. The 1999 Act introduced additional protection against dismissal for workers engaged in lawful industrial action. Under the Act, it is unfair to dismiss employees taking protected action—that is, lawful, official action—unless it lasts for more than eight weeks and unless the employer has taken such procedural steps as are reasonable to resolve that dispute. After eight weeks, the protection lapses. In our view, that undermines the ability of workers with a just

  909
  cause, who act reasonably and within the law, to oppose an unreasonable employer. Such an employer, who is determined to exploit the law for his purposes, can hang on for eight weeks and then sack striking workers.
  I want to illustrate my point with the Friction Dynamex dispute, which has already been mentioned, and has continued in my constituency for more than 30 weeks. The Friction Dynamex workers were the first to be sacked following the introduction of the eight-week period. Some hon. Members attended a lobby by the sacked workers and their supporters last Thursday, and heard their powerful, direct testimony, as well as speeches by Mr. Bill Morris of the Transport and General Workers Union, among others.
  The sacked workers are experienced and skilled long-term employees; many have 20 or 30 years' service. They have shown their commitment to the firm under several owners. For example, in the past five years, they agreed not to take a pay rise because of market conditions in their industry. They do not take strike action lightly.
  The current owner took over in 1997. He tried to impose a four-day week without overtime, attendance at meetings without pay, the removal of bargaining agreements and a no-strike agreement. After many fruitless attempts to negotiate with the employer, the union held a strike ballot. The workers went on strike entirely legally, and initially for only one week. I accompanied them on the morning that they returned to work. As they walked back, the employer personally went up to the gates and locked them out. That is the measure of that employer.
  The strike has continued for many months and the workers have conducted themselves with dignity and discipline. The union has tried to negotiate with the employer using the good offices of third parties, including the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service, and begun negotiations several times, only for the employer to pull back. Its efforts have been to no avail. In the meantime, the employer has recruited other workers from the unemployment register and continued his business.
  The workers have maintained a 24-hour picket and have the overwhelming support of the local community. In July, we held a march and a rally in Caernarfon. It attracted massive and unanimous local support and was one of most affecting experiences that many of us who took part have ever had. The community was united in support of its workers. For many of us, it called to mind the longest strike in the industrial history of our country: streic fawr y Penrhyn—the great strike at the Penrhyn slate quarry which lasted for three years, against a robber baron quarry owner, a nobleman who used every foul trick to break the workers' resolve and the community's spirit. The comparison with the current dispute is apt.
  What recourse remains to the Friction Dynamex workers after 30 weeks of determined action? They are taking their case to an industrial tribunal. However, they do not want a tribunal hearing but to work in fair and just conditions. In a well timed intervention, the hon. Member for Conwy (Mrs. Williams) called for a review to help them. However, a review will not help because they have been on strike for 30 weeks.
  At the lobby last week, Mr. Bill Morris told us that he had not expected a Labour Government to enact anti-trade union law. The Friction Dynamex dispute shows the
  910
  woeful inadequacy of the 1999 Act to protect workers who are engaged in a lawful dispute. The shortcomings of the labour law means that bad employers, not the workers, are protected. Protection against unfair dismissal must be extended. If it is justified for eight weeks, it is also justified thereafter.
  The Bill might have been an opportunity to amend the 1999 Act and end the unjust eight-week rule. It unfortunately fails to do that.
  8.33 pm
  Mark Tami: I declare an interest as a member of the Amalgamated Engineering and Electrical Union, which is soon to become Amicus. It supported me before the election.
  I welcome the Bill, which marks a positive development for employees and employers. It is disappointing to hear Conservative Members speak only about the rights of employers. They seem to ignore those of employees. When they are challenged to specify the so-called red tape that they would remove, they fall silent and appear incapable of answering the question.
  The provisions on union learning representatives are especially welcome and put that role on a formal footing. That will greatly enhance workplace learning and give learning representatives the status that health and safety representatives have enjoyed for some time. That should be warmly welcomed.
  It is a pity, and a verdict on British industrial relations, that we need to enshrine these rights in law, but it is clearly necessary because many companies refuse to accept the positive role that union learning representatives have. Given the new protections, however, I am confident that we shall see a substantial increase in the number of union learning representatives, which will be good for the country as a whole. Perhaps more importantly, the individuals who perform this demanding role will be able to receive the necessary training and support that they may have been denied in the past.
  I hope that, alongside these measures, the Government will publicise the value of learning representatives, because they provide an important service in the workplace. They are a vital part of the partnership process, and represent an approach that I am sure we all want to see promoted in British industry. Partnership needs to be fostered. It does not just happen by accident. In any partnership, all parties must play their part. Such partnerships need the unions and the employers, along with the Government, positively to embrace and endorse these proposals, rather than being reluctant partners in the process. The role of union learning representatives should, if properly encouraged and nurtured, assist businesses and industry to become more efficient and competitive. It is a positive role, not a negative one, as some Opposition Members have suggested.
  The provisions relating to paternity leave also give real meaning to an otherwise toothless right. For the majority of working people, the right to unpaid leave is not a right at all, because they simply cannot afford to take it. Although the rate set out in the Bill is relatively low—a maximum of £100 or 90 per cent. of earnings, whichever is the lower—it is at least a start, and is heading in the right direction. I hope to see further improvement in that level in the years to come.

  911
  The changes to maternity pay also provide important improvements to the current level. Improvements to maternity pay and to adoptive leave and pay are long overdue. They go some way towards addressing the pay gap that still remains between men and women in this country.
  The proposals relating to dispute resolution are more difficult. The Government are right to tackle the issue, and to seek ways of encouraging conciliation and dispute resolution between employers and employees. As one who has always supported the partnership approach in industrial relations, I look forward to a time when all employers and employees share the same goals and aspirations. However, even in such an environment, we should not delude ourselves that disputes between employers and employees will not arise from time to time.
  I am concerned that the impact of making it more difficult for employees to pursue tribunal applications could be to encourage employers to maintain a more confrontational approach, rather than to reach an agreement. In saying that, we must accept that tribunals are facing an increasing volume of cases. This is a result of their extended role and of their perceived role as the appropriate forum for dispute resolution.
  In my previous incarnation as a trade union officer, I recall a number of cases in which employees ignored all the advice and recommendations of the union, the employer and everyone else, and regarded the tribunal as some kind of free chance to improve the offer on the table. Those are only a minority of cases, and ultimately it is the employees' right to do that. The result of such cases is that they do not get very far.
  Mainly, resolutions are achieved because of the backstop of tribunals. Perhaps the uncertainty over the outcome aids the process. It is believed, wrongly in my view, that tribunal applications are spiralling out of control and that the system cannot deal with the increased work load— if it is accepted that there is an increased work load. Employees are far more aware of their individual rights, which is surely a positive development, and we must not put more obstacles in the way of individuals making cases. Indeed, we must assist conciliation and agreement.
  In the first instance, therefore, we must provide much greater support and resources to the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service to help it with individual cases and collective problems. We must also properly fund the tribunal system to enable it to do the job that it is supposed to do. The simple fact is that the more we do to aid resolution rather than dispute, the less individuals will feel the need to resort to tribunals.
  I fully support the proposals on vexatious cases, which for far too long have wasted everybody's time and resources. A few have made a mockery of the system. There has long been a need to tighten up here, but obviously we must not put unfair barriers in the way of good cases.
  The statutory dismissal disciplinary and grievance procedures should be broadly welcomed, although, as a number of hon. Members have said, much confusion would have been avoided by using the well—established ACAS code of practice, which has long been used by employers— even those who do not recognise trade unions. Employers are familiar with the code and it would have been a lot easier to adopt a process which everyone is aware and with which most people are happy.
  912
  I welcome the proposals, but we need to address the position of employees who, for whatever reason— instant dismissal, perhaps—may have lost all confidence in a company's internal procedures. That is particularly the case when there is little realistic chance of a return to the workplace. Furthermore, although the proposals rightly oblige the employee to follow the correct procedures, they do not place the same weight of obligation on the employer to do likewise.
  If an employee is to be denied the right to apply to a tribunal for resolution until the internal procedures are complete, surely the employer should be under the same obligation not to impose change on the employee. Overall, the Bill is a step in the right direction, but we must address those specific points.
  8.44 pm
  Angela Watkinson: I declare an interest as I employ two people in my constituency office in Upminster. I am not sure whether that qualifies me as a small business.
  As a mother and an employer, I have mixed feelings about the Bill, which is like the curate's egg— good in parts. It will be welcomed by new parents, but not necessarily by other employees, and I have reservations about the ability of businesses, especially very small ones, to cope with yet more regulations and duties.
  For me, least contentious is clause 1, which provides for a new statutory right to two weeks' paternity leave that must be taken within 56 days of the child's birth, provided that the employee has completed a qualifying period of 26 continuous weeks' service. That is accompanied by the right to return to work. I welcome the flexibility provided by the 56-day period.
  If the child is born in hospital, the mother may not return home during the first week—or until even later, if the birth was complicated. In the first few weeks other help is often at hand from grandparents, other family members or friends and neighbours. It is when the initial interest wanes that the father's ability to spend two weeks at home with his wife and child may be of greatest benefit. The mother may be recovering well, but the successive sleepless nights that occur so often in the early weeks can lead to exhaustion, and routine everyday tasks can seem a mountain to climb. Father and baby can also establish their own relationship during this time— something that has often been impossible in the past owing to lack of opportunity.
  I am especially pleased that adoptive fathers have been included in the provisions. The application and approval process relating to adoption is long and stressful, and usually follows many years of disappointment. It is absolutely right that social services departments and adoption agencies take the greatest care in matching children to parents. The child concerned may have experienced more than one unsuccessful foster or pre-adoption placement, and the settling-in process is not always easy. The opportunity for the adoptive parents, and any siblings, to spend time with the new child as a family will be enormously helpful.
  In most cases, 92 per cent. of the statutory paternity pay of £100—or 90 per cent. of the employee's average weekly earnings—will be recoverable by the employer. Small employers will be able to recover 100 per cent.

  913
  Although the proposed arrangement will not impose a direct cost on employers, finding short-term cover for absentees is not easy. In practice, duties must often be covered by colleagues. A large helping of good will is needed, as employees without children, in particular, may resent having to perform extra duties and then not being eligible for benefits. They may also have caring responsibilities themselves, involving elderly parents or disabled family members.
  Clause 17 increases maternity leave from 18 to 26 weeks, followed by 26 weeks of additional maternity leave. New and adoptive mothers will be given up to a year's leave. That will pose an important choice to new mothers during periods when most households require two incomes to meet all their outgoings, but it will enable mothers to spend more time with their children and to be more flexible in their plans for a return to work.
  Having said that, I must add that small businesses will find it most difficult to accommodate employees by keeping jobs open—with no guarantee that those employees will return—while training temporary staff. A year's absence could present a small firm with considerable difficulties, especially when key staff are Involved. That could, in the long term, deter employers from taking on female staff. The provision could therefore be a retrograde step for women of childbearing age, and for their employment opportunities. That is my main concern.
  At a job interview during, I think, the 1960s, I was asked whether I planned to have any children. Implicit in the question was the knowledge that, if the answer was yes, my prospects of being appointed would be nil. Such questions are not permitted now, but I foresee other means of excluding women from the workplace, particularly women who are judged likely to be planning a family.
  The duty to consider parents' requests for flexible working hours is not, I think, a suitable matter for legislation, as it could impose real management problems on a small organisation. Some employers already offer flexible working, and those that are family friendly will find it easier to acquire staff; but it should be remembered that the main function of an organisation is to produce goods or services. The job security of the whole work force, and the future viability of the firm, depend on its remaining in profit. I fear that an inevitable result of the Bill's enactment will be fewer job opportunities, especially for women; male employees will be seen as a more reliable and less complicated prospect.
  There is no doubt that the number of industrial tribunals has increased sharply in the past 10 years, from 30,000 to 130,000. It has almost become an industry in itself. A lowering of the qualifying period for unfair dismissal cases from two years to one has contributed to the increase. The CBI reports that the result is an average cost of £633 million per year to United Kingdom industry.
  The requirement for internal grievance procedures to be exhausted before an employment tribunal is permitted is a sensible step and should help to deter vexatious applications. I regret, however, that the proposal to charge applicants a modest amount for a tribunal claim has been dropped. It means that the claimant risks nothing, but a very small business could face a ruinous compensation claim.
  914
  The Bill seems at first to be good news for women employees. However, if those perceived benefits are not good for employers, especially small businesses, the end result could be very different. The Bill increases a regulatory burden that has been accumulating over the past four and a half years. Businesses need to retain the flexibility and competitiveness that over-prescriptive legislation will damage. Part, of the Bill will, I think, upset the delicate balance between employees' and employers' rights and so be detrimental to the position of women in the workplace.
  8.51 pm
  Mr. Russell Brown: Since their election in 1997, the Government's agenda has clearly been about social justice. Thankfully, social justice has been identified as a relevant consideration in the workplace.
  My constituency is very much a rural one, but over the years it has had a fair amount of manufacturing. My previous employer was ICI, for whom I worked for 23 years. Regrettably, not long after I was elected to this place, ICI decided to give up its polyester film business. Nothing can be done when multinationals take such major decisions. Although it was one of the few employers in the constituency that provided well—paid jobs with good terms and conditions, it was, as one might expect, not the backbone of a rural area. Small and medium—sized businesses usually sustain such areas.
  My constituency is seen as a low-pay area. The Government's social justice agenda, however, has ensured the introduction of a national minimum wage, which has meant so much to people. Additionally, the working families tax credit has assisted decent, hard-working families, and the new deal has been especially important for young people. Youth unemployment has decreased by about 70 per cent. in my constituency.
  Although disappointing, the loss of manufacturing jobs has not been the end of the world. Despite that loss, in the past five years unemployment has decreased by about 33 per cent. in my constituency. Moreover, although unemployment has increased in many other parts of the country in the past two months and although my area is recovering from the serious outbreak of foot and mouth disease, unemployment has continued to decrease in my constituency. We cannot, be complacent, though. We anticipate that, early in the new year, as is the norm, unemployment in our area will increase because of the vast amount of seasonal employment.
  Social justice, especially the opportunity to work, is giving people life chances. Nationally, the unemployment level is below 1 million and there are more than 1 million job vacancies. The Employment Service has the difficult job of matching individuals and their skills—or lack of skills in many cases—to vacancies. It is that issue of skill levels that I wish to address.
  Many people who enter work after a long spell of unemployment—or who have never worked before—have low aptitude, lack self-esteem and feel shunned by every system that operates. They have often been let down by the education system. Union learning representatives in the workplace assist those who, often through no fault of their own, have found it difficult to gain employment. That is one major advantage of the union learning reps and I am delighted that the Bill will, at long last, recognise the role that they can play.

  915
  Business and industry have, over many years, recognised shop stewards and safety reps, and the need for them to have time off to perform their duties. Now we will see a similar recognition for union learning reps. Research suggests that they have a significant impact on increasing enthusiasm for learning among employees and employers. In particular, research has shown that union learning reps raise interest in training and development, especially among those with numeracy and literacy problems. ULRs share a level of trust with their members and can often engage those who would be embarrassed about admitting their learning needs to their employers or line managers.
  The majority of ULRs have been in post for only around two years and their role has been innovative and will continue to develop as time passes. They undertake a wide range of activities, including undertaking training needs analysis, providing information on learning, and advice and guidance to individuals, and negotiating with employers on the learning and skills that people require for their daily jobs. ULRs also often broker learning provision with training providers.
  The Bill provides for ULRs to be elected or appointed and to undergo training within a specified period. They will be entitled to reasonable paid time off for training and for carrying out their duties. They will also have protection against detriment, which has been vital for shop stewards and safety reps over the years.
  The measures in the Bill further to support working parents are to be applauded Mothers will now be given up to one year off work and, for the first time, fathers and adoptive parents will have the right to paid time off. That will be warmly welcomed by adoptive parents who have for too long felt disadvantaged, but business will also be helped by having the rules governing maternity, paternity and adoption leave and pay simplified. There is a clear need to improve on the provision that we have had in the past. Improvements in maternity rights have assisted many families and households, but the Bill will deliver real change to help women and mothers in work more than ever before. The Bill also recognises the valuable role that fathers and adoptive parents play in caring for their children and supporting their partners. It will have a real impact on people's lives, benefiting business, parents and, above all, the ones who mean so much—the children themselves.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry set up a taskforce on family-friendly employment policies in late June. I firmly believe that parents should have the right to work flexible hours when their children are young. I recently met a couple in my constituency whose son has a severe attention deficiency problem. It is not always possible to determine when a child with such a problem requires extra care and attention, but it is possible for a parent, in consultation with an employer, to ascertain when absence from work is required for case conferences or other meetings to discuss the child. Regrettably, my constituent is not receiving the co-operation of his employer, and is finding that taking time off work to deal with his son's welfare is costing him financially. He has endeavoured at each turn to co-operate with his employer, and has even offered to work exceptional hours to make up for the time that he has taken off.
  916
  I urge my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to take on board the recommendations of the working parents taskforce, which is chaired by Professor George Bain. I believe that she gave an indication earlier this afternoon that she would, and I hope that in future the right to request flexible hours will be given to thousands of workers.
  I turn now to fixed-term contracts. I used to be a shop steward, and I remember the time in the 1980s when about 60 per cent. of the work force who I represented were permanent staff, with the other 40 per cent. made up of people on short or fixed-term contracts. I intervened on the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) and asked if he had ever been involved with a work force in which short or fixed-term contracts were used. I assure the House that that is not a happy working environment, and I do not want to be involved in such an environment in the future. I regret that the despicable mechanism of short and fixed-term contracts is still used in this country.
  The European fixed-term work directive is due to come into force here in July next year. The Government's consultation exercise earlier this year on the implementation of the directive showed that fixed-term employees suffered pay discrimination. I am delighted that the Bill contains a power enabling the Government to make appropriate regulations, and that those regulations will be published in the coming months.
  I appreciate that other hon. Members want to make a contribution, so I shall end by saying that there is much in the Bill to be commended. I have mentioned only certain aspects of the Bill, and it will be a pleasure to support it in the Lobby this evening.
  9.2 pm
  Mr. David Chaytor: I am pleased to be able to speak in support of the Bill this evening. First, I should declare an interest, in that I am a member of the Transport and General Workers Union.
  The debate has featured many excellent contributions in support of the Bill, but more striking still has been the absence of heat or passion in the debate. That is an indication of the degree of consensus among hon. Members, which contrasts with the debates on industrial relations legislation in the early and mid-1980s, the era of Lord Tebbit. It is evident that great progress has been made, and it is a tribute to the Government that they have built a consensus with regard to further reform of industrial relations legislation.
  It is also interesting that so few Conservative Members should have bothered to speak in the debate. Not one Conservative Back Bencher is in the Chamber at present, but I want to make particular mention of the contribution from the hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson). I have been a Member of Parliament for four and a half years, and today was the first time I have heard a Conservative Member speak with feeling about the responsibilities of child care and the difficulties encountered in balancing earning a living and rearing a family. I hope that the hon. Lady's contribution is a straw in the wind-an indication that attitudes in the Conservative party might be changing.
  Earlier in the debate, we heard the ritual quotation of the wisdom of Ms Lea, the spokesperson of the Institute of Directors, who opposes as a matter of course every

  917
  small step forward that the Government take towards improving the security and welfare of people at work. Of course, Ms Lea always says that disaster is looming. When the minimum wage was proposed, she said that it would be the end of civilisation as we knew it. No doubt she would have said the same had she been alive when slavery was abolished. The ritual condemnation from the Institute of Directors of any new proposed legislation is rapidly leading to a loss of credibility in its ability constructively to criticise Government proposals.
  The response of the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) was depressing. His argument suggested that the Conservative party as a whole has moved on little in the past 20 years—arguably, in the past 140 years—because it still considered improving the loyalty of the work force, developing their morale, involving them as part of a common enterprise in support of the business, and investing in their future skills as a short-term cost rather than a long-term investment that would ultimately bring benefits to the enterprise as a whole. I find that view intensely depressing.
  The hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford was also wrong when he said that the CBI opposed the establishment of learning representatives. It is clear that the CBI supports the principle of learning representatives, although it has one or two reservations about details in the Bill, such as the numbers of such representatives. I wish to express a note of caution about the CBI's comments on learning representatives. In its response to the Bill, it says that some companies with learning representatives have reported that they can play a useful role. That is not exactly strong enthusiasm; indeed, it is slightly patronising with regard to the contribution that learning representatives have made in the past few years.
  I make that point because I wish to speak primarily about the role of learning representatives, although other aspects of the Bill are important. For example, I applaud the provisions on maternity, paternity and adoption leave and the dispute resolution procedure. I have experienced industrial tribunals as employee and employer, and fully support the Government's attempt to reform the operation of industrial tribunals, but I feel most strongly about learning representatives. It is one of the most important initiatives in the Bill.
  Although I regret the CBI's lack of enthusiasm in supporting the principle of learning representatives, it has a point in expressing a reservation about the fact that the Bill does not specify the number of such representatives who can be established in the work force. That needs to be addressed in Committee. I do not share the CBI's views on wanting a voice in selecting learning representatives. I cannot see how any employer could possibly demand that it should be allowed to choose who should represent the trade union or the work force. However, the CBI has made a valid point about the numbers of learning representatives and the specification of numbers, given that the provision will lead to people having time off.
  In my previous profession, I had some experience of vocational training in the work force in many parts of the north-west. I can say, hand on heart, that without exception, the companies that had a deep-seated commitment to investing in and training their work force and encouraged the involvement of trade unions were
  918
  among the most progressive and successful companies in the Greater Manchester area. I pay tribute to the various trade unions which took the initiative some years ago to establish the concept of learning representatives.
  As I said when I intervened on the Secretary of State, the Bill has in some respects been left a little behind by the rapidly developing debate about work force development. The performance and innovation unit today published its report on work force development. It expresses strong support for increased investment in this area. I shall briefly quote the summary of the report, in which the PIU argues that we should be
  "empowering individuals and employers to increase their demand for workforce development"
  and
  "tackling the barriers of time and money that prevent individuals taking up opportunities".

  I am not sure that, simply with the establishment of learning representatives, the Bill has fully risen to the challenge in the PIU report. Unless we can in due course—not necessarily in the Bill—establish a statutory right to leave from work for education and training purposes, exactly as we are now agreed on for maternity and paternity leave, we shall not begin to tackle the deep-seated skills crisis in the British work force. I hope that point can be considered in the Standing Committee. About 13 million British workers have no access to training. About a third of British workers have minimal skills in their chosen occupation. About a quarter of the British work force experience difficulties with literacy and numeracy. That crisis cannot be solved unless we have the right to paid education and leave.
  The Bill—or a future measure—should focus on workplaces that have no trade union recognition agreements. In my constituency, apart from the health, education and transport sectors, few employers have a work force of more than 200—I can think of only five or six. The vast majority of workplaces have no trade union recognition agreement. Among British workers, the least qualified, the least motivated to obtain new skills and those who hold the most insecure positions are in non-unionised workplaces. That is where we need to focus our attention. Almost by definition, workplaces that have trade union recognition agreements have relatively progressive employers who are committed to investment in their staff. In Committee, I hope that we can consider the position of non-union recognised workplaces.
  I applaud the Bill, and congratulate the Government on introducing an important improvement in the security of ordinary working people.
  9.12 pm
  Mr. Kevan Jones: I declare an interest as a member of the GMB trade union and also as one of its senior officers for 12 years.
  I, too, welcome the Bill. It builds on some of the basic rights at work that were introduced post-1997, many of which were opposed by the Conservative party. Those rights have been popular with the public since their introduction. The contributions of Conservative Members show their dilemma: such measures are popular with the public, but Conservative Members are stuck in an ideological straitjacket and have to oppose them.
  Like my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor), I welcomed the contribution of the hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson), who is no

  919
  longer in the Chamber. The hon. Lady made a passionate and good speech in which she recognised the pressures on working parents. Unfortunately, her colleagues continue to hide behind the old language—that the measure will not provide basic human rights at work, but will result in red tape on business. They are falling back on the old mantra of the effects on small business.
  I do not accept that. The measure will provide basic human rights that people should have at work. People throughout Europe and the rest of the world have enjoyed such rights for many years and now, thanks to a Labour Government, people in this country can also enjoy them.
  I welcome the provision for paid paternity leave. As a trade union officer for 12 years, I know of the difficulties experienced by many fathers in getting time off work during the traumatic stage just after childbirth. In some cases, people were actually dismissed for taking time off. In 2001, that cannot be acceptable in a decent society.
  Statutory paid adoption leave is also very welcome. Hon. Members have already mentioned the long process that adoptive parents have to undertake. The extension of statutory maternity leave will also be very welcome to many working mothers in North Durham. Maternity leave, too, is a basic human right, not a privilege.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) mentioned that learning representatives will be put on a statutory basis. I totally agree with him that they can be beneficial to good industrial relations in the workplace. That is the approach that we should adopt—they will be good for business; they will not hamper it if they are introduced properly.
  I have some concerns about the Bill. The number of industrial tribunals has grown, as has been mentioned. During my time as a trade union officer, I regularly appeared at tribunals in Newcastle. I have a lot of experience of representing union members at tribunals. The problem is that some of the clauses are intended to try to reduce the number of industrial tribunal applications. That is the wrong approach. The best approach would be to consider the Leggatt report fully and ensure that we introduce some changes. One of Leggatt's key proposals—I totally agree with him—is that tribunals should not be turned into courts of law, but that is already happening.
  In my experience, taking the lawyers out of the process would make resolving employers' and employees' problems much simpler and quicker. I have some fond memories of representing a union member who worked for the Federation Brewery, but the case took 10 days to resolve. Frankly, it could have been resolved at an early stage, but the barrister was clearly not going to let it go once he had got his teeth into it. Clearly, that did not result in a better form of justice for the member or the company; it led to a lot of very expensive legal bills for the employer.
  I shall refer next to some of the clauses that I am concerned about, some of which have already mentioned. Clause 22(2) deals with compensation for preparation time, and here I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris). I am not sure how the time that the management spend preparing cases will be calculated. Clearly, that clause will not apply to trade unions. Trade union officers, who are often not legally qualified, are involved in a lot of work for industrial tribunals, but there is no clause stating that they
  920
  can claim money for their preparation time. That is a way to discourage people from making applications, which is very sad and will cause more problems than it will solve.
  In my experience of industrial tribunals, pre-hearing assessments, which anyone can request, represent a way to sort out frivolous and vexatious cases. Those assessments can take place now, and there is no need to create further hurdles to stop people using their right to a judgment at an industrial tribunal.
  Similarly, under clause 25, the use of the IT1 form will be mandatory, but that is a mistake. Many people do not have access to those forms. In my experience, those who are not represented by trade unions find it difficult to get hold of them. I do not understand what is wrong with allowing employees who feel that their cases should go to industrial tribunals to put them in writing—obviously within the permitted time limits. Again, that proposal is being wrongly used as a hurdle to try to stop people gaining access to industrial tribunals.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West also referred to clause 29, which deals with the minimum disciplinary and grievance standards, which fall well below those of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service. I would argue that the ACAS code is better and that the clause might cause confusion. I was always amazed by the number of employers, including many small businesses, who did not give contracts of employment to their employees. Insisting that people had contracts of employment would represent a better way forward.
  Clause 34 relates to the Polkey case, which my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd) mentioned. The clause will create a legal minefield and it will give a lot of work to lawyers. The Polkey case was resolved after long and expensive litigation, and this clause is likely to produce something similar.
  Efforts need to be made to ensure that the Leggatt report and the lessons learned from it are fully implemented. Training for employees and working for compromise are the way forward. As my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside said, we should also strengthen the role of ACAS by providing it with financial support and further statutory powers.
  I support the Bill. It builds on the basic human rights of people at work that the Government have introduced since 1997, always in the face of the Conservative party's opposition.
  9.21 pm
  Mr. Philip Hammond: I draw the House's attention to my registered interests: I am the director of two companies, both of which fortunately employ people and hope to go on doing so in greater numbers in the future.
  I can probably safely say that this has been a fairly predictable debate. The Secretary of State opened it with a rather patronising tone towards business, and I am sure that employers will have picked up on that. Labour Members have sought to persuade the Government to tilt the playing field further in the direction of employees and trade unions, while Conservative Members have focused on the costs, both direct and indirect, that the Bill will impose and the consequences of them.
  This is a hotch-potch of a Bill with a number of different themes woven together. Some of those themes we can accept and we support what the Government are

  921
  trying to do, but we have reservations about others. Time permitting, I shall say something about the specific merits and demerits of the proposals in each area.
  Before that, I wish to make two general points. The first is that the Bill follows what has recently become a familiar pattern. It is largely an empty box—a skeleton of primary legislation—the full impact and effect of which we shall not be able to judge until we see the regulations that should accompany it.
  Anyone reading the Bill without its explanatory notes will have little idea of the Government's intentions. The explanatory notes are exemplary in their clarity, but they are not part of the Bill; they have no legal or legislative force. Almost all the substantive comments made in the debate have related to the regime which the explanatory notes predict the regulations will put in force. If that is not an abuse of Parliament, it is certainly a poor use of Parliament's time. We will spend many hours in Committee scrutinising the primary legislation—the framework Bill—but if we are lucky, we shall have a maximum of only 90 minutes in a delegated legislation Committee for each set of regulations. That is not conducive to good scrutiny of a complex matter in which the detail in the regulations might critically affect the livelihoods and well-being of individuals and firms throughout the country.
  The hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable), who is not in his place, rightly concluded that the Bill was balanced between the interests that employers regard as important and those that trade unions regard as important. Labour Members have made a concerted effort to persuade the Government to go further in the direction that the trade union movement would like to go. However, it is important, when we consider the Bill in Committee, that we understand precisely how the Government intend to regulate so that we see what the Bill's effects will be. I therefore ask the Minister to assure us that he will make the draft regulations available to the Standing Committee so that we can consider the substance and not just the skeletal form of the proposals.
  Mr. Chaytor: Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that Labour Members have made the point that many employees are not members of trade unions and that we should consider their rights and job security as well? It is important to strike a balance between the work force as a whole and the employer, not specifically between the trade union and the employer.
  Mr. Hammond: The hon. Gentleman made an interesting and constructive speech, and I acknowledge what he says. It struck me that, without exception I think, every Back—Bench Labour Member who spoke declared a trade union affiliation and I detect a trade union agenda.
  Mr. Kevan Jones: We are proud of it.
  Mr. Hammond: There is nothing wrong with that. Trade unions have their agenda and are entitled to pursue it.
  My second general point is that the Bill has to be set in the context of the torrent of legislation and regulations that have been having an impact on business. The
  922
  legislative burden is cumulative and every individual measure, however worthy in itself, adds to that burden. It is no coincidence that since the Government signed up to the social chapter, Britain has fallen from ninth to 19th in the world competitiveness league, and productivity growth has gone from being above the G7 average to below it.
  The flexibility of British business—its ability to respond subtly and rapidly to changes in the economic environment which it faces—has been eroded by successive waves of regulation that impose direct and indirect costs on business. Small business is disproportionately affected by legislation like this Bill. We should never forget that small businesses comprise 99 per cent. of all businesses in this country. They employ 44 per cent. of the private sector work force and generate 37 per cent. of the output. Incidentally, they create virtually all the new jobs in the economy.
  I note that the Under—Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Nigel Griffiths), who has responsibility for small business, has just joined us. The health and prosperity of small business is vital to us all, generating the wealth that underpins not only individual prosperity, but quality public services. We damage them at our peril.
  The lesson of many of our European neighbours has been that increasing the burdens associated with employment may benefit those who are fortunate enough to be in work, but that it is at the expense of those without jobs, and society as a whole, as firms slow down the rate at which they create jobs in response to any given economic stimulus. Other economies—for instance, Germany—have found it difficult to get back on the growth curve, because employers respond to economic stimulus in every way they can other than by hiring new workers, because of the burdens and rigidities that have been created in the work force.
  I am happy to acknowledge that we have not gone as far as some other countries in the European Union in creating disincentives to the creation of new jobs. There is no mistake, however, about the direction in which we are travelling, and it is becoming urgent that we debate the balance that is to be struck.
  Mr. Lloyd: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way—I know he does not have much time.
  The hon. Gentleman and his colleagues often say that we should not regulate; instead, we should allow the best employer to operate the best standards and then hopefully the worst employers will improve. The small firms sector is essentially composed of domestic competitors. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that it is uncompetitive to allow the worst employers to operate bad practices and that it disadvantages the best employer?
  Mr. Hammond: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting and good point, which I shall deal with in a moment. Below the legitimate small firm are firms in the black economy. Just as the large firm might think that it is competing against smaller firms with a competitive advantage, so the small firm is often competing at the margin against people who can undercut it by ignoring all regulations and paying no taxes.
  On the specific proposals, the most immediately relevant to those who will benefit from them, and to the employers who will have to cope with them, are the

  923
  proposed extensions of rights to paid and unpaid leave for maternity, paternity and adoption. Clearly, in isolation, there are good reasons for seeking to increase the compatibility of family life with both-parent working. At the level of the individual, it increases choice; at the level of the firm, it is an important aid to recruiting and retaining skilled workers; at the level of society, we all benefit from anything that creates more stable, durable families in which children have a better start in life and are more likely to grow up with the skills that we need, to become fully contributing members of society.
  There is no doubt in my mind, either, that higher rates of statutory pay and longer periods of entitlement will help those employees fortunate enough to benefit, but we must not pretend that all that is cost free, because that would be disingenuous. All regulation in the workplace imposes costs, both direct and indirect, on employers, other employees and society as a whole. That is not to suggest that all regulation in the workplace is wrong, but simply to point out that business can absorb only so much in the way of cost burdens, and choices have to be made. That requires an open debate acknowledging that fact.
  Mr. Kevan Jones: Which regulations does the hon. Gentleman consider appropriate, and which does he consider inappropriate?
  Mr. Hammond: We went through that earlier. Clearly, I would prefer the lightest possible regulatory regime, with the state interfering only where there is a very clear market imperfection or failure that will not correct itself. We have to be clear that there are winners and losers in any regulatory intervention in the freedom to bargain, whether individually or collectively, between employers and employees.
  Professor George Bain, who has been much quoted by Labour Members, said:
  "Very often it's a case of employee versus employee because one person's flexible working is quite often someone else's inflexible working".
  Covering for an absent colleague in a very small business may impose significant additional burdens on others in the workplace and may cause great unfairness. When the Government intervene in the employment relationship, flexibility is always lost. That includes the flexibility to recognise the fact that individuals have different needs. Many workers will not benefit from extended maternity or adoption leave or the extension of parental rights, but may have other equally important caring responsibilities. It is not obvious to me that they should effectively shoulder the burden of improving the situation of their colleagues who are parents. That is why the debate needs to acknowledge that there is a limit to the burdens that can be imposed on business and that priorities are now being set by default, without any debate taking place.
  There is no better example than part 1 of this Bill of legislation that can have a hugely disproportionate impact on the small business sector. The direct monetary costs to firms of implementing the additional pay and leave regimes will be small, and the benefits to the employee will be broadly the same in all cases. However, the indirect costs will often be significantly higher in small firms, perhaps outweighing the value of the benefit to the employee.
  Government impact assessments always assume that work is simply redistributed to cover for absence, but in many small firms that is simply not practical. An
  924
  employer with two staff cannot effectively redistribute the work load of one of them. He may be able to recruit a temporary replacement, but the most likely outcome is simply that the firm's capacity will be reduced during the period of absence—the marginal order will be passed up and, in a service business, the extra customer will be turned away. The effect could be even worse in a business that has a worker with a key skill who is to take time off.
  As I told the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), the smallest businesses have to compete not only with larger rivals but, in many sectors, with foreign competitors and unfair competition from the black economy. The ability to be flexible and quick on their feet is their principal, and often their only, competitive advantage, and to stifle that advantage is to pull the rug from under the most dynamic sector of our economy; that in turn will impact on the rate of job creation.
  Of course, the Bill's provisions are incremental; viewed in isolation, their impact is probably manageable. However, they do not exist in isolation, and are part of a torrent that has swamped small business and shows no sign of abating. Undoubtedly, regulation in the workplace has a cost that affects new job creation. There is therefore a debate to be had in society about the extent to which we are prepared to trade a reduction in the economy's job—creating capacity, which is detrimental to people who are not in work, for improvements in benefits for those who are in work. In my judgment, that debate is being stifled by the Government, who deny that those choices exist.
  On the other hand, I am glad to be able to give a broad welcome to the other main strand of the Bill—the proposals to improve dispute resolution and tribunal procedures—although we are disappointed that the Government already appear to have bowed to union pressure and are clearly under considerable pressure from their own Back Benchers to tilt the playing field further in favour of the employee in tribunal proceedings. We want to explore a number of doubts further in Committee and I look forward to having the opportunity to do so. However, those doubts do not detract from the worthwhile attempt to achieve a better balance between the rights of employees to access a tribunal and the right of an employer to manage his business without vexatious or frivolous cases being brought.
  I am unable to extend to part 4 my broad welcome for parts 2 and 3. The proposal to impose on employers a requirement to recognise and provide time off to unlimited numbers of union learning representatives without having any say in their selection or appointment smacks once again of a pay-off to the Government's union paymasters. Union learning reps can play a valuable role in the workplace, but that depends on the consensus that underpins their placement. The idea that the benefits experienced in some workplaces as the result of consensus can be extended to all workplaces by compulsion underlines the intellectual poverty of the Government's regulation-oriented approach.
  I could go on to talk about the gold plating of the European Union fixed-term workers' directive in clause 45, but the point has been well made by a number of other Members.
  Mr. Andrew Turner: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Hammond: Will not, if my hon. Friend does not mind, because I must give the Minister plenty of time to reply to our interesting debate.

  925
  One issue that we want to explore in Committee is whether the measures on fixed-term workers are a genuinely misguided attempt to protect a group of workers who, on the whole, do not appear to need protection, or whether, as a Government Member may inadvertently have given away, there is a hidden agenda that seeks to stamp out unconventional forms of working relationships. The most controversial and significant clause is not yet in the Bill, but we all know that it is coming, hopefully during the Commons stages; it will deal with the right to consideration of an employee's request for part-time work. In its present form, the provision was described by Mr. Bill Morris as "a pyrrhic victory". From what we have witnessed so far this evening, it is apparent that the Government will come under enormous pressure from their own Back Benchers to turn the right to consideration of a request into a right to part-time working. On the face of it, the right to serious consideration of a request is innocuous enough, but it has the potential to become a serious threat to many smaller businesses if it develops into a right to part-time working. We shall seek a clear and unambiguous assurance from the Government that that will not be allowed to happen.
  It is a political fashion for all parties to claim to put promotion of enterprise and the pursuit of competitiveness high on their agenda, which of course is a huge advance on the position just 10 years ago. However, the rhetoric changes more rapidly than the reality. The reality is that the Government are instinctively regulatory. The Chancellor this afternoon signalled that there was a raft of further burdens on the way. The Government talk the talk of deregulation, but last year alone introduced 3,865 new regulations—the highest number ever.
  Now the Government—the largest and probably one of the least enlightened employers—have the temerity to lecture business on good practice, which they say is in business's own interest. The Bill has about it the unmistakable smack of the man from Whitehall knowing best. The Opposition remain unconvinced that regulation is the only or the best way to improve workplace morale and to secure better working relationships. Indeed, it is clear that an over-prescriptive regulatory regime could damage workplace relationships, especially in smaller businesses.
  We accept that the broad objectives of the Bill are mostly well intentioned and, taken individually, may not appear to impose an unacceptable burden, but taken in context, they add to the burden of new regulatory compliance, administrative obligations and organisational inflexibility under which the camel of small business is currently buckling. We must scrutinise with the utmost care every additional straw that the Government propose to heap on its back.
  We all aspire to a high-wage, high-employment economy, but we in the Opposition believe that we must generate the wealth before we distribute it. After three successive quarters of manufacturing recession, when business across all sectors is reeling under the seemingly unstoppable flow of new regulation, when the global economy is heading into a sharp downturn, and when jobs are being lost at an accelerating rate across UK industry, now is not the time to impose any new burdens which will make it less likely that Britain's economy will weather the gathering storm.
  926
  The Bill will increase burdens on business, reduce the competitiveness of British industry and cost jobs. I therefore urge my hon. Friends to support the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
  9.42 pm
  The Minister for Employment and the Regions (Alan Johnson): I begin by declaring an interest: I am a member of the Communication Workers Union. It is a one-way process: I pay the union about £12 a month, and I receive nothing but the joy and pleasure of being a member of that great union.
  Comments about the camel of small business have given us on the Labour Benches the hump. I have been trying to weave in a reference to the Foreign Secretary, but I have failed in the short time available.
  As the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) said, the debate has been rather predictable. It amazes me that although there is a new trade and industry Opposition Front-Bench team, nothing has changed. Listening to the contributions of the two Opposition Front-Bench spokespeople—spokesmen—one would not believe that we were discussing a Bill that will increase statutory maternity leave to 26 weeks.
  We have been part of a World Health Organisation drive since the 1990s to encourage mothers to breast—feed for the first six months of their baby's life. We are extending statutory maternity leave to 26 weeks, increasing statutory maternity pay, which has been around the £62 mark for years, to £100 by 2003, and introducing statutory paternity leave. Anyone whose wife or partner had a child 20 years ago will remember that the woman spent a week to two weeks in hospital. Now, a woman who goes into a maternity unit is lucky if she is there for 20 to 30 hours. [Interruption.]
  This might seem amusing to Opposition Members. I see that there are two women on the Opposition Benches. Judging by the contribution of the hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson), which I shall deal with shortly, it is high time that the Opposition had more women to represent the views of mothers.
  Mr. Barker rose—
  Alan Johnson: I shall not give way just yet.
  We are talking about a Bill that introduces paternity leave and adoptive leave for the first time. Adoptive parents get no help whatever and we are trying to encourage them to work so that we do not have to keep children in care. Those must be laudable aims, but the Opposition meet them with the same sort of basic derision that we have heard time after time in such debates. We try to establish basic civilised minimum standards in the workplace and the Opposition oppose that at every turn.
  Before I turn to the points made by those on the Opposition Front Bench, I should like to deal with some of those made by Back Benchers, who made extremely interesting and well thought out contributions to an important debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley), whose constituency I had the pleasure of visiting, raised the important issue of the equal pay questionnaire, which is part of the Bill but was mentioned very rarely. The questionnaire may make a small contribution towards closing the gender gap

  927
  between men and women's pay. My hon. Friend also expressed her concerns about costs awards. Many examples have been received of cases in which people who were not legally represented were hampered and hounded by lawyers suggesting that the £10,000 was available in more than only vexatious cases. We have had enough such examples to announce in our response to "Routes to Resolution" that we will examine the operation of the costs regime and ask the employment tribunal system taskforce to consider the matter. My hon. Friend made an important point about the location of employment tribunals, which the taskforce will also consider in its deliberations.
  Furthermore, my hon. Friend was also one of several Labour Members who mentioned the three-step procedure and their fears that it may interfere with the ACAS code of practice. Our view is that the three-step procedure is a minimum standard. In terms of introducing the procedure into all businesses, including small businesses, which would have more difficulty coping than some larger businesses, we think that a basic three-step procedure is right. The employment tribunals will still use the ACAS code as their benchmark and we will work with ACAS to ensure that the basic minimum procedure is user friendly. My hon. Friend made a number of other detailed points, so I hope that she will excuse me if I cannot get around to all of them.
  The hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable), who explained to me that he could not be present for the winding-up speech, spoke about the all-work test. I need to refute the point that was made. He said that the Bill forced partners of disabled people to take an all-work test and to seek work. In fact, it provides encouragement for partners of disabled people, who will not be forced to take a medical test or required to seek work. The requirement is to attend a work-focused interview, whose purpose is to ensure that partners have the opportunity to discuss their work options and to be made aware of the support that is available to them.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, Central (Mr. Doran), who is present in the Chamber, has long experience of these issues. Indeed, his experience as a lawyer underlined his contribution. He spoke about the way in which tribunals have changed since they were first introduced and about getting away from that. The original idea was that they would be formal but not legalistic or intimidating. We have moved a long way away from that idea and my hon. Friend made an important point in that respect. I do not know whether it is ever possible to get back to the original concept. None the less, the Bill and our response to "Routes to Resolution" encourage use of the ACAS arbitration scheme that has been in place since May. We also encourage fixed conciliation and fast track, and ask the ETS taskforce to consider how we can improve tribunals for users in particular. That will be a large part of the taskforce's work.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, Central also mentioned the fixed-term work directive. My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester. Central (Mr. Lloyd) picked up on that point. We believe that, because of its nature, that directive should apply to employees. We believed that the part-time workers directive should apply to workers because of its nature. One of the nine unanimously agreed recommendations of the Bain taskforce is that the right to request flexible working should apply to employees, not workers. Many of my hon. Friends have made the point
  928
  that that confusion should be tackled. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, we can use a provision in the Employment Relations Act 1999 to review the complicated worker-employee issue. We will start work on that early in the New Year.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, Central mentioned the Leggatt report. We do not want the proposals to suffer from planning blight. Leggatt makes a useful contribution, but it covers the whole tribunal system, not simply employment tribunals. We need to move on with the proposals.
  The hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk) made the second excellent contribution that I have heard from him in the past few days. He also spoke on Friday when I was present. He made an important point about single fathers. The parents of young children, including single fathers, will have the right to have their request for flexible working seriously considered by their employers.
  The hon. Gentleman asked us to exclude small family businesses from the provisions. I was not clear to which provisions he wanted that exclusion to apply. Did he mean the right to maternity leave, to increased maternity pay, or to paternity leave? Did he mean the employment tribunal proposals, which Conservative Front-Bench Members welcomed? They are specifically designed to help small businesses, which usually end up in a tribunal because they have no basic procedures in the workplace.
  Mr. Prisk: Will the Minister give way?
  Alan Johnson: I have no time now, but I shall consider giving way later.
  Michael Fabricant: The Minister has nine minutes.
  Alan Johnson: The hon. Gentleman has not been present in the Chamber to listen to the important contributions.
  Michael Fabricant: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Minister accurately said that I had not been in the Chamber, but he inaccurately suggested that I had not been following the debate. I have been following it on the Annunciator.
  Mr. Speaker: That does not really count.
  Alan Johnson: I knew that the hon. Gentleman was part of the "No Turning Back" group, but I did not realise that he was part of the no turning up group.
  Mr. Prisk rose—
  Alan Johnson: I cannot give way, but I am dealing with the point that the hon. Gentleman made in the debate. He said that we were gold-plating the fixed-term directive. Conservative Front-Bench Members also made that point. Other member states already have or are expected to pass legislation to prevent pay and pensions discrimination

  929
  against fixed-term employees. Laws to implement the directive in Germany and France have already been passed.
  Mr. Prisk: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have been named by the Minister but not allowed to respond. I believe that there is a convention about that.
  Mr. Speaker: It is up to the Minister.
  Alan Johnson: It is not called naming, but responding to a contribution. The hon. Gentleman will learn as he goes along.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central made the important point that he abhorred anti—parent rhetoric. I was surprised at the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale). Of all Opposition Front-Bench Members' arguments, claiming that other employees resented the parents of small children getting maternity leave and pay and parental leave was one of the worst.
  We conducted the widest consultation on the document arid talked to hundreds of employees—thousands through their representatives. That issue was not raised once. No employees said that they resented parents having time off to spend with their children. Everyone has a stake in ensuring that children are raised properly. Of course people who did not have children said that they also wanted flexible working hours. That is why we have established the work-life balance initiative. It is also the reason for all our work to spread best practice in this area.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central also raised the point about the no-difference test in the employment tribunal proposals. We are saying that if an employer who has met the basic minimum standards—having a grievance and discipline procedure in the workplace and having given the employee written terms of their employment—makes a mistake on procedures beyond that, and if, in the view of the employment tribunal, that would have made no difference to the outcome of the case, it should not count against them. That seems fair. Indeed, if we do not introduce this measure, we may discourage employees from moving to the ACAS code of practice from a more complicated procedure.
  The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Barker) arid my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) made important points. The important but rather esoteric point relating to the detail of the employment tribunal proposals will best be left to the Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West made a point about the right to be accompanied, the response to which I need to read into the record. We intend that the right to be accompanied will apply to the basic grievance and discipline procedure. That needs to be understood by my hon. Friend.
  The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams) used the case of a serious industrial dispute to score cheap political points. This Government did not, at any stage, introduce anti-trade union legislation. There has never been a case in which employees could not be sacked by art employer for taking industrial action. Employers had
  930
  either to sack them all or take them all back on. That was not something that Thatcher introduced in the 1980s; it has always been the case. We introduced measures—I do not remember Plaid Cymru opposing them—to ensure that workers were protected for eight weeks, and that if the employer had made no attempt to resolve the dispute, they remained protected from dismissal. The hon. Gentleman was, therefore, quite wrong.
  This has been a fascinating debate, not least because it has exposed the new approach of the Conservative Opposition to the issue of rights and responsibilities in the workplace. They were against the minimum wage; they abolished the wages councils; they refused to consider parental leave as a point of principle; they refused to sign the social chapter; and they imposed burdens on business in their vindictive and spiteful attack on free independent trade unionism.
  I will give the Conservatives an example of a burden on business. They introduced the provision that every company, big or small, had to write to its employees every time it gave them a pay rise, to remind them that if they paid their union dues through check-off, they had the right to withdraw. The Conservatives insisted that every employee should be re-recruited to the union every three years. That was a burden on business, introduced for a completely different reason.
  Now, after two general election drubbings and nine defeats in nine by-elections, the Conservatives have a new tack. They remain the only mainstream centre-right party in Europe to oppose basic minimum standards in the workplace, but they disguise their hostility by describing civilised standards for women on maternity leave, for adoptive parents and for parents of small children as burdens on business.
  The Conservatives now manage, in the words of their reasoned amendment, to
  "welcome measures which promote family friendly practices in the workplace"
  While opposing this Second Reading. This subterfuge will be as unsuccessful as their previous attempts to block family-friendly policies.
  We have aligned the rules for maternity leave and pay so that the same qualifying condition and the same notice periods apply for both. In other words, we have made it much easier for employees—and, of course, employers will also benefit from the measures. I therefore ask the House to support the Second Reading of the Bill.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 134, Noes 311.

  Division No. 87]

  [9.59 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Boswell, Tim

  Amess, David

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Brady, Graham

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Burns, Simon

  Bacon, Richard

  Butterfill, John

  Barker, Gregory

  Cameron, David

  Baron, John

  Cash, William

  Bellingham, Henry

  Bercow, John

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Blunt, Crispin

  Chope, Christopher

  931

  Clappison, James

  Maples, John

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Mates, Michael

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Mercer, Patrick

  Collins, Tim

  Moss, Malcolm

  Conway, Derek

  Murrison, Dr Andrew

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Cran, James

  Ottaway, Richard

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Page, Richard

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Paice, James

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Paterson, Owen

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Duncan, Alan (Rutland & Melton)

  Prisk, Mark

  Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

  Randall, John

  Evans, Nigel

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Fabricant, Michael

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

  Fallon, Michael

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Field, Mark (Cities of London)

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Flight, Howard

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Flook, Adrian

  Ruffley, David

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Francois, Mark

  Selous, Andrew

  Gale, Roger

  Shepherd, Richard

  Garnier, Edward

  Simmonds, Mark

  Gibb, Nick

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Goodman, Paul

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Gray, James

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Grayling, Chris

  Spink, Bob

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Spring, Richard

  Greenway, John

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Grieve, Dominic

  Streeter, Gary

  Hammond, Philip

  Swayne, Desmond

  Hawkins, Nick

  Swire, Hugo

  Hayes, John

  Syms, Robert

  Heald, Oliver

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Hendry, Charles

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Hoban, Mark

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Hunter, Andrew

  Tredinnick, David

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Trend, Michael

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Johnson, Boris (Henley)

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Key, Robert

  Viggers, Peter

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Walter, Robert

  Knight, Rt Hon Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Watkinson, Angela

  Lansley, Andrew

  Whittingdale, John

  Leigh, Edward

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Wilkinson, John

  Lidington, David

  Wilshire, David

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Loughton, Tim

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Luff, Peter

  Yeo, Tim

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Dr. Julian Lewis and

  Malins, Humfrey

  Mrs. Cheryl Gillan.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Alexander, Douglas

  Beggs, Roy

  Allan, Richard

  Benn, Hilary

  Allen, Graham

  Bennett, Andrew

  Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

  Berry, Roger

  Best, Harold

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Blackman, Liz

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Blizzard, Bob

  Austin, John

  Borrow, David

  Bailey, Adrian

  Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

  Baird, Vera

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Barnes, Harry

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Barron, Kevin

  Brennan, Kevin

  Beard, Nigel

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L

  932

  Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

  Hain, Rt Hon Peter

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Bryant, Chris

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Burnham, Andy

  Hancock, Mike

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

  Hanson, David

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Havard, Dai

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Healey, John

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Heath, David

  Caplin, Ivor

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Cawsey, Ian

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Challen, Colin

  Hendrick, Mark

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Chaytor, David

  Heppell, John

  Clapham, Michael

  Hermon, Lady

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Hesford, Stephen

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Hewitt, Rt Hon Ms Patricia

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Heyes, David

  Clelland, David

  Hill, Keith

  Coaker, Vernon

  Hinchliffe, David

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hoey, Kate

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Holmes, Paul

  Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

  Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Corston, Jean

  Hope, Phil

  Cousins, Jim

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Cranston, Ross

  Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

  Crausby, David

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Cruddas, Jon

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

  Cummings, 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)

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Dalyell, Tarn

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Jamieson, David

  David, Wayne

  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, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Dismore, Andrew

  Jowell, Rt Hon Tessa

  Dobbin, Jim

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Donaldson, Jeffrey M

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Doran, Frank

  Kidney, David

  Dowd, Jim

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Drew, David

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Lammy, David

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Edwards, Huw

  Laws, David

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Laxton, Bob

  Ennis, Jeff

  Lepper, David

  Farrelly, Paul

  Leslie, Christopher

  Field, Rt Hon Frank (Birkenhead)

  Levitt, Tom

  Fisher, Mark

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Linton, Martin

  Flint, Caroline

  Lloyd, Tony

  Flynn, Paul

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Love, Andrew

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  McCabe, Stephen

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

  George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

  McDonnell, John

  Gilroy, Linda

  McIsaac, Shona

  Godsiff, Roger

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Goggins, Paul

  McNamara, Kevin

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  McWalter, Tony

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  McWilliam, John

  Grogan, John

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  933

  Mallaber, Judy

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Mann, John

  Sheerman, Barry

  Marris, Rob

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Simon, Siôn

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Martlew, Eric

  Skinner, Dennis

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Merron, Gillian

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Miller, Andrew

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Southworth, Helen

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Spellar, Rt Hon John

  Moran, Margaret

  Squire, Rachel

  Morley, Elliot

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Morris, Rt Hon Estelle

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Mountford, Kali

  Stevenson, George

  Mudie, George

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Mullin, Chris

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Stringer, Graham

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Tami, Mark

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Taylor, Ms Dan (Stockton S)

  Olner, Bill

  Taylor, Dr Richard (Wyre F)

  Organ, Diana

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Owen, Albert

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Timms, Stephen

  Pearson, Ian

  Tipping, Paddy

  Perham, Linda

  Touhig, Don

  Pickthall, Colin

  Trickett, Jon

  Pike, Peter

  Truswell, Paul

  Plaskitt, James

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Pond, Chris

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Pope Greg

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Price, Adam

  Wareing, Robert N

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Watson, Tom

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Watts, David

  Pugh, Dr John

  Webb, Steve

  Purchase, Ken

  White, Brian

  Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Rammell, Bill

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Rapson, Syd

  Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Williams, Hywel (Caemarfon)

  Robertson, Angus (Moray)

  Winnick, David

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

  Wishart, Pete

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Wood, Mike

  Rooney, Terry

  Woodward, Shaun

  Ruddock, Joan

  Woolas, Phil

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Ryan, Joan

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Salmond, Alex

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Salter, Martin

  Sanders, Adrian

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Mr. Tony McNulty and

  Sawford, Phil

  Mr. Nick Ainger.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Main Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 62 (Amendment on Second or Third Reading):—
  The House divided: Ayes 307, Noes 131.

  Division No. 88]

  [10.15 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Denham, Rt Hon John

  Alexander, Douglas

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Allan, Richard

  Dismore, Andrew

  Allen, Graham

  Dobbin, Jim

  Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Donaldson, Jeffrey M

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Doran, Frank

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Dowd, Jim

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Drew, David

  Austin, John

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Bailey, Adrian

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Baird, Vera

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Banks, Tony

  Edwards, Huw

  Barnes, Harry

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Barron, Kevin

  Ennis, Jeff

  Beard, Nigel

  Farrelly, Paul

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Field, Rt Hon Frank (Birkenhead)

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Fisher, Mark

  Beggs, Roy

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Benn, Hilary

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Bennett, Andrew

  Flint, Caroline

  Berry, Roger

  Flynn, Paul

  Best, Harold

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Blackman, Liz

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Blizzard, Bob

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Borrow, David

  George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

  Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

  Gilroy, Linda

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Goggins, Paul

  Brennan, Kevin

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Grogan, John

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Hain, Rt Hon Peter

  Bryant, Chris

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Burnham, Andy

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Hancock, Mike

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Hanson, David

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Havard, Dai

  Caplin, Ivor

  Healey, John

  Cawsey, Ian

  Heath, David

  Challen, Colin

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Chaytor, David

  Hendrick, Mark

  Clapham, Michael

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Heppell, John

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Hermon, Lady

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Hesford, Stephen

  Clelland, David

  Hewitt, Rt Hon Ms Patricia

  Coaker, Vernon

  Heyes, David

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hill, Keith

  Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Corston, Jean

  Hoey, Kate

  Cousins, Jim

  Holmes, Paul

  Cranston, Ross

  Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Crausby, David

  Hope, Phil

  Cruddas, Jon

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

  Cummings, John

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  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

  Dalyell, Tarn

  Hurst, Alan

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Hutton, Rt Hon John

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  David, Wayne

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Jamieson, David

  Dawson, Hilton

  Jenkins, Brian

  935

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Pond, Chris

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Pope, Greg

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Price, Adam

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Pugh, Dr John

  Kidney, David

  Purchase, Ken

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Rammell, Bill

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Rapson, Syd

  Lammy, David

  Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Laws, David

  Robertson, Angus (Moray)

  Laxton, Bob

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Lepper, David

  Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

  Leslie, Christopher

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Levitt, Tom

  Rooney, Terry

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Linton, Martin

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Lloyd, Tony

  Ryan, Joan

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Salmond, Alex

  Love, Andrew

  Sanders, Adrian

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  McCabe, Stephen

  Sawford, Phil

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McDonnell, John

  Shaw, Jonathan

  McIsaac, Shona

  Sheerman, Barry

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Simon, Siôn

  McNamara, Kevin

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Skinner, Dennis

  McWilliam, John

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Mann, John

  Southworth, Helen

  Marris, Rob

  Spellar, Rt Hon John

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Squire, Rachel

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Martlew, Eric

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Stevenson, George

  Merron, Gillian

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Miller, Andrew

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Stringer, Graham

  Moffatt, Laura

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Tami, Mark

  Moran, Margaret

  Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

  Morley, Elliot

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Morris, Rt Hon Estelle

  Taylor, Dr Richard (Wyre F)

  Mountford, Kali

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Mudie, George

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Mullin, Chris

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Timms, Stephen

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Touhig, Don

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Trickett, Jon

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Truswell Paul

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Olner, Bill

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Organ, Diana

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Owen, Albert

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Pearson, Ian

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Perham, Linda

  Wareing, Robert N

  Pickthall, Colin

  Watson, Tom

  Pike, Peter

  Watts, David

  Plaskitt, James

  Webb, Steve

  Pollard, Kerry

  White, Brian

  936

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Woodward, Shaun

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Woolas, Phil

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Williams, Hywel (Caemarfon)

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Winnick, David

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Wishart, Pete

  Mr. Tony McNulty and

  Wood, Mike

  Mr. Nick Ainger.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Key, Robert

  Amess, David

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Knight, Rt Hon Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Lansley, Andrew

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Leigh, Edward

  Bacon, Richard

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Barker, Gregory

  Lidington, David

  Baron, John

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Bellingham, Henry

  Loughton, Tim

  Bercow, John

  Luff, Peter

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Blunt, Crispin

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Boswell, Tim

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Brady, Graham

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Malins, Humfrey

  Burns, Simon

  Maples, John

  Butterfill, John

  Mates, Michael

  Cameron, David

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Cash, William

  Mercer, Patrick

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Chope, Christopher

  Murrison, Dr Andrew

  Clappison, James

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Page, Richard

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Paice, James

  Collins, Tim

  Paterson, Owen

  Conway, Derek

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Prisk, Mark

  Cran, James

  Randall, John

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Duncan, Alan (Rutland & Melton)

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

  Ruffley, David

  Evans, Nigel

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Fabricant, Michael

  Selous, Andrew

  Fallon, Michael

  Shepherd, Richard

  Field, Mark (Cities of London)

  Simmonds, Mark

  Flight, Howard

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Flook, Adrian

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Francois, Mark

  Spink, Bob

  Gale, Roger

  Spring, Richard

  Garnier, Edward

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Gibb, Nick

  Streeter, Gary

  Goodman, Paul

  Gray, James

  Swayne, Desmond

  Grayling, Chris

  Swire, Hugo

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Syms, Robert

  Greenway, John

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Grieve, Dominic

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Hammond, Philip

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Hayes, John

  Tredinnick, David

  Heald, Oliver

  Trend, Michael

  Hendry, Charles

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Hoban, Mark

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Hunter, Andrew

  Viggers, Peter

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Walter, Robert

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Waterson, Nigel

  Johnson, Boris (Henley)

  Watkinson, Angela

  937

  Whittingdale, John

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Wilkinson, John

  Wilshire, David

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Mrs. Cheryl Gillan and

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Dr. Julian Lewis.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time.

  Employment Bill

    EMPLOYMENT BILL (PROGRAMME)
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Order [28 June]:—
    That the following provisions shall apply to the Employment Bill:

    EMPLOYMENT BILL (PROGRAMME)
      Committal
      1. The Bill shall be committed to a Standing Committee.
      Programming of proceedings
      2. All proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments or on any further message from the Lords) shall be programmed.

      Proceedings in Standing Committee
      3. Proceedings in the Standing Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on 22nd January 2002.
      4. The Standing Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.

      Consideration and Third Reading
      5. Proceedings on consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at Nine o'clock on the day on which those proceedings are commenced or, if that day is a Thursday, at Six o'clock on that day.
      6. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock on the day on which those proceedings are commenced or, if that day is a Thursday, at Seven o'clock on that day.
      7. Sessional Order B (programming committees) made by the House on 28th June 2001 shall not apply to proceedings on consideration and Third Reading—[Mr. Stringer.]
      The House divided: Ayes 294, Noes 134.

      Division No. 89]

      [10.27 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Berry, Roger

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Best, Harold

      Alexander, Douglas

      Blackman, Liz

      Allan, Richard

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Allen, Graham

      Blizzard, Bob

      Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

      Borrow, David

      Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Brennan, Kevin

      Austin, John

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L

      Bailey, Adrian

      Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

      Baird, Vera

      Banks, Tony

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Barnes, Harry

      Bryant, Chris

      Barron, Kevin

      Burnham, Andy

      Beard, Nigel

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Benn, Hilary

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Bennett, Andrew

      Caplin, Ivor

      938

      Cawsey, Ian

      Heppell, John

      Challen, Colin

      Hesford, Stephen

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Hewitt, Rt Hon Ms Patricia

      Chaytor, David

      Heyes, David

      Clapham, Michael

      Hill, Keith

      Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

      Hinchliffe, David

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Hoey, Kate

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Holmes, Paul

      Clelland, David

      Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

      Coaker, Vernon

      Hope, Phil

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

      Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

      Corston, Jean

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Cousins, Jim

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Cranston, Ross

      Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

      Crausby, David

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Cruddas, Jon

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Hurst, Alan

      Cummings, John

      Hutton, Rt Hon John

      Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Jamieson, David

      Dalyell, Tam

      Jenkins, Brian

      Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      David, Wayne

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Dawson, Hilton

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Denham, Rt Hon John

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Dismore, Andrew

      Kidney, David

      Dobbin, Jim

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Doran, Frank

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Dowd, Jim

      Lammy, David

      Drew, David

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Laws, David

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Laxton, Bob

      Edwards, Huw

      Lepper, David

      Ellman Mrs Louise

      Leslie, Christopher

      Ennis, Jeff

      Levitt, Tom

      Farrelly, Paul

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Field, Rt Hon Frank (Birkenhead)

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Fisher, Mark

      Linton, Martin

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Lloyd, Tony

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Flint, Caroline

      Love, Andrew

      Flynn, Paul

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      McCabe, Stephen

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      McDonnell, John

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      McIsaac, Shona

      George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Gilroy, Linda

      McNamara, Kevin

      Godsiff, Roger

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Goggins, Paul

      McWalter, Tony

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      McWilliam, John

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Mallaber, Judy

      Grogan, John

      Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

      Hain, Rt Hon Peter

      Mann, John

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Marris, Rob

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Hancock, Mike

      Martlew, Eric

      Hanson, David

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Havard, Dai

      Merron, Gillian

      Healey, John

      Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

      Heath, David

      Miller, Andrew

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Moffatt, Laura

      Hendrick, Mark

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Moran, Margaret

      939

      Morley, Elliot

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Morris, Rt Hon Estelle

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Mountford, Kali

      Southworth, Helen

      Mudie, George

      Spellar, Rt Hon John

      Mullin, Chris

      Squire, Rachel

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Stringer, Graham

      Olner, Bill

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Organ, Diana

      Tami, Mark

      Owen, Albert

      Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Pearson, Ian

      Taylor, Dr Richard (Wyre F)

      Perham, Linda

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Pike, Peter

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Plaskitt, James

      Timms, Stephen

      Pollard, Kerry

      Tipping, Paddy

      Pond, Chris

      Touhig, Don

      Pope, Greg

      Trickett, Jon

      Powell, Sir Raymond

      Truswell, Paul

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Price, Adam

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Pugh, Dr John

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Purchase, Ken

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Wareing, Robert N

      Rammell, Bill

      Watson, Tom

      Rapson, Syd

      Watts, David

      Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

      Webb, Steve

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Robertson, Angus (Moray)

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Rooney, Terry

      Ruddock, Joan

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Williams, Hywel (Caemarfon)

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Winnick, David

      Ryan, Joan

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Salmond, Alex

      Wishart, Pete

      Sanders, Adrian

      Wood, Mike

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Woodward, Shaun

      Sawford, Phil

      Woolas, Phil

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Simon, Siôn

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Younger-Ross, Richard

      Skinner, Dennis

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

      Mr. Tony McNulty and

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Mr. Nick Ainger.

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Cash, William

      Amess, David

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

      Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

      Chope, Christopher

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Clappison, James

      Bacon, Richard

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Barker, Gregory

      Baron, John

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Beggs, Roy

      Collins, Tim

      Bellingham, Henry

      Conway, Derek

      Bercow, John

      Cran, James

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Curry, Rt Hon David

      Blunt, Crispin

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      Boswell, Tim

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

      Brady, Graham

      Djanogly, Jonathan

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Donaldson, Jeffrey M

      Burns, Simon

      Duncan, Alan (Rutland & Melton)

      Butterfill, John

      Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

      Cameron, David

      Evans, Nigel

      940

      Fabricant, Michael

      Page, Richard

      Fallon, Michael

      Paice, James

      Field, Mark (Cities of London)

      Paisley, Rev Ian

      Flight Howard

      Paterson, Owen

      Flook, Adrian

      Prisk, Mark

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Randall, John

      Francois, Mark

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Gale, Roger

      Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

      Garnier, Edward

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Gibb, Nick

      Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

      Goodman, Paul

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Gray, James

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Grayling, Chris

      Rosindell, Andrew

      Green, Damian (Ashford)

      Ruffley, David

      Greenway, John

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Grieve, Dominic

      Selous, Andrew

      Hammond, Philip

      Shepherd, Richard

      Hawkins, Nick

      Simmonds, Mark

      Hayes, John

      Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

      Heald, Oliver

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Hendry, Charles

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Hermon, Lady

      Spink, Bob

      Hoban, Mark

      Spring, Richard

      Hunter, Andrew

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Streeter, Gary

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Swayne, Desmond

      Johnson, Boris (Henley)

      Swire, Hugo

      Key, Robert

      Syms, Robert

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Knight, Rt Hon Greg (E Yorkshire)

      Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Lansley, Andrew

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Leigh, Edward

      Tredinnick, David

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Trend, Michael

      Lidington, David

      Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Loughton, Tim

      Viggers, Peter

      Luff, Peter

      Walter, Robert

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Waterson, Nigel

      MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

      Watkinson, Angela

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Whittingdale, John

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      Malins, Humfrey

      Wilkinson, John

      Maples, John

      Witshire, David

      Mates, Michael

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Mercer, Patrick

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Moss, Malcolm

      Murrison, Dr Andrew

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Osborne, George (Tatton)

      Mrs. Cheryl Gillan and

      Ottaway, Richard

      Dr. Julian Lewis.

      Question accordingly agreed to.

    EMPLOYMENT BILL [MONEY]
    Queen's recommendation having been signified—
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a) (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with bills),
    That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Employment Bill, it is expedient to authorise:—

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

    (a) any expenditure incurred by a Minister of the Crown or government department under the Act,

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

    (2) the payment into the Consolidated Fund of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable into that Fund under any other Act.—[Mr. Stringer.]

    Question agreed to.

    Ordered,
    That Mr. David Drew be discharged from the Procedure Committee and Mr. Iain Luke be added.—[Mr. Stringer.]

PETITION

  Meriden Gap
  10.39 pm
  Mrs. Caroline Spelman: I have been asked to present a petition about the future location of the national football stadium. One of the proposed sites is in my constituency on greenbelt land known as the Meriden gap. It is a narrow strip of land five miles wide between Coventry and Birmingham and there is very strong local feeling about the possible siting of such an amenity on green-belt land on a point between two major conurbations. More than 2,000 signatures have been collected and the petition urges
  the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport to reject this proposed development on Green Belt land to ensure the continued protection of the Meriden Gap from such developments for present and future generations.
  And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will every pray.
  To lie upon the Table.

  "Women Empowering Women" Scheme
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Stringer.]
  10.40 pm
  Miss Anne Begg: I suppose I should begin by explaining what the women empowering women scheme is. It is not, as the title suggests, an organisation that is aimed at helping women looking to climb the promotion ladder and hoping to break through the glass ceiling, nor is it a company offering assertivees training to women, nor is it the latest feminist craze. The name is very misleading. The scheme should not have been called women empowering women. If I were to call it women exploiting women, women defrauding women or even women setting out to con other women out of lots of money, the House would have a much better idea of what this so-called giving scheme is all about.
  The scheme has been rampaging through the Aberdeen area since the summer, leaving behind large numbers of women who are now up to £3 000 in debt. That is why I was keen to secure an Adjournment debate to highlight just how insidious and invidious the scheme is and the dangers that it poses.
  What is the scheme? Perhaps it would be easier to understand it if I described it as a pyramid selling scheme that does not involve any hard work such as selling anything. Women are enticed into the scheme with the promise that if they hand over £3,000, they could get £24,000 in return. The women enter at the giving level when they hand over the money and then move up the pyramid to the receiver level when they get the pay-out.
  The women are told that they cannot lose, that everyone is a winner and that it would be foolish to give up such a chance to obtain some extra money. The groups meet in each other's houses and the excitement means that it is very difficult to resist the hype. There is always someone there who has already won lots of money. However, that can happen only if there is a ready supply of new people with £3,000 to enter the scheme.
  It does not take long for the supply of victims in an area to dry up, leaving the vast majority of those who have entered with little or nothing. For every person who gets £24,000, there must be at least eight others who get nothing.
  My attention was drawn to the scheme in July when the Aberdeen newspaper, the Evening Express, ran a large spread about the excitement that the scheme was generating and named some of the people involved. They included a local police woman. The newspaper pointed out the dangers of the scheme and showed graphically how it was impossible for everyone to be a winner and how quickly an area could be saturated.
  I had believed that the scheme had run into the sand or had moved to another area, but it appears that it began in the Isle of Wight and has worked its way north. However, I was shocked to discover in late October, when The Press & Journal in Aberdeen ran another story, that the scheme was still running. I heard stories of men being recruited to the scheme—it had now changed its name to "friends empowering friends"—and I was given a leaflet that was delivered to doors in Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire and that encouraged women to part with £100 to get £800 back.

  943
  All that smacked of desperation. The people who had been suckered into the scheme were desperately trying to get their money back any way they could. That is why I raise the issue now. It is the lead-up to Christmas and many women, including single parents, are desperate for money. They are being conned into believing that if they get their money into the scheme now, they will have extra money for Christmas.
  I am very concerned that women who are already in financial difficulties are still being sucked into the scheme. None of them can possibly be a winner at this late stage. The winners are long gone; they won back in the summer. Those who are entering the scheme now are at the bottom of the pyramid and will never get their money back, far less win. It is sad speaking to the women who have lost out. They swallowed wholesale the belief that they could not fail, that the scheme was well run and that there would be an endless supply of new people willing to "invest", as the schemes call it, their money.
  What I have found most insidious about the scheme is that it is wrapped in the cloak of women helping each other by investing in each other. Many of the early participants were intelligent women with good jobs. They had to be because they had to be able to put £3,000 into the pot and be willing to take the risk of losing it all. For those women, it was more like a gamble: they accepted that they might lose, and presumably they could afford to. It was not, however, the early participants who lost, but the poorer women they tricked into following them who could not afford the stake money in the first place, far less afford to lose it.
  1 also wonder about the morality of the so-called winners. They must know that in order for them to have won, a number of others must have lost. I wonder whether they have no conscience about exploiting others and possibly even their friends I do not suppose that they declared their unearned income to the tax man either.
  One of the women I spoke to said that the heart group that she joined had changed the rules as it went along. She had received no money and was puzzled that it could be allowed to do that. It was difficult explaining to her that it was a con from the start: if no money was being created, it was bound to run out if people were winning. In the early days some women praised the scheme because in this cynical day and age it was wonderful that women were trusting strangers with large amounts of their money. The trust did not last long, and if only they had been a bit more cynical they may have recognised the scheme for what it was—a complete fraud.
  The woman that I spoke to on GMTV had invested a total of £600 in two different schemes and is yet to win anything, but she still has faith that she will soon get more than £2,000 back. "I've made lots of new friends," she said, and I wondered how long they will last when she loses her money to them, or they lose to her.
  Mr. Simon Thomas: I am sure the hon. Lady is aware that the scheme is nationwide. It is called the hearts scheme in my constituency where it has had a similar effect to the scheme in Aberdeenshire. Does
  944
  she agree that the scam, which is in fact women impoverishing other women, is based on ignorance? Although the scheme is not illegal, and it remains to be seen whether the Government will make it illegal, it would be useful if local trading standards officers were given clear instructions on how to dissuade people from joining it. At the moment, the scam is feeding off the ignorance of women and some men, and surviving on the back of that. Perhaps we could do something to overcome that ignorance.
  Miss Begg: I intend to ask the Minister whether the scheme is illegal under existing legislation, and I have several questions that I will pose later. The hon. Gentleman is right when he says that ignorance is the problem, but it is difficult to educate people about such schemes. No matter how much I said to the woman I met this morning about how the scheme cannot work, how it will run out and how there is no possibility of her winning, she did not believe me. It was difficult to persuade her that the arithmetic did not add up. Indeed, some areas are blaming the scheme's collapse on the bad publicity. They have not realised that it cannot succeed and cannot work.
  I requested an Adjournment debate on the scheme for two reasons: to highlight the evil, as the hon. Gentleman said, and to generate more publicity to warn those who are contemplating getting involved of the dangers. I hope that trading standards officers in each area are doing that. Many local newspapers such as mine in Aberdeen have been useful and helpful in highlighting those dangers, although that has not always worked.
  My second reason is that I want to ask the Government to ensure that there is effective legislation. I want such schemes outlawed. I know that the Government cannot legislate to stop people's greed, but many of the women now being drawn into the scheme are not greedy. Some just want to make a bit of extra cash so that they can get more for their kids this Christmas, and they are victims of a very clever con, which has fooled many intelligent people.
  I know that the DTI has posted a warning about such schemes on its website, and although I am sure the website is extremely popular, it is not exactly a means of mass communication. Women in Aberdeen and the woman to whom I was talking this morning still have faith in the scheme simply continuing. They do not believe the warnings, but will always believe the hype. The Evening Express and The Press & Journal in Aberdeen have run a number of stories pointing out the dangers and giving dire warnings, but people are still joining the scheme in the north-east of Scotland. Education alone will not be enough, which is why we need to consider legislation.
  I know that the Government outlawed the running of pyramid schemes in the Trading Schemes Act 1996, and, regulations under that Act came into effect in 1997. I know also that the Minister, in a previous guise as the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs, issued a press release on 15 February 1998 with the headline "Griffiths Warns Against Get-Rich-Quick Schemes". Although my hon. Friend now has a different remit, he is obviously still interested in the issue.

  945
  The regulations passed under the 1996 Act govern schemes involving the supply of goods and/or services. However, I understand that the intention of the Act was to outlaw money circulation schemes. That is borne out by an article in The Times of 6 February 1997, so this Government do not get the blame, but a previous one do. The article said:
  "New regulations aimed at stamping out fraudulent 'money circulation' scams come into force today".
  If that was the intention of the 1996 Act, why has no case been brought against schemes such as "women empowering women"? Is the existing legislation defective in some way, or has it simply never been tested in court? If the Act does not apply, will the Government reform it to outlaw these odious schemes once and for all? The answer seems to hinge on the reference to providing goods and/or services.
  It appears that some states of the USA have managed to legislate so that not only do those who originate or organise the schemes fall foul of the law, but it is illegal merely to participate in them. Under article 23 of the New York General Business Law, anyone participating in such a scheme can be charged with the commission of a crime and any money received by them can be confiscated. The Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act defines an illegal pyramid promotion as a plan by which a person gives a consideration, usually money, for the opportunity to receive money that is derived primarily from a person's introduction of other persons to participate in the plan, rather than from the sale of a product. If the USA can do it, surely we can too. Perhaps we already have the legislation. I await the Minister's reply.
  I appreciate that anything that the Government do will not change things overnight and it will not help those of my constituents who already face a bleak Christmas because they were duped into believing that they were investing in something that could not fail. Inevitably, it has failed, and badly. The experience of the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) suggests that it has failed all over the country. It has left behind far more losers than winners.
  10.54 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Nigel Griffiths): I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate, on her excellent research and on her clear presentation. The whole House understands the concerns that have led her to raise the matter. She speaks not only for her constituents but for the many people who may have been duped by such schemes.
  The Government are certainly concerned about the risks inherent in gifting schemes such as "women empowering women". As my hon. Friend spelt out, the danger of such schemes is that they depend on each participant recruiting several more to the scheme. I pay tribute to David Perry and The Press & Journal for highlighting the problems of such schemes and alerting people in the area and throughout the UK to them. A network of participants
  946
  cannot expand indefinitely and will eventually break down. Participants joining a scheme late in the day stand a good chance of losing their original contribution as well as any chance of a return. Even those who join early may lose out if those whom they recruit to the scheme fail to recruit further participants.
  No doubt, some people go into such schemes in full knowledge of the risks, but the Government are concerned about those who participate unaware of the risks; those who are misled by others when invited to join; and those who risk money that they cannot afford to lose. Earlier this year, specific warnings about the scheme were issued by trading standards officers. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who has ministerial responsibility for women, commended the Department of Trade and Industry for reinforcing that.
  I want to reiterate the message that I gave three years ago in the House warning the public of joining any scheme that promises something for nothing. That message was recently reinforced by the Department and the media. Indeed, earlier this year, my right hon. Friend added to those warnings. Sadly, some people have ignored all the advice about schemes that promise something for nothing. My right hon. Friend said that the Government would consider avenues for protecting the public from such schemes.
  The "women empowering women scheme" received a great deal of media attention earlier this year. It appears to have emerged first on the Isle of Wight, and spread to other parts of the United Kingdom. It claimed to be restricted to women participants and operated by participants making a gift of £3,000 to a member of the network; they handed over that money in the expectation of receiving multiples of that amount as others joined the network.
  Against that background, my right hon. Friend asked the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport to consider such schemes in the context of possible changes in the legislation in response to the review report. The Culture Secretary confirmed that the case for changes to current gambling legislation to act against schemes such as "women empowering women" would be considered in the context of the follow-up to the review of gambling legislation. Of course, any changes in that area are likely to require primary legislation. In the meantime, I join my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South in urging women to avoid participating in any scheme that appears to promise something for nothing.
  I am aware that the media speculated on the number of women who joined the scheme, but accurate figures are hard to come by. The way in which the scheme operates, by means of separate and independent gifting groups, makes it impossible to make any realistic estimate of the numbers involved. In the summer, a survey revealed that local trading standards offices across the country had received about 170 inquiries or complaints about the scheme, but that provides no reliable basis for assessing the number of people who handed over £3,000 in anticipation of collecting a lot more in return for little or no effort.
  The scheme has been referred to as a form of pyramid selling or a pyramid investment scheme. Both descriptions are inaccurate. The scheme was considered carefully by trading standards officers, the Financial Services

  947
  Authority and the DTI. It did not purport either to trade in goods and services or to generate profit and income from investment.
  The consensus of the enforcement officers, backed by legal opinion, is that the scheme operated as a form of chain letter and was outside the scope of legislation covering trading schemes, pyramid selling or investment services. The variety of descriptions highlights the difficulty of effectively defining a type of scheme that appears to be new to the UK and outwith the scope of current legislation.
  Of course, all schemes where money changes hands are subject to the general criminal law on fraud, theft and deceit. Evidence of criminal behaviour is a matter for investigation by the police. In the case of the "women empowering women" scheme, promotional material has avoided using language capable of being interpreted as fraud or a definite promise of a return. So far as is known, no evidence justifying investigation by the police has been presented. None of the approaches to local trading standards offices included evidence of fraud, theft or deceit, and no satisfactory evidence has yet been produced.
  It is apparent from the media coverage that many participants in the scheme acknowledged the risks inherent in it, but treated it as a form of gambling. Arguably, many participants saw no harm in taking such a gamble. Others may have seen no harm in making a gift—
  Miss Begg: I accept that there are women who know that the scheme is a risk and a gamble, but there are others, particularly those who come in at the end of a scheme, who may not get the warnings or who, because the amount of money that they can invest has reduced to such an extent, think that the scheme is a sure-fire winner. Those are the most vulnerable women and probably the ones who have been most fraudulently treated.
  Nigel Griffiths: My hon. Friend makes an entirely reasonable and cogent point. I can only hope, with her, that anyone who was on the dole, in stricken circumstances or on a very low income did not manage to gather the £3,000 to invest in the scheme and was, perhaps, exempt. Some, undoubtedly, were not.
  Mr. Simon Thomas: The Minister is accurately setting out the problems posed by the scheme and how difficult it is to ascertain the extent of it, the involvement of individuals and how culpable they are when they join the scheme. Does he accept from me the point that was also made by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg)—that despite the difficulties, such schemes have been made illegal in several states such as New England? If the Government took account of that in their review of gambling law, it would send a clear message to back up the good advice already issued by the Government that people should not touch such schemes.
  Nigel Griffiths: My hon. Friend asked me to make it clear that we will consider any prosecutions in New England and any changes in the law. I can give her a clear
  948
  guarantee that we will do so. The point is well made. Our problem is framing the law to address such an alleged abuse.
  The scheme, unfortunately, did not purport to trade in goods or services or to generate profit or income from investment. Someone has suggested uncharitably to me that there are a lot of mugs out there who will be suckered into such schemes—into giving up £3,000 for no promise of any return. I make no value judgment on how the scheme was sold and I condemn such opinions, but the consensus among enforcement officers, including trading standards officers and the like—this view is backed by legal opinion—is that the scheme operated as a form of chain letter and was therefore outside the scope of legislation covering trading schemes, pyramid selling or investment services. The variety of descriptions highlights the difficulty of effectively defining a type of scheme that appears to be new to the UK and outwith the scope of current legislation.
  We know that there is a danger that, by changing or introducing legislation too quickly in response to a particular scheme in one form, we may open the door for some unscrupulous people to develop new variants that succeed in evading the law. In practice, it is not possible to introduce new legislation in response to every new scheme or variant of a scheme that comes along, so in the long term it is better to consider carefully whether legislation is the right approach and, if it is, what form it should take.
  That is the approach that the Government are taking. We obviously want people to be protected against losing their money, but we do not want new situations to produce a bad effect. When my right hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for women issued her warning about the scheme earlier this year, she explained that the Government would be considering very closely the avenues for tackling, schemes of this sort. We are looking at the approach that is likely to be adopted in other countries, specifically in Europe, and also, as has been mentioned, in the USA. The evidence gathered to date is not completely conclusive because of the differences between the legislation of member states and between federal and state legislation in the USA. There is evidence that some member states and some states in the USA would regard the "women empowering women" scheme as a form of gambling. The fact is, however, that some may not regard it as such.
  As hon. Members will know, the review of current gambling legislation chaired by Sir Alan Budd presented its report during the summer. Schemes such as the "women empowering women" scheme did not fall within Sir Alan' remit and he made no specific recommendation about them. Such schemes may, however, be relevant in terms of the strong concerns that he noted about lottery and other scams to which people can fall prey, many of which originate outside the UK, as the "women empowering women" scheme appears to have done. Sir Alan recommended that lotteries should be for the exclusive purpose of good causes.
  Against that background, my right hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for women asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport to consider such schemes in the context of possible changes to the legislation in response to the review report. The Secretary of State has confirmed that the case for changes

  949
  to current gambling legislation to act against schemes such as WEW would be considered in the context of the follow-up to the review of gambling legislation. Of course, any changes in this area are likely to require primary legislation.
  In the meantime, I join my hon. Friends and other hon. Members in urging people, and especially women, to avoid participating in any such scheme that appears to promise
  950
  something for nothing. The Government are determined to take on board all the arguments that have been advanced in the debate and to take whatever actions are practicable and appropriate.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at nine minutes past Eleven o'clock.

Preamble
[SYLVIA HEAL in the Chair]

Scotland Act
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Ainger.]
John Robertson: Whenever I partake in debate in Westminster Hall, Madam Deputy Speaker, you seem to be in the Chair, and I am deeply honoured to see you again.
I wish to advance and enhance the debate commenced on 6 November 2001, when I asked the Secretary of State for Scotland:
"If she will make a statement on proposed changes to the Scotland Act 1998 to alter the number of Members of the Scottish Parliament."
She answered:
"The Government have made it clear that we would take into account the experience of the first years of the Scottish Parliament's operation and be pragmatic in our response to that. I can therefore announce today that I shortly intend to launch a consultation exercise on the size of the Scottish Parliament. It will not involve any postponement in the boundary commission's ongoing review."
I asked the following supplementary question:
"Does she also agree that the Act and the Scottish Parliament should be left alone, so that they have a chance to bed in before any review takes place?",
whereon she answered:
"I understand my hon. Friend's point, but the consultation is open ended. One reason why the devolution settlement has proved so successful to date is that it was built on a spirit of consensus and co-operation, and I shall seek to broker such consensus through the consultation exercise.—[Official Report, 6 November 2001: Vol. 374, c. 91.]
I said then that I was looking forward to the consultation period, and I view this morning's debate as another step on the road of that consultation.
My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Scotland Office has informed me that the consultation document will be released in a few weeks' time, so our debate may be a few weeks too early, but we should try to take the discussion a step forward. I want to appear conciliatory and helpful to the Minister and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I hope that the Minister will respond to my and other hon. Members' questions today. That will be a further contribution to the consultation exercise.
I see that members of the Scottish National party are present. As a party, they did nothing to contribute to realising the Scottish Parliament. These were the people who said, "Labour couldn't deliver a pizza, never mind a Scottish Parliament," so I will be interested to hear what they have to say today. The fact that the new Parliament has worked so well is not because of but in spite of them. Those who truly helped to create the Scottish Parliament can congratulate themselves on doing such a good job on an untried system.
184WH
The Law Society sent me a letter today, which states:
"The Scotland Act 1998 is working very well. The legislative framework has produced no substantial problems of interpretation and although the effect of importing the ECHR into the domestic law has been far reaching it is viewed as being beneficial."
That body has no political affiliations, so if it is happy, we should all be happy.
The first question is whether we should open up the Act. If we do, the entire measure must be examined and amended as necessary.
One of the most contentious points, which I raised in my question to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, is the right number of Members of the Scottish Parliament in relation to regional list MSPs. For the record, I shall quote the Act:
"So far as reasonably practicable, the ratio which the number of regional member seats bears to the number of constituency member seats shall be 56 to 73…The number of regional member seats for a region shall be…one eighth of the total number of regional member seats, or…(if that total number is not exactly divisible by eight) either one eighth of the highest number which is less than that total number and exactly divisible by eight or the number produced by adding one to one eighth of that highest number".
Let me put that into English. The ratio of constituency MSPs to list MSPs is 73:56, but if the boundary changes are pursued, the number of constituency MPs for Westminster will decrease to about 57.
The Minister of State, Scotland Office (Mr. George Foulkes): The number is not necessarily set at 57. Taking account of sparsity of population and geographical factors, it could be somewhere between 57 and 60.
John Robertson: I am aware of my hon. Friend's point. I used the number 57 only as an example; I was not saying that that would be the number. Far be it from me to pre-empt what the Boundary Commission will say. If the number of constituency MPs went down to 57, the number of list MSPs would go down to 45, which would result in 102 MSPs under the Act as it stands. That will be determined by the Boundary Commission, whose report is due between December 2002 and December 2006.
The matter raises a number of questions, which I am sure other hon. Members will also ask. Should the boundaries for MPs and MSPs be coterminous? Do we retain 129 MSPs? Do we keep regional lists? Should there be regional lists? Should someone be able to stand as a candidate and for a list seat? Are the people of Scotland getting value for money? [Interruption.] I would argue yes, but there is always room for improvement.
I should like to address some of these questions with my own observations. Coterminosity—if that is a word; if not, I have just invented it—is vital. The need for MPs and MSPs to work together is paramount for the people of Scotland. Things are hard enough at present, with regional list MSPs cherry-picking casework that does not relate to their remit. Let us imagine what things would be like if there were three or more first-past-the-post MSPs and seven or more regional list MSPs per MP constituency. What sort of partnership would that foster?

185WH
Council wards would have to change, but how would we do that? That is an important question for the Scottish Executive. To whom would the public go for advice and help? They may know their MP but not their MSP, who could be one of many. How do we regulate for who should do what? There are too many grey areas.
I return to the current list system. I appreciate that we cannot turn the clock back, but we must consider the interference from list MSPs in MP and constituency MSP casework. Taking on high-visibility work and sending a constituent to an MP or constituency MSP because their case involves work without any glorification is not on. Hon. Members know what I am talking about. It has been suggested that some minority parties are deliberately using that approach to undermine the important work that a colleague is trying to do for his or her constituents. That must stop. Playing politics with someone's life is not on, and this could be a good time to put a stop to that practice.
To that end, I have two suggestions that could be considered: changing the voting system or changing the regional lists to a national list. The voting system that has been widely mentioned is that involving two first-past-the-post candidates—one man, one woman—in all the current seats, giving 144 MSPs or, with the boundary changes that would reduce the number to 57, 114 MSPs. The gender balance would be fairer and would match that of the population of Scotland. For those who like proportional representation, each constituency could have an alternative vote system and elect the first man and first woman to secure more than 50 per cent. of the electorate's vote. I add that as a thought-provoking comment, and not as my own view on how the system should be.
Mr. Ian Davidson: Does my hon. Friend accept that the existing system needs to be changed in circumstances where 5,455 people can vote Liberal in Orkney and Shetland and elect one MSP, but in Glasgow 112,588 people can vote Labour and get no one elected at all?
John Robertson: My hon. Friend makes a good point. Those who have indulged in PR might think it somewhat imbalanced and not the right direction in which to go. However, we must take into consideration the size of some constituencies. Although Orkney and Shetland has been treated differently from other constituencies, there is probably a fair case for PR because Orkney and Shetland are so far apart. If we open the Act, we must consider every case on its merit. There may also be a case for Western Isles to have a separate seat, but where do we stop?
Mr. Alex Salmond: Western Isles has a separate seat, as far as I know.
John Robertson: The hon. Gentleman is right. At the moment, it does, but under the Act it would not with changes to the boundaries.
Annabelle Ewing: With whom would the hon. Gentleman plan to twin Western Isles in that case?
John Robertson: Why twin Western Isles with anything? The system seems to work quite well at the
186WH
moment, so why change it? If it's not broken, don't fix it. I am glad that hon. Members intervened, because I want to put the facts straight. An article appeared in The Herald on 15 November that was written by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), whom I am pleased to see here today. The article was followed up by a letter to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. The hon. Gentleman said:
"Donald…"—
—Donald Dewar, the First Minister, who died this time last year—
"made it abundantly clear that this matter would be left open-ended—regardless of the provisions of the forthcoming Bill—and that the Government would deliver the necessary legislative changes to secure the number of MSPs at 129 at the appropriate time…The referendum took place on the basis that Scotland would achieve a parliament of 129 members, enabling it to have a strong and effective committee system, and represent all parts of the nation."

I know how I felt, but I must say that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—who is not here—answered that perfectly. She said:
"It is laughable to suggest that the SNP was 'part of a consensus that led to the creation of the Scottish Parliament'. Your party boycotted the Constitutional Convention which planned it and consistently denigrated its work…To suggest that a man who devoted his life to the creation of a devolved Scotland would have done secret deals with a party whose aim is to destroy it beggars belief. Donald can no longer defend himself, but I can and will."
I would like to reiterate that.
Mr. Salmond: Why should it be an attack on Donald Dewar to detail the fact that in 1997 there were a number of meetings and arrangements to construct a common platform to fight a successful referendum campaign? That was one of Donald Dewar's greatest achievements. The hon. Gentleman knows that some of the meetings were detailed in the press while Donald was alive, and he did not challenge the fact that they took place.
John Robertson: Once again, the hon. Gentleman's case is not based on what was said in public. There was never a statement that he or Donald had a secret deal that guaranteed 129 MSPs. On what part of the road to Damascus did the hon. Gentleman experience his conversion? From not taking part in the establishment of a Scottish Parliament, he is now suddenly its saviour That beggars belief. Apart from the hon. Member for Perth (Annabelle Ewing), who seems a bit upset, hon. Members know that.
I will describe the background to the Scotland Act 1998, and put the record straight concerning my predecessor, the late Donald Dewar—the architect of the Act—what he said, how he felt about the Scottish Parliament and how it should develop. Donald was the first First Minister. He was Secretary of State for Scotland from 1997 until the commencement of the new Parliament. I was his election agent and constituency chairman, and we had regular meetings and telephone conversations, at least once a week. Sadly, we had more telephone calls than meetings during the latter days. We had many discussions while he was preparing the Scotland Bill, and even longer ones when it was complete. I am not the sharpest tool in the box, so he had to explain it to me—sometimes in quite vociferous detail—and we had many arguments about it. We continued in that manner up to the election and beyond.

187WH
Some people have taken political advantage of Donald's death, and the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan is one of them. The hon. Gentleman's deal was imaginary, a misunderstanding, or perhaps he was a victim of Donald's legendary sense of humour. If it took place, it seems to have taken on a life of its own. The hon. Gentleman would claim that he invented the wheel, if he thought that he could get away with it. It is unlikely that any meeting occurred. Donald was arguably the most respected politician of his generation, and perhaps of other generations, in Scotland.
Mr. Alistair Carmichael: Regardless of who may have said what to whom in meetings that may or may not have taken place, has the hon. Gentleman considered the proceedings in Committee and on Report of the then Scotland Bill? Does he accept that it was made clear at that stage, at least in spirit, that the size of the Scottish Parliament would be maintained at the current level?
John Robertson: The short answer is that I have looked at various bits and pieces. I was involved, and I do not necessarily agree with the hon. Gentleman's interpretation of what was said. Donald intended that the Scottish Parliament would eventually consist of about 105 MSPs. However, we always agreed—I know that this is contentious with some of my colleagues—that the number of Westminster Members would decrease due to the existence of a Scottish Parliament. If we are going to reopen the Scotland Act, we must consider that.
Mr. Salmond: Can the hon. Gentleman explain why Donald Dewar, against my advice on the chosen site, went ahead with the construction of a new Parliament building for 129 MSPs?
John Robertson: A new building does not necessarily have to have 129 seats. You wanted a Scottish Parliament; you got one. I do not mean you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am talking about the Scottish people.
Mr. Davidson: On behalf of those who were there at the time, I remind the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan that far from it being the case that Donald and others agreed that the number should remain at 129, it was written into the Act that the number should go down. It is inconceivable that there was an agreement that the number should stay the same yet legislation was drafted differently. I remember, having believed that the number should remain at 129, being defeated in that argument at the time as, regrettably for the cause of Scotland, I was in so man) other things.
John Robertson: Scotland's loss was Westminster's gain. My hon. Friend makes a valid point. To put to bed the point about the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan, I want to finish with a bit of humour; well, I found it very funny. It is something that the Minister said about the hon. Gentleman on the BBC programme "Newsnight Scotland". He accused him of indulging in a complete fantasy in trying to rewrite history. That sums it up perfectly.
Mr. Foulkes: Does my hon. Friend remember that on that programme I challenged the hon. Member for Banff
188WH
and Buchan to come up with just one piece of evidence to corroborate his fantastic claims? He did not do so. The debate on the matter has been going on for many weeks, and the hon. Gentleman has not explained why he waited until a few days ago to engage in it. Does not that indicate that it is complete fantasy?
John Robertson: My hon. Friend makes a good point; he has obviously read part of my script and knocked three minutes off my speech, which everyone will be glad to hear. I ask hon. Members whether Donald Dewar would confide in a political opponent rather than a friend or colleague. Least of all would he confide in the person in politics—I do not mean to be disparaging—whom he detested the most. The hon. Gentleman has at best been set up or is being economical with the truth. I should be interested to hear and see the proof of his argument.
Many matters need to be addressed, not least the size of the Scottish Parliament. It is clear that I have spoken for too long, but I hope that I have achieved what I set out to do—to advance the debate, leaving plenty of answers for the Minister to give and others to think about that. We have a long way to go in the debate, but whether we are Members of Parliament, Members of the Scottish Parliament or political activists, it must be our goal to ensure that the people of Scotland and the United Kingdom, not the politicians, are the winners.
9.59 am
Mr. Alan Reid: I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson) on securing the debate on this important subject. He did not refer to alternative systems of proportional representation. He referred to the alternative vote system, but that is not a proportional system. Electing a man and a woman in the same constituency using an alternative vote would mean that the same party would win both seats.
John Robertson: It is proportional where I come from.
Mr. Reid: Even in Glasgow, the Labour party does not get 100 per cent. of the votes. At the last council election, the Labour party secured fewer than half the votes, but because of the unproportional electoral system, it was elected with a large majority—[Interruption.] I do not carry the figures around in my head.
If we had a PR system and the single transferable vote, every Member of the Scottish Parliament would have equal status. If that vote were used in constituencies with four or five Members, we would achieve genuine proportionality and genuinely equal status for every Member. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the list system creates many anomalies. An STV system would be the perfect solution to the problem, although it is a solution that may not receive unanimous support from the House of Commons.
The hon. Gentleman said that when the number of Members representing Scotland is reduced to between 57 and 60 following the Boundary Commission report, boundary anomalies between MPs and MSPs would be created if the number of MSPs were not reduced to the same number. However, that is not a problem. The Scottish Parliament needs its 129 Members and its many Committees. Its Committee system is much better than

189WH
that of the House, allowing its Back Benchers to get involved in legislation at the pre-legislative stage without oppressive Whips telling them what to do. Even if the Scotland Act 1998 were not amended and the number of MPs and MSPs reduced, there would be an intervening period of two or three years—although it could in theory be as long as four and a half years—before the first Parliament were to be elected under the new boundaries. During that long period, MPs and MSPs would represent constituencies with different boundaries. That situation would arise even under the Act.
I turn to another section of the Scotland Act, of which both the Minister and I have been aware in recent months. It is part II, E3 of schedule 5, which sets out financial assistance for shipping services that start or finish, or both, outside Scotland as a reserve power. I wish to relate that power to the efforts to reopen the ferry service between Campbeltown and Ballycastle. The hon. Gentleman will recall that that service was started during the previous Conservative Administration, but the then Secretary of State, now Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, adopted an ideological position and insisted that it be run by a private operator without a subsidy. That Government gave that operator a hidden subsidy by handing it a CalMac boat for nothing. The service failed because it cannot be run without a subsidy and because the operator was not under a duty to market the service adequately. It failed also because all the operator wanted was the boat; it sailed away with it, leaving the people of Campbeltown and Ballycastle without a ferry service.
Efforts have recently been made to get that service started again. A meeting on the issue took place last night, and I believe that the Minister intends to introduce an order to transfer power to the Scottish and Northern Ireland Executives. I am sure that the Minister realises how important the service is, particularly to Kintyre, with its high unemployment rate. The people of Kintyre are becoming impatient because the service did not run last summer or the summer before. Given continuing delays, they are concerned that it will not run next summer. I hope that the Minister will inform us of his plans and that he will do all that he can to get the service up and running for next summer.
9.59 am
Mr. James Wray: I am grateful to be called in this important debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson) certainly did an excellent job in making his case, but I would like to be a wee bit more forthright. He is a bit of a gentleman, but I am not; I am a red-blooded socialist. If ever anything made me angry, it was when the Home Secretary appointed Lord Jenkins to take over the commission and issues to do with proportional representation. It was like a farmer appointing a fox to look after the chickens while he was away.
I well remember a Liberal Democrat meeting that I had the opportunity to attend, at which the main speaker was Lord Jenkins. He pleaded every angle. We know how democratic and consensual he is: he wanted to govern the country with a gang of four. Obviously, he got the message. However, he is now in a higher place and using his position to every advantage.
190WH
In my lifetime, I have never seen as undemocratic a process as what is happening in Scotland now. When we were debating the Bill in 1997 and being urged to vote for a Scottish Parliament, it was assumed that just under a total of 2 million votes would be cast for the parties in the Scottish Parliament, with the Scottish National party getting about 690,000 votes and the Tories 394,000. Under proportional representation, the SNP went from six to 28 seats and, in the latest election, to 35. The Tories went from no seats to 22, and Labour got 53. The Liberal Democrats went from 22 to 28 seats and are still at 28. No one can tell me that that is a democratic system.
The first thing that we should do—I am dying to do it, and I hope that it is why we are here—is open the Scotland Act and push for 129 seats to be retained in the Scottish Parliament. Is this democracy? The use of the list system resulted in people running around half a dozen constituencies up and down the country, accountable to no one. They were paid to visit constituencies in which they had no electors and ran up bills at taxpayers' expense. That was not the system that I was looking for. Let us consider the numbers in Scotland on a proportional basis. I could make a case for retaining the number of Scottish MPs; we are looking after 55 million people, as opposed to 5 million.
I never was one to believe in consensus or coalition politics nor ever identified myself in any way with the Tories. In fact, all my life, I wanted to keep them out. That was my job, during my 30 years in office as a Labour Member of Parliament and as a Labour council member. I saw the state that the city was left in—the slums and the poverty—after it had been under the control of the Tories for decades.
We know exactly what Liberal Democrat councils did when they had their first taste of power. How could I, or any socialist, support a coalition with Liberal Democrats and Tories—especially with Liberal Democrats? What did they do for the poor during the days of the poll tax? They posted the names of people who did not pay their poll tax in the local Safeway.
Mr. Davidson: I agree with my hon. Friend that the Liberal Democrats are a thoroughly bad lot. [Interruption.] I am glad to hear that that has universal acceptance. Does my hon. Friend agree that one possible coalition is between the Labour party and the Co-operative party? Indeed, on the general election result, if the Co-operative party stood in the second ballot in the areas where Labour chose not to stand, the Co-op would win 28 seats, and the Labour party 55. It would be a far more reliable and trustworthy coalition partner than that bad lot, the Liberals.
Mr. Wray: I agree with those percentages, but I would go even further. The people who best represent the working classes and know most about them, wage restraint and poverty are the trade unions. Why do we not allow every trade union in Scotland and the rest of Britain to throw a candidate into the ring? I know where that would leave the Tories and Liberals. This is a mathematical fraud which was brought out by the man who chaired the commission. It is unfair and undemocratic.
I understand that many hon. Members want to speak, so I will finish quickly. The only Tory who got the whole thing right was Shirley Bassey—the winner takes it all.
10.5 am
Mr. Alex Salmond: I did not know that Shirley Bassey was a Tory; that is news to me. I was more disappointed to discover that Lulu was a Tory, although she has perhaps changed her mind. [Interruption.] We could go through a range of potential supporters.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson) on securing the debate, although I cannot bring myself to congratulate him on the content. I was asked why I had waited until now to write to the Secretary of State. The answer is simple: I was lying in bed, ill, watching Scottish questions, during which I saw a procession of people, led by the hon. Gentleman, who can be described only as having the most malign and hostile attitudes towards the Scottish Parliament. I commend the video of Scottish questions to hon. Members. It was not until I saw that Question Time that I realised that Labour Members were so resentful of the institution that they helped create.
Mr. Foulkes: No; come on.
Mr. Salmond: The Minister says no, but I believe that even he was taken aback by the procession of people, led by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland, who wanted to knock down the Scottish Parliament.
John Robertson: The hon. Gentleman must have missed the opening gambit of my speech. Not only did I say that the Scottish Parliament had worked well, I quoted what the Law Society had said about it. He may have missed one other point, which was that the Parliament has done well not because of his party, but despite it.
Mr. Salmond: The hon. Gentleman resented the voting system and the list MSPs. He said that the Parliament was interfering in business, that the system was not working and that he wanted a reduction in numbers. There is a seam of hostility towards the Scottish Parliament on the Labour Benches here in Westminster. It is based not on any democratic theory but on the fact that so many Labour Members feel that they cannot get in the newspapers because some upstart MSP is taking away their publicity and most of their functions. If hon. Members looked in the mirror, they would see the basis of the hostility, which is unfortunate and unlike the atmosphere of 1997.
The hon. Gentleman said that the SNP did nothing to secure the Scottish Parliament, and he found it strange and inconceivable—
Mr. Foulkes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Salmond: I will in a few seconds, if the Minister allows me. I know that he will want to intervene after my next comments.
The hon. Gentleman found it inconceivable that the late Donald Dewar would want to build a common platform with the SNP for the referendum. That shows how out of touch he was, even working as Donald Dewar's election agent. As Secretary of State in 1997, Donald Dewar—to his great credit—was intensely interested in building that common platform. I do not
192WH
know about meetings with other party leaders at the time, but there were seven meetings with me—two in Scotland, four in Westminster, either in the House or Dover house, and one in a restaurant not too many hundred yards from here. They took place in May, June, July and August 1997—[Interruption.] I can furnish the Minister with the dates if he wants proof that the meetings took place. I take great exception to the Secretary of State's attack and argument that that somehow demeans the memory of Donald Dewar. It was to Donald's eternal credit that he helped to build that common platform which was so successful in 1997.
Mr. Foulkes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Salmond: I will give way to the Minister in a few seconds.
I did not wait until Donald was dead before I revealed that the meetings took place. The contents of those meetings were revealed in a series of articles that I had in Scotland on Sunday in September last year, when Donald was still alive. The key issue for us was not the number of MSPs, but Donald's acceptance and acknowledgement that the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish people would have the right to move to independence if they so chose through a single question referendum. That was the key assurance. [Interruption.] The Minister shakes his head. I do not know whether he disagrees that that was the key assurance. Donald Dewar stated that in the House on 24 May and 4 June, subsequent to those meetings. To challenge that, as the Secretary of State seemed to do when she said that it was inconceivable that Donald would have those meetings and make arrangements with me or anyone else, flies in the face of all history and what happened in 1997. I shall give way to the Minister now. I hope that he makes it clear that he does not doubt that these meetings and arrangements took place.
Mr. Foulkes: The hon. Gentleman entirely misses the point. No one on the Government Benches questions that the meetings took place. We question his word about what Donald Dewar said and the pledge that he gave at those meetings. It is inconceivable that he would pledge automatically to change what he had agreed, as the hon. Gentleman claims. Donald Dewar said publicly that once the Scottish Parliament was up and running we would review the numbers, and that is precisely what we are doing. We are fulfilling his promise, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will stop misquoting Donald Dewar and dishonouring his memory.
Mr. Salmond: The Minister is struggling, because that is not what the hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland said. He seemed to argue that it was inconceivable that he, Donald Dewar's election agent, would not know that such meetings took place. I take it that the Minister does not doubt that the meetings took place or that arrangements were made to construct a common platform for the referendum campaign. What is wrong with that?
John Robertson: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman again, but I did not say that. I said that it was inconceivable that Donald Dewar would say one thing to the hon. Gentleman and something else to his friends

193WH
and colleagues. I do not have the exact words in front of me, but that is what I stated. I never mentioned myself personally; I simply said that his friends and colleagues were involved too. Is it conceivable that he would tell the hon. Gentleman one thing and all those people something else?
Mr. Salmond: As I remember it, the hon. Gentleman seemed to doubt that Donald Dewar would have meetings with someone he detested. Well, if that was his attitude towards me, I would have had to join a queue. Many of those he detested were in his own party and some serve in the present Cabinet. The hon. Gentleman seemed to suggest that because Donald had those personal feelings about me he would not have such meetings, or make arrangements with me. That is not the case. In 1997, both Donald and I found co-operation through the referendum campaign one of the most fruitful periods in Scottish politics.
As I said, the number of MSPs was not the most important target for the SNP. It may have been a much stronger issue for the Liberal Democrats. They can have the opportunity to speak and put forward that point of view. The matter was raised and it was discussed—on the basis first that Donald wanted to know whether there would be any dissent from the argument that a reduction in the number of Westminster MPs from Scotland was a quid pro quo of devolution. I do not think that anyone seriously argued at that stage that that should be challenged.
Secondly, Donald Dewar told me and others too—I think that I can provide evidence—that the argument for contiguous boundaries came from elsewhere in the Cabinet. I assumed that he meant the Prime Minister, although he did not say so. That argument was put forward by Donald and was certainly suggested to Jim Wallace by Henry McLeish and others at other stages. Certainly, it was said to me.
Thirdly, as the Minister rightly said, Donald said that the argument could be revisited. I doubt whether there is serious argument about that as Donald said so the following year on the record. Henry McLeish, as Minister of State, argued that, as did Lord Sewel in the House of Lords. There is no serious argument about that. Fourthly and crucially, Donald told me explicitly that he thought it inconceivable for the numbers in the Scottish Parliament to be changed over the heads of MSPs. There was no question of that.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland suggested that I may have been misled. I do not think that I was misled, but if I was, it would not be to my discredit: whatever was in the White Paper or the Bill, the matter could, and would, be revisited. I am not the only person to get that impression, or the only person to believe that the onus on reducing the number of MSPs did not come from the Scottish Office at the time. It did not come from Donald Dewar, and certainly not from Henry McLeish or Lord Sewel, but from forces elsewhere in the Cabinet outwith the Scotland Office.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland suggested that the SNP contributed nothing to the referendum campaign. I have also heard that refrain from the Minister of State. I was wondering whether
194WH
there was an independent way to judge and verify who contributed what to the referendum campaign of 1997, and decided to use a search engine in the Scottish News archive that searches all the Scottish press. I inputted the words "Liddell referendum Scotland 1997", "Foulkes referendum 1997", "Salmond referendum 1997" and "Dewar referendum 1997".
There were 120 references to speeches that I made during the referendum campaign. Donald did rather better with 183 references. The Secretary of State was mentioned four times, two of which referred to the 1979 referendum and one to the Monklands, East by-election. The other referred to a Treasury leak that doubted the credibility of the financial powers allocated to the Scottish Parliament. The Minister of State had one hit, on the day after the referendum, which welcomed the result.
Mr. Brian H. Donohoe: What were the responsibilities of my hon. Friend the Minister? What were the duties of the current Secretary of State? They certainly were not in Scotland, and in those circumstances one would presume that they would not be able to make any contribution to that debate.
Mr. Salmond: The hon. Gentleman takes me to my next point, which was that the Secretary of State was in the Treasury deploying her expertise on pensions. The Minister of State was in the Department for International Development, and was in Montserrat for most of the referendum campaign sorting out the mess about the "golden elephants", and going into the lions' den, as he put it in the Sunday Mail.
I am not arguing that the Secretary of State and the Minister of State should have been hyperactive during the referendum campaign in Scotland. I am merely pointing out that the facts show that they were not involved because they were doing other jobs. Therefore, they are not familiar with what was actually going on in 1997 in Scottish politics and are in no position to judge, or to say who was doing what with whom at what meetings, because they had no knowledge of that.
Mr. Carmichael: I can understand why the hon. Gentleman feels it necessary to defend himself and, to an extent, to revisit history. However, I invite him to move the debate forward and to address the points on which we probably agree: the retention of a more substantial number of MSPs than 105 is essential for the effective operation of the Scottish Parliament and, as he says, the views of the MSPs must be, if not of prime, of substantial importance.
Mr. Salmond: I welcome that intervention.
Mr. Foulkes: The hon. Gentleman is right. While he was talking, I was listening, and I would recommend that to him.
Mr. Salmond: The Minister confirms that he was not in the front line of Scottish politics in that period, but I willingly concede that he was in the front line in Montserrat. That was his job, and no one would doubt that for a second. Some people think that he should have

195WH
stayed in that Department because he was doing such an excellent job—[Interruption.] I thought that that was a compliment.
Mr. Frank Cook (in the Chair): Order. I should register my concern at this point. Adjournment debates are essentially for Back Benchers and for those who want to engage them. It is customary in such 90-minute debates to commence the winding-up speeches 30 minutes before termination, which is in 11 minutes' time. Several hon. Members have indicated in writing that they want to speak. Apart from the hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson), who opened the debate, hon. Members have so far spoken for only six minutes each. I counsel hon. Members to make their remarks concise, clear, to the point and not self-indulgent.
Mr. Salmond: I accept your advice, Mr. Cook, but I was under considerable personal attack and felt entitled to respond. I am sure that you accept that.
To be concise and to the point on the substance of the issue, there are two arguments for retaining 129 MSPs. First, the Committee system is built into the Scotland Act, and there is no discretion over it. Secondly, reducing the numbers would put at risk the proportionality between the parties. The opposition of some hon. Members to proportional representation is long-standing; indeed, the Minister led the campaign against it in a former existence. Most of us think, however, that it is right to have a proportional Parliament in Scotland.
The fundamental question is not whether there should be 129 MSPs, or even whether the Scottish Parliament should be proportional, but about where it is right to decide on its construction. It was extraordinary, in our debates on the matter, that even the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) did not support the idea that Westminster should interfere with the numbers. He saw that as a source of tension. Even the arch anti-devolutionist sees that such matters should he decided from the Scottish Parliament perspective. MSPs are best able to judge the issue. The White Paper that we debated and voted on in the 1997 referendum also made the point about consultation with the Scottish Parliament.
Consultation with the Parliament that operates the system is what should matter. Members of this Parliament may or may not have a vested interest, and it is nonsense to believe that they should dictate the numbers to the Scottish Parliament. There should be consultation, and the view of the Scottish Parliament is what should matter. I would welcome it if the Minister could find it within himself to say that it would be inconceivable to change the numbers in the Scottish Parliament over the heads of parliamentarians in Edinburgh.
10.22 am
Rosemary McKenna: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson) on securing this debate. However, he will not be surprised to hear that I shall speak against the principle that he supported. He knows that I disagree with him on how we should tackle the issue of numbers in the Scottish Parliament.
196WH
We cannot discuss the Scotland Act 1998 without considering what went before. The great consensus on Scottish constitutional convention involved all of civic society in Scotland—the trade unions, the churches and the voluntary sector. Indeed, only the Tories and the Scottish National party did not join it. That consensus led to the writing of the Act, and there was little deviation from the consensus as the measure went through Parliament and on to the statute book. I am happy to say that, because I and other Members present were involved from the beginning. That is the principal reason why it is too soon to consider making fundamental changes to the voting system or the numbers. We must give the Scottish Parliament an opportunity to settle in.
I worry about the media reaction in Scotland to the Scottish Parliament. The Parliament is doing a great job, delivering for the people and operating to their advantage. It is appalling that the same journalists and media people who told us, in the run-up to the 1997 election, that we would never deliver the Parliament have turned against it in the past few years. The Scottish National party told us that and has turned against the Parliament as well, which is appalling. It did not give the Parliament any time to settle down and criticised the calibre of the Members. We must remember that we come to this place as Back Benchers and learn our trade, but MSPs all went as brand-new Members into a goldfish bowl. They had no opportunity to learn their trade on the Back Benches, and their job has been difficult under such scrutiny. I think that the Parliament is settling down and delivering. One has only to consider how well its Committee system operates to understand why we need to keep the number of Members at 129.
In 28 months, 24 Acts have gone through the Scottish Parliament. We would have been lucky to have had two or three Scottish Bills in Westminster during that time.
Annabelle Ewing: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Rosemary McKenna: No. I am sorry, but I do not have time to give way.
In the next year, another 18 Bills are expected to go through the Scottish Parliament. These measures will affect the health, education and lives in general of the Scottish people. The Parliament was set up to have such an impact, so I disagree with hon. Members who say that the most important issue is coterminous boundaries. No one cares about that issue. Despite the fact that we think we are all important, the average person does not know his Member of Parliament or Member of the Scottish Parliament until he needs them, when he can quickly find them.
I hope that I have shown that there is such broad disagreement that, until we have consensus, we should leave things as they are.
10.26 am
Mr. Brian H. Donohoe: I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson) on securing this overdue debate. It comes at a time when we require answers to many questions, so I welcome the opportunity to contribute to it.

197WH
My hon. Friend asked whether we should open up the Scotland Act 1998, which is an important question. If we do, on what time scale will that be? I understand that the commissioners' report is on its way, if my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has not already received it. After she has considered it, we should know her proposals on the new Scottish boundaries, so far as Westminster is concerned. We have not heard anything about that from my hon. Friend the Minister, so I would welcome some suggestion of the time scales that are involved.
The numbers have been mentioned. From reading the 1998 Act, I understood that only one seat in Scotland—Orkney and Shetland—was protected, and that all others would be considered on the basis of population alone. I have discussed the subject with the commissioners' secretary, who has the same understanding, so the proposals have been made to the Secretary of State on that basis. That is the English average, which is about 73,000. Given that the 1998 Act suggests that the number of constituencies would then be reduced to 58, and given my understanding that contiguous boundaries are at the centre of the calculation, there would be 58 constituency Members if that figure was followed absolutely.
My proposal for some months has been that, if the 1998 Act were opened up, as is possible, the new constituencies should have two Members of the Scottish Parliament, with an added list of 13 that applies centrally to take the numbers up to the 129 Members that there are now. If that system were in place, all the problems that Opposition Members spoke about would be taken care of and the 129 Members would be retained. It would mean that all the pretty new offices in the Holyrood building would be occupied, which would deal with the remarks of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond).
10.30 am
John Thurso: I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson) on securing the debate. We shall, to judge from the number of contributions and the strength of feeling that has been evident throughout the debate, return to the subject many times. It is good to have the present opportunity.
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman also on beginning his remarks by highlighting the success of the Scottish Parliament. It has undoubtedly been a great success, although not an unqualified one. There is no such thing as a perfect Act of Parliament, and there were bound to be some problems. However, broadly speaking, the Scottish Parliament has delivered on the objectives that were set for it. They were, first, to achieve the Scottish people's long-held ambition for self-determination in home affairs; secondly, to provide an open, accountable, democratic system involving consultation; and, through those things, to start the process that probably everyone in this Chamber would want to happen—reconnecting the voters with those for whom they vote and giving more validity to the political process.
The Scottish Parliament has, in the main, fulfilled those aims. The hon. Gentleman quoted a letter from the Law Society. I was clearly up too late last night,
198WH
because I received that letter and was going to bring it with me, but managed to leave it in my office. However. I remember the sentence that I underlined, about the Scottish Parliament being an undoubted success. I did manage to remember to bring a copy of the "Scottish Parliament Annual Report 2001", which I took from the internet. The Presiding Officer, in his foreword, states:
"We have now reached an important landmark—halfway through the first session of Scotland's first Parliament for over 300 years. The Parliament has found a personality and I believe it is now central in Scots life."
I think that we would all concur. George Reid MSP, the convener of the convener's liaison group, has stated in another foreword:
"During their second year, the committees have been widely acknowledged as a success story."
The Committee system has been one of the most successful elements of the Parliament. I have been involved in helping constituents in consultation on two Bills and undoubtedly the pre-legislative scrutiny, followed by the detailed Committee work, has been a great success. We should bear in mind the hours and work that that has entailed.
In participating in this debate, I have an incredible sense of déjà vu. That is because I spent much of a very happy Session, in 1997–98, on the Front Bench in another place dealing with what became the Scotland Act 1998. However, having listened to the debate my sense of déjà vu has given way slightly to an understanding of what it must have been like to make "Walking With Dinosaurs".
I should like to contribute a little of my personal knowledge, concerning two conversations that I had with the much-missed Donald Dewar. During the consideration of my amendment to decouple the Boundary Commission for Scotland, so that the Scottish Parliament would effectively be given an independent assessment by the commission and Parliament would have the power over numbers, Lord Sewel advanced much the same argument that we have heard today about, among other things, the need for coterminosity.
The proposal came before the House where, not surprisingly, it was rejected. When it returned to the other place, I was unable to persuade my former allies in the Conservative party to join me in the Lobby, so the amendment fell. When the Bill was enacted, I had a conversation with Donald Dewar, who left me with the clear impression—I put it no stronger than this—that he felt that the case that I had argued was right. He said that he had been unable to persuade his Cabinet colleagues, and that as a dutiful Cabinet Minister he was merely pushing through the agreed line.
I turn to what I feel is the key point. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) began by saying what he thought the key point was, and I thought that he would steal my thunder, but he did not. In my judgment, the key point is that the Parliament should be effective, deliberative, consultative and work for the people of Scotland.
My second point is allied with that. The Parliament should be demonstrably democratic and should reflect the wide diversity of culture in Scotland. It should not be based on any one part of that culture. There are 129 MSPs and the structure of the Parliament deliberately

199WH
gives a bias in the list to the more rural areas, just as in the United States Senate, as opposed to the House of Representatives. The intention is to seek to provide a geographic as well as a population balance. The construction of the Scottish Parliament broadly delivers that balance, and we would be ill advised to interfere with that settlement.
I am not hooked on any particular number of MSPs, but the number of 129—give or take a few—has worked remarkably well. I hope that hon. Members have time to consider the report, as the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Rosemary McKenna) has clearly done, from which they will see how many hours are spent in debate on the issues facing Scotland. After the past couple of days in this House, we cannot hold up our heads and claim to have debated national issues at any great length. The new system enables Scotland fully to ventilate the points that matter to Scots, in a Committee system that may introduce Bills, as it has done for the first time in the past year. It takes time, work and people to man the Committees and to run the Government—if there are any people left after that, it is nice to have a few of them in opposition. That effort requires a certain number of people.
The key point is whether the Scotland Act should be opened up at all. I accept the first point made by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland, which is a stark point in the debate. Should we accept the Act as it is without opening Pandora's box, or should we open it? We should reflect on that point, but when we have done so, I believe that we should open the Act in this case. My hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) made the valid point that coterminosity will be lost for four years while the two Parliaments are out of sync. I remember the noble Lord Sewel, in another place, telling me that the basic building block of all constituencies was local council wards. To my great surprise, I find that I represent a constituency whose boundary drives straight through the middle of a council ward, which I share with my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy).
We should not consider what we, personally, would like. We must return to the fact that all those involved in the constitutional convention have delivered, historically, for Scotland. The constitutional process is iterative, and evolutionary. not revolutionary. I hope that the House of Commons will continue with that process, not for personal gain, but with the good of the people of Scotland in mind.
10.40 am
Mrs. Jacqui Lait: It is a great pleasure to be present. This is the first debate on Scottish business in which I have been able to take part. I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson) on securing the debate, to which I come with a fresh eye. Having considered its title, I thought that it would be an opportunity to discuss things other than just the number of MSPs. I was surprised that the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) did not mention that the Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament has recently given evidence to the Parliament on the changes that he believes are required under the Scotland Act 1998. Some of them sounded
200WH
very sensible. For example, all of us would find it difficult in this place, except under programme motions, to ensure that our contributions lasted only four minutes. Sir David Steel—I am sure that we all join in wishing him good health and a speedy recovery—made that point very ably. He also pointed out that that his health problem means that the Parliament will have problems, because it cannot appoint another Deputy Presiding Officer.
The other point—I am sorry to give the Liberal Democrats such credibility but the points were sensible and we should be debating them—was that the Parliament is unable to change the Presiding Officer's title. I do not wish to become involved in the question of whether the title is right or wrong, but the issue is indicative of one of the problems of the Scotland Act, which is that the Scottish Parliament remains in the control of Westminster or the Government, even on such minor matters such as how long a Member of the Scottish Parliament can speak. I thought that the debate would be a good opportunity to open up such issues.
Rosemary McKenna: That is not an issue. The length of speeches is set by the Scottish Parliament and is entirely an internal matter for it. The matter was not part of the Scotland Act.
Mrs. Lait: I am happy to stand corrected, but I did not understand that to be the case from the Presiding Officer's report. I took the word of a Liberal Democrat—I must be mad.
Hon. Members have cited the Law Society of Scotland, and I met its representatives on Friday. They said that in general the society was very happy—and it has written to everybody to say so—with the operation of the Scottish Parliament. However, they were concerned that the Sewel convention did not allow sufficient time for the Parliament to discuss Westminster legislation, and that that needed to be examined.
Interestingly, we also discussed how the society finds itself obliged to pick up on many Westminster Bills drafted in Whitehall, in which, although they mention the obvious Scottish implications, the Scottish dimension has not been properly thought through. If we were to open up the Scotland Act, that is another area that would be part of the ensuing discussions. I can see a solution in the way in which any Secretary of State has to guarantee the compliance of legislation with the European convention on human rights. I suggest to the Minister that we could use the same mechanism. He may care to comment on that.
We have spent the bulk of the debate talking about the number of MSPs. Although the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross mentioned Lord Sewel, it should not be forgotten that Lord MacKay of Ardbrecknish, who is sadly missed, proposed an amendment that would have got the Government out of the problem by allowing the Scottish Parliament to make its own decision about the number of MSPs. However, the control-freakery that this Labour Government display time and time again applied to that issue as well.
In order to get themselves out of a mess of their own making, the Secretary of State for Scotland, in answer to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland, announced

201WH
the consultation exercise, to which we all look forward. I was fascinated to learn that the document is due out in the next few weeks. By my calculation, rough as it is, the Christmas recess starts in three weeks and a day or two. That leads me ask whether the Minister expects the consultation document to be published before we rise for Christmas, or whether—if such a thing could be thought—it will be published between Christmas and the new year and quietly lost. I am sure that Labour Back Benchers will ensure that it is not lost, but it could be lost to the attention of the Scottish public. I hope that the Minister will say what is meant by a few weeks.
I seek an assurance also about the contradiction that emerged today between the original press release that I received from the Scotland Office, which states that the consultation period will be three months, and what was said by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland, who is under the impression that the Secretary of State said that it is open-ended. An open-ended consultation that lasts for three months is a slight contradiction in terms. If the Scottish Parliament can choose the number of MSPs to ensure its effective working—that seems a most sensible way to proceed, because the Scottish Parliament should be answerable to the Scottish people—that should lead automatically to the opening up of the Scotland Act, unless there is some sleight of hand in amending previous legislation.
Given what the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. Reid) said about coterminosity and given the times at which the Boundary Commission reports, I would expect the argument to fall because coterminosity will happen every 10 years. Giving the Scottish Parliament control of the number of MSPs seems the most sensible way forward, and I would entirely support the amendment that Lord MacKay put to the House of Lords.
John Thurso: For the record, let me say that Lord MacKay did not put the amendment to the House of Lords. I did—it was my amendment that was carried; and Lord MacKay came into the Lobby with me.
Mrs. Lait: I am happy to accept that, but Lord MacKay was advancing that argument on behalf of the Conservative party in the House of Lords.
We need to ensure that the consultation document is not slipped out quietly. We should ensure also that, unlike the Scotland Office press release, consulting the general public is not at the end of the list of requirements but at the beginning. We should consult not Scottish politicians but the Scottish people on the number of MSPs.
10.48 am
The Minister of State, Scotland Office (Mr. George Foulkes): My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson) has chosen an interesting and somewhat provocative topic, and we have had a useful debate.
As my hon. Friend said, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, at Scottish questions on 6 November, referred to the forthcoming consultation on the size of the Scottish Parliament. To avoid raising over-
202WH
optimistic expectations, I should say that my remarks cannot go beyond the terms of that answer; however, I shall elaborate on it.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made clear the Government's position. We are honouring commitments given during the passage of the Scotland Act 1998. as described by the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) and others, to keep under review the linkage between the Westminster and the Holyrood parliamentary boundaries that was established under the Act. Ministers advanced important arguments on the rationale for that linkage. However, there was also full acknowledgement that the matter could be re-examined once we had experience of the operation of the Scottish Parliament. We have now had two years of that experience.
I say to hon. Members, particularly the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), in response to his last provocative—but I am sure well intentioned—question, that in line with our earlier commitments, we seek genuinely to ascertain everyone's views. I emphasise to the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait), who may be interested in the size of the Scottish Parliament, that the Government will not propose the retention or rejection of the current statutory provisions. We will set out, objectively and factually, the legislative, practical and other operational factors surrounding the general issues of the size of the Scottish Parliament and the linkage with Westminster constituency boundaries. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Rosemary McKenna), whom I like and respect, that the question of coterminosity exercises individual hon. Members. I do not accept that good, active constituency Members are unknown. That is not my experience.
Mr. Russell Brown: The issue is one of coterminosity. All that we have heard this morning highlights the fact that the important people are the public in Scotland. Does my hon. Friend share my experience that when people have a problem, irrespective of what it is, they seek as much support as possible? If we do not have coterminous boundaries, people may almost chase to the ends of the earth to try to resolve their problems.
Mr. Foulkes: I understand that point. It is one that can be made during the consultation. Several MPs and MSPs share offices, and that might be difficult if there were not coterminosity. The consultation will be open-ended. I say to the hon. Member for Beckenham that it is open-ended in terms not of purpose, but time. Her contribution was rather muddled; she has a little to learn about Scottish politics. We will elicit comment from a wide range of sources. The working of the Scottish Parliament, including the issue of its overall composition, will, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Brown) said, touch on the lives of every individual in Scotland. I say to the hon. Member for Banff and. Buchan that it is not a matter solely for constitutional experts or parliamentarians, at Holyrood or Westminster.
I hope that every hon. Member who has spoken today—and those who have not—will submit their views in the consultation. I expect my right hon. Friend

203WH
the Secretary of State to make a statement before the recess on its publication. There is no intention to hide the consultation. Quite the reverse; we want it to be as wide as possible.
Mr. Salmond: The Minister has accepted that there was a commitment to revisit the issue if necessary. I hope that now that he has had independent verification, he will accept what the late Donald Dewar said to several people: that the arguments for linkage came from not the Scottish Office, him or Henry McLeish, but other forces in the Cabinet. What is the Minister's opinion, not of who should respond to the consultation, but of whether it is conceivable that the numbers in the Scottish Parliament could be changed over the heads of the parliamentarians in that Parliament? Is that right or conceivable?
Mr. Foulkes: On the hon. Gentleman's first point, the arguments advanced by Lord Sewel in the House of Lords and by the then Secretary of State Donald Dewar in the House, and indeed by Henry McLeish, were clearly made on behalf of the Government.
I shall respond to the hon. Gentleman's second point later. I want first to reiterate two clear conditions that were established by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in her announcement on 6 November. First, we are not consulting on a case for review of the position affecting Members representing Scottish constituencies at Westminster. The Boundary Commission for Scotland is in the throes of its independent—I stress its independence—examination of that matter. I cannot comment on that in detail as the report has not yet been submitted. The first proposals will be published early in the new year, and after consultation and, if necessary, inquiries, the final report will at some time, which we cannot yet determine, be submitted to the Secretary of State.
As my right hon. Friend established, we have no plans to change the existing electoral system for the Holyrood Parliament, by which I mean the general configuration of constituency and regional list arrangements established by the Act.
Several hon. Members made less than complimentary—
Mrs. Lait: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Foulkes: No.
Several hon. Members made less than complimentary references to the workings of the Scottish Parliament. My right hon. Friend and I do not share that view. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth; I have visited the Parliament and seen it in action on several occasions and met every Minister of the Scottish Executive either formally or informally. The Member of the Scottish Parliament for Midlothian, Rhona Brankin, gave evidence to a UK Select Committee and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe gave evidence to the Scottish Select Committee. There is effective co-operation and the Parliament is working extremely well. As my hon. Friend said, it has now passed 27 Acts dealing with matters of great importance to Scotland. It is notable that they become law after scrutiny in only one
204WH
Chamber, which is possible partly because of the system of pre-legislative scrutiny and the strong Committee structure, as the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross said.
Annabelle Ewing: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Foulkes: I do not have much time to deal with all the matters raised during the debate, especially those raised by the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. Reid). We both take a great interest in the Campbeltown to Ballycastle ferry and are keen to see it reintroduced. I put proposals for the reinstatement of that ferry service at a meeting yesterday; they will go to the Scottish and the Northern Ireland Cabinets for consideration and, I hope, approval. We agreed to reconvene yesterday's meeting in two or three weeks' time to take a final decision. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be pleased with that progress.
Unfortunately, I do not have time today to go into detail about the great co-operation between the two Parliaments and the two Executives. As well as lauding the work of the Scottish Parliament, I reiterate strongly, through the House to the media, that there is still an important role for Scottish Members in the United Kingdom Parliament in areas such as the pre-Budget report, unemployment, social security, foreign affairs, defence and international development, to which the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan so kindly referred earlier. Those are important matters.
I want to refer to the comments made by the hon. Gentleman, which I shall try to do with my usual courtesy. As my right hon. Friend said, the hon. Gentleman seems to be at pains to reinvent history in a way that defies belief. He claimed that during the exchanges, which no one doubts took place, there was an absolute, unqualified assurance that the linkage would be set aside. I am absolutely sure, knowing Donald, that that is not what he said. What he said, and what he pledged at the time in public, was that in the light of the experience of the Scottish Parliament we would revisit the matter. and that is what the consultation is all about.
The hon. Gentleman has allowed the passage of time to play tricks with his memory; he told us that when he was listening to Scottish questions he was ill. I do not know what made him ill, but I can guess.
Mr. Salmond: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Foulkes: No, we do not have time. I challenged the hon. Gentleman on "Newsnight Scotland" to give one piece of evidence to substantiate his claim, but none was forthcoming, so I repeat that challenge. He said that I was not active in the referendum campaign because I was in Montserrat. He was not active in the consensus that built up the proposal for the Scottish Parliament; he derided the Scottish constitutional convention, which devised the Scottish Parliament and built a coalition of Scottish civic society to support it. It kept the campaign for devolution alive during the dark Tory days, those 18 awful years of Conservative Government. Where was he? He was carping from the outside, attacking and undermining all the work that was being done. He and his party may have been in the referendum campaign, but they saw the way that the bandwagon was going and, like Johnny-come-lately, they jumped on to it.

205WH
This has been a useful debate; it has allowed an airing of views and an exchange of comment on an important democratic and constitutional issue. We are committed to examining the case for retention or rejection of the current legislative provisions in the Scotland Act affecting the size of the Scottish Parliament. We shall approach that consultation with an open mind. We shall not introduce proposals, but we want to have the views of every person in and, indeed, outwith Scotland, because devolution is experienced and appreciated beyond these shores.
I thank all hon. Members who have taken part in the debate. Some feared that the creation of the Scottish Parliament would be the first step on a slippery slope to separation, but I still believe that in stemming the growth of narrow nationalism—
Mr. Frank Cook (in the Chair): Order. We come now to the next topic for our consideration. I ask those right hon. and hon. Members who are leaving the Chamber to do so quietly.

Zimbabwe
11 am
Mr. Andrew Rosindell: I thank you, Mr. Cook, for giving me the opportunity to introduce the debate. I also thank the Minister for kindly giving up the time to respond to it only two weeks after another debate on the subject.
In the United Kingdom, we are proud upholders of the principle of democracy. Not to elect our representatives to this place would be an alien concept to us. We elect those representatives and, ultimately, the Prime Minister and the Government in the most free, fair and open way possible. Nor would anyone in the UK see as even vaguely acceptable any attempt to control the press through coercion or to deal with Opposition parties by deadly force.
If the people of this country are unhappy with the Government, they can go to the ballot box, which is presented every five years by statutory guarantee. It can and will be used without the election's result being managed by the incumbents. However, as we constantly see on our televisions and in the newspapers, that is not the case in Zimbabwe. That is why I requested the debate. We simply cannot stand back and allow such a brutal regime to flout democracy so horrifically.
We all know about the racially motivated persecution of the white farmers, with measures in place to nationalise up to 90 per cent. of all white-owned land. There is also a massive food shortage as a result of the fact that many farmers have already been evicted from their businesses and land. Indeed, the very people whom we wish to help more than most—the black people of Zimbabwe—suffer most from that horrific way of attacking established farms and communities, which employ many local people.
It is worth considering how many people are affected by the policy. In April this year, it was reported that there had been a 20 per cent. reduction in agricultural production as a whole, with a 40 per cent. reduction in maize crops, which form the main part of the nation's diet. It is estimated that if the land grabs continue, 250,000 commercial farm workers will lose their jobs, displacing 1.2 million dependants.
Land grabs have continued, but the problems go much deeper, challenging every remnant of freedom left in the country. The international community simply cannot ignore those problems on the grounds of not wishing to interfere in another country's affairs or to shape the world in our image. It must act on the grounds of stopping a humanitarian crisis and preventing the creation of yet another unstable and dangerous rogue state.
In the summer of 2001, the International Crisis Group published a detailed report that found Zimbabwe to be in severe political and economic crisis. It characterised that through the state-directed violence aimed at crushing any political opposition and through the growing potential for internal conflict and regional instability. The group concluded that the international community needed to make a serious effort to persuade President Mugabe to conduct the upcoming presidential elections, scheduled for April 2002, freely and fairly, on a level playing field, to mark the return of Zimbabwe to the rule of law.

207WH
Fears that the elections will be conducted less than fairly are constantly reported by the press and articulated by the opposition parties. For example, a recent report in the state-run Herald newspaper stated that the Zimbabwe Government—on the recommendation of the justice Minister, Patrick Chinamasa, who wishes to amend Zimbabwe's electoral Act to allow only civil servants to monitor the polls—planned to ban foreign and independent local monitors from observing the 2002 presidential elections. The opposition Movement for Democratic Change unsurprisingly condemned that move by the ruling Zimbabwe African National Union Patriotic Front, which it believes
"shows clearly that they want to cheat."
What other purpose could any Government taking such measures intend? Surely other hon. Members will agree that a regime too frightened to allow its actions to be observed by independent witnesses is up to no good.
Past experience strengthens that argument. Last year, non-governmental organisations trained 24,000 monitors to observe the parliamentary elections, but at least 34 people were killed before the polls were opened among widespread violence and intimidation. This time round, the presidential election will be dirtier and nastier than we could imagine.
The South African Mail & Guardian reported on 13 November that Zimbabwe's central intelligence organisation has been given a 142.6 per cent. increase in its budget. Human rights groups have identified that organisation as working closely with ZANU-PF in a campaign of terror against its opponents.
A recent MDC press release reports that the Government have already started intimidation tactics, including the setting up of a hit squad to assassinate David Coltart, the MDC Member of Parliament for Bulawayo, South. It mentions plans to plant arms in MDC member's homes to "discover" them, and the fear that ZANU-PF supporters and war veterans intend to visit Victoria Falls, ahead of the party congress, to
"beat up, abduct and harass"
MDC members.
On 14 November, The Star drew attention to links between Mugabe and the Libyan President, Colonel Gaddafi, with a reported $900,000 donation to Mugabe's re-election bid. That presumably relates to the statement in Zimbabwe's The Financial Gazette that Libyan entrepreneurs are to receive a dozen large farms—the equivalent of 10,000 hectares—from Zimbabwe.
Furthermore, the Zimbabwean Government have suspended the teaching of human rights and democracy in secondary schools. They have ordered—thankfully unsuccessfully—the country's only independent newspaper to close and they are contemplating the unthinkable action of assassinating the opposition leader. Recent opinion polls show the MDC leader nearly six points ahead of Mugabe. Unchecked, Mugabe is likely to do all that he can to secure another six years in power. On 20 November, Business Day (South Africa) reported that Mugabe could ban the opposition or jail its leadership if he feels vulnerable in the run-up to the election. Take, for example, the somewhat bizarre attempts by other countries,
208WH
organisations and newspapers to link support for the MDC to the support of terrorism. I congratulate the Foreign Secretary on condemning the Zimbabwean Government as reported in The Independent on Sunday. According to the report, that Government accused six Harare-based journalists who criticised Mugabe of assisting terrorism. Mugabe's definition of terrorists is his opponents. That is a shameless attempt to link the atrocities of 11 September and the international war against terrorism with Mugabe's domestic situation. Will the Minister assure me that the Foreign Secretary's response is not simply a reaction to domestic media pressure?
According to a United Nations report, Mugabe believes that those so-called terrorists are sponsored by the British Government. He cites the death of his loyal supporter Cain Nkala as
"the brutal outcome of a much wider terrorist plot by internal, and external terrorist forces with plenty of funding from commercial farmers and organisations like the Westminster Foundation, which we have established without doubt gets its dirty money for dirty tricks, from the British Labour Party, the Conservative Party, the Liberal Party and also of course from the Government of Tony Blair."
That is quite a claim. I dare say that he could not substantiate it. It serves only to highlight a desperate man's attempts to shape the minds of people through propaganda.
I have worked closely on projects funded by the Westminster Foundation for Democracy and I can assure hon. Members that it does a great deal of wonderful work to spread the message and values of democracy—values that we all hold dear—to those states such as Zimbabwe that neglect the views of their own people.
I was angered by the attacks on the Movement for Democratic Change, which I welcomed last year into the International Young Democrat Union, of which I am chairman. I know that the MDC is a strident believer in democracy and the rule of law. Earlier this year, I had the privilege of meeting four farmers who represent communities in Zimbabwe and they later spoke at a dinner in the other place.
It is clear what the international community must do. As long as Mugabe maintains the pretence of supporting democracy, we must ensure that elections are free and fair. That will not be an easy task and no one must pretend otherwise. A careful line must be navigated. Mugabe, scared of election observers revealing the truth about his methods, will not even allow aid agencies into the country to relieve the starvation of the estimated 1 million Zimbabweans in desperate need of food, for fear of election observers being smuggled in with them. However, the right lead, and enough pressure through threats of sanctions and loss of international recognition, could force the issue and allow election observers, if they report the elections to be anything other than free and fair, to give the rest of the civilised world a mandate to take action against Mugabe.
I could go on listing more reported atrocities, unacceptable acts and examples of actions that those of us who live in freedom find so abhorrent. I will refer only to one example, which was handed to me yesterday by my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman), who is the Opposition spokeswoman

209WH
on overseas development. This is an e-mail that was received recently from a lady called Tertia Geldenhuys, from Two Treehill Farm, Chinhoyi, Zimbabwe. She wrote:
"On Tuesday. the 7th August, black men beat up dozens of white women and elderly white men in Chinhoyi. It was as if a racial war had started in Chinhoyi town. Each time they asked the same question: 'Are you a farmer's wife?' Without waiting for an answer, they tripped and beat up the women. White people were warned on the Community Radio Network not to come to or proceed through Chinhoyi"
About 10 war veterans shouted at the lady's husband to come out. She continues:
"He went out to the gate, which was locked, and I heard them shouting: 'We want you out. We want you out here! We want to see your blood flow! Come out! Come out here!' I started praying because I knew it was only God who could save us now."
This morning's debate has not been to rehearse the problems that we already know exist, but to prompt recognition of the task ahead. We must not allow an election to take place if the result is already decided and people will be murdered or put in jail to reach it. We must not allow the continued starvation of the people of Zimbabwe because its Government refuse to allow white farmers to own and work their land. They are the families of people whom we as a country encouraged to settle in Rhodesia at the end of the first world war, and whose industry raised the average standard of living for the people of Rhodesia way above the African average.
To retain anything of an ethical foreign policy, the Government must not ignore Zimbabwe. They should take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that the Zimbabwean presidential elections are impartially observed. They should make it clear that any move by Mugabe to control forcibly the result will be met with the alienation of the international community. If we fail, we will have let down millions of people—the starving, silenced and oppressed—and we will have ignored the potential creation of a threatening rogue state.
11.18 am
Mr. Hugo Swire: The recent history of Zimbabwe has been one of violence, intimidation and human rights abuses, to say nothing of embezzlement. To my way of thinking, that all adds up to a terrorism perpetrated by Mugabe on his own people. What a far cry that is from those days of Lancaster house, now seemingly far off, when Zimbabwe faced a new dawn. I apologise for not attending last week's debate, at which I know that the Minister spoke.
Many hon. Members have received letters from concerned relations in our constituencies, because the links of people in this country with that part of the world are deep. We have an obligation to those who are still trying to live a life there. I was contacted on behalf of my constituent, Dennis Wade of Lympstone. Like many farmers, he was recruited, as my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Rosindell) said, to start farming in post-war Rhodesia to help build up the country. He developed two farms, hacked out of rocky scrub, one in the high veldt and the other in the low. By the end he had a labour force of 90 people living on his farms and a further 450 who were casually employed. He knew that they needed an education, perhaps the
210WH
best gift that anyone can be given, particularly in those circumstances. Like so many others, he built a school. He was not in any way unique.
Another constituent, Mr. Peter Bibby of Axminster, has written about his cousin who is also a farmer. He was arrested on his farm on 15 September. He was accused of murder because two different groups of war veterans who had occupied his farm fought one another and two men were killed. As the landowner, he was held responsible. This is a 70-year-old man, who also happens to be a British citizen. He was carted off to the police cells. His head was shaved and he was not charged for three days and four nights. He was kept in a high security cell along with murderers and armed robbers for nine nights. This is human rights Mugabe style.
What comfort can the Minister give these people? What comfort can he give another constituent, Mrs Wellington of Chardstock, who is concerned for her first cousin and her husband, an Anglican priest? She is concerned for them as they are concerned for themselves at having to renounce their British citizenship and produce a citizenship or renunciation as required by Mugabe. A desire to retain their British citizenship is more than just sentimentality. For them and many others it is like being asked to renounce an insurance policy. They have my sympathy and I hope that of the Minister.
Sympathy and empathy are not enough. Mugabe is terrorising his own people. He is no better than those terrorists whom we have been discussing in the House since 11 September. Indeed, in many ways he is worse. How many deaths is he responsible for in the Matabeleland massacres between 1982 and 1987? Some 20,000 were killed by the notorious fifth brigade, to say nothing of 3,000 extrajudicial executions, hundreds of disappearances, more than 7,000 cases of beatings and torture and more than 10,000 arbitrary detentions.
Many people cannot understand why this Government talk tough on terrorism but seem too afraid to mete out the justice that Mugabe deserves. That view is shared by his people, who wonder whether they are to have any chance of surviving in that once great country, which was the jewel in the crown of that troubled continent. It is not just the white farmers who are suffering. They are part of the problem but by no means the whole problem. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office website states that Zimbabwe's economy is now in crisis. Inflation is around 80 per cent. Interest rates are unsustainably low. Unemployment is around 60 per cent. and rising. A chronic shortage of foreign exchange has led to fuel shortages and power cuts.
What is Mugabe's response? It is to increase funding for his central intelligence organisation by a massive 143 per cent. in the run-up to the presidential elections. It is not surprising that he wants to sit in power, supported by the likes of Libya's Colonel Gaddafi who, some sources suggest, has given Mugabe $900,000 for his re-election bid. That might explain why there is a marked increase in the number of Libyans in Zimbabwe, many of whom have been given land outside Harare.
The Government should stop handling Mugabe with kid gloves. They behave as if in some way the British are guilty. That is part of the Labour party's continuing

211WH
embarrassment about Britain's colonial past—at least it seems as such to many of us. However, Britain has a role to play, not least on account of the massive investment that we have put into Zimbabwe: £500 million in bilateral aid, according to the Minister, and £40 million for land reform. How much of that money has been used to help the ordinary working man and woman in that country and how much has gone to Mugabe and his cronies? Has some been spent, perhaps, on Mugabe's new mansion, said to cost $6 million? I salute his ability to make his annual salary of £15,454 stretch so far; either that, or he has a very benevolent mortgage arrangement. I have seen Mugabe and his wife in London on shopping trips. They were based at Claridge's, of course. I am sad and angry when I see what he gets away with.
Mr. Louis Michel, the Belgian Minister for Foreign Affairs, recently led a European Union delegation to Harare. The Times of 24 November reports that he received a brutal reaction from Mugabe when concerns were expressed about the recent surge of violence and repression as the country moves towards the coming elections and that EU senior officials left Harare on 23 November, shocked after a confrontation with President Mugabe. They were dealing with a man who is an embezzler and a terrorist.
Mugabe has forfeited the right to be treated as an honest and democratic politician. The Government and the Commonwealth must treat him like the terrorist and criminal that he is and must ensure, as far as we are able, that the forthcoming elections are fair. If nothing else, we owe that to the people of that benighted country.
11.27 am
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Rosindell) on initiating the debate. I hope that the Minister will admit that it comes at an appropriate time and will indicate in his reply the action that the Government intend to take against the excesses of Mr. Mugabe and his Administration.
I have visited Rhodesia, Zimbabwe-Rhodesia and Zimbabwe several times during the 30 years that I have been a Member of the House. It is a country that I love—I do not utter the word easily or lavishly—and its people, the Matabele and the Mashona, are wonderful friendly people. Until recent times, the country has been the larder of central southern Africa and has been a net exporter of food and products to all parts of that area. Yet today, for the first time in its history, Zimbabwe is importing food. I wish to concentrate my remarks on that issue.
As the Minister knows, the World Food Programme has warned that more than 500,000 Zimbabweans face severe food shortages. That is an underestimate, if the information that I get from my many friends in Zimbabwe is accurate. One of the most chilling things is that black farmers themselves have said that, if they do not plant now, they will starve. Arable land in that wonderful, productive country is being destroyed. Wild animals, which are one of the reasons why people want to go there as tourists, are being shot. The beef herd is renowned, but many domestic animals are starving.
212WH
The Agriculture Minister said in a statement—one of many from his mouth—that all farmland not so far listed for seizure would be governed by regulations on maximum hectares. Owners would be required to subdivide their land if it exceeded the specified limit of 500 acres for farmers and 4,000 acres for ranchers. That decision was not made on the basis that the farms would become more efficient or that more food and cattle would be produced to feed the people of Zimbabwe. At least 3,000 industries that depend directly on agriculture will collapse if something is not done, and done soon—7.2 billion Zimbabwe dollars-worth of revenue a month will be lost to Zimbabwe. Thousands of other companies are threatened—reports in The Financial Gazette refer not just to commercial organisations but to banks, insurance companies and, of course, the more typical clothing manufacturing companies of Zimbabwe.
The exchange rate is approximately 73 Zimbabwe dollars to the pound, but the black market exchange rate is 400-plus Zimbabwe dollars to the pound. There is a huge black market in Zimbabwe dollars because of what the Zimbabwe Government are doing. They are desperate to clamp down on dissenting voices and to prevent such information from getting out. My hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) highlighted some personal cases and I congratulate him on his contribution to the debate.
This week, the Zimbabwe Government announced a public order and security Bill, which will ban public gatherings and make it an offence punishable by life imprisonment or death to publish or communicate
"statements prejudicial to the state … that incite violence, that affect the defence and economic interest … undermine the authority of the President by making public statements or publishing statements that provoke hostility."
Some hon. Members are worried about the legislation that is going through this Parliament, but it is nothing like the dreadful measure that Mr. Mugabe wants to enact. The Justice Minister, Chinamasa, said on television that it was being done to combat criminal and terrorist activities.
My hon. Friend the Member for Romford mentioned the mock terrorist activities that the Zimbabwe Government are trying to use to undermine the opposition party in Zimbabwe. The Government went on to name newspapers that they say are distorting the facts and assisting terrorists. They named The Times of London, The Independent of the UK, The Star of South Africa and the Zimbabwe Independent.
President Mugabe's Government have announced that they will not allow aid agencies to distribute emergency food supplies to Zimbabweans affected by famine. The ban will wreck a relief operation that was being mobilised, as many of us know, by the United Nations, several international aid agencies and charities including Oxfam.
Western diplomats have said that nearly 1 million people are now in dire need of food according to a survey last month by the World Food Programme. Food stocks in Zimbabwe are expected to start running out in December of this year, that is, next month. Even the Government say that at least four times as many people will be affected as the famine worsens. Yet Jonathan Moyo, the Information Minister, said that

213WH
charities would use food relief to campaign for the opposition Movement for Democratic Change. Is that not absolute nonsense? Do they care for their own people? That is what I have to ask.
According to The Sunday Mail (Zimbabwe), which is state controlled, the Information Minister said that aid agencies were planning to smuggle election monitors into Zimbabwe using the guise of food aid to continue with their plans to destabilise the present Zimbabwe Government ahead of next year's presidential elections. Suggestions by those groups that food should be distributed through non-governmental organisations were totally unacceptable, the same Information Minister said. They say that the Government alone will distribute food.
Surely the biggest concern among international donors is the strategy of ZANU-PF, the ruling party, of issuing emergency relief only to their own party supporters and cutting off areas of the country that are in famine, but have a record of support for opposition parties. Is that the way that a responsible Government operate? I do not think so.
Diplomatic sources confirm that international donors have decided to exclude the Government from the distribution of their food supplies. A source said,
"no one must be allowed to go without food because they support this or that party".
Is it not an absolute tragedy that a Government who came into power just over 20 years ago with such good will and started so well, because reconciliation was part of their policy and programme, should have deteriorated so that the people of their country are suffering desperately badly?
Zimbabwe has asked the United Nations for millions of pounds in food aid after President Mugabe's campaign of harassment against white farmers, which has halved food production in that country, as we know. Victor Angelo, the United Nations development fund's Zimbabwe representative, confirmed that there has been a formal request from the Zimbabwe Government for relief assistance from Simba Makoni, the Finance Minister, which he was, of course, considering. He did not disclose the amounts requested, but the independent weekly, The Financial Gazette, said that Mr Makoni had asked for help in raising about 11 billion Zimbabwe dollars, which is equivalent to about £140 million.
I would say to the Minister, and to my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) on the Opposition Front Bench, that we are looking for action from the United Kingdom, as head of the Commonwealth, to bring some sense to that wonderful country in central southern Africa. I make a plea to the Minister. Let us take whatever action is necessary to bring stable government to a country that once again can be a leader in central southern Africa and can contribute to food production.
The British Government are in a unique position. Mr Mugabe has let down the Commonwealth. He has breached the assurances that he gave to Commonwealth leaders. The Commonwealth as a whole, led by the United Kingdom, should take action to bring democracy, peace, and stability back to that wonderful country.
11.39 am
Mr. Michael Moore: As other hon. Members have done, I congratulate the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Rosindell) on securing a debate on this important issue. He and others painted a depressing picture of the situation in Zimbabwe, but it is none the less the reality.
Zimbabwe is a country where the law no longer seems to rule, free speech is harder to enjoy, violence is a daily reality and hunger is a growing fear for many. The Zimbabwean Government are an international disgrace and show little interest in or capacity for sorting themselves out. The problems of the country came to international attention with the seizure of farmland on behalf of war veterans. Violence related to farmland continues, and it is colour blind. It is not directed simply at whites, but affects the black population as well. Out of it, a series of issues has come to the fore that must cause growing international concern.
We have seen many Government attacks on alternative sources of influence. Judges have been intimidated. The outcomes of Supreme Court decisions have been ignored. Journalists have been expelled and others who still seek to trade there have been threatened. There have been murders and attempted assassinations of opponents. In the ultimate twist to the sick situation, the Zimbabwean Government have used the tragedy of 11 September as an excuse to clamp down with further ferocity on their opponents. The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) mentioned the public order and security Bill, which would ban, among other things, bail for anyone accused of treason. It is a draconian measure that we in this country must surely reject. There have also been attempts to avoid municipal elections, for fear that the opposition forces will show well in preparation for next spring's presidential elections. In recent days, we have seen calls from the war veterans' leader to cancel those elections.
Added to that uncertainty is the worsening humanitarian situation. Several hon. Members have mentioned food shortages and rationing, which are increasingly widespread in the country. Aid agencies are not allowed to do the basics of food distribution. According to the World Food Programme, more than 1 million people are in desperate need of food there. How can any Government in the world with a conscience allow that to happen?
All those aspects of the problem focus us on next year's elections. They are a key issue for those of us outside Zimbabwe, on which the Government must take a strong position. We have recently seen how European Union representatives have been abused for having the temerity to suggest that observers ought to be present at those elections. Louis Michel, a Belgian Foreign Minister, described the meeting with the president of Zimbabwe as "brutal". In our response, I hope that we will be robust. Surely the requirements for a proper election are fairly straightforward. There should be core minimum standards, an independent electoral commission, equal access to the media for all parties and, perhaps most crucially, an accurate and up-to-date voters roll.
The international community has not been silent on the issue. It has given the Zimbabwean Government time to sort themselves out. We might think that, on

215WH
occasion, too much time has been allowed. The Abuja agreement of recent weeks set out clear requirements, agreed by the Zimbabwean Government, for a way of going forward properly and peacefully. Among other things, the Government in Zimbabwe gave assurances that there would be no further occupation of farmland. They made a commitment to restore the rule of law to the process of land reform and, most crucially, they made a commitment to freedom of expression and firm action against violence and intimidation. How hollow those words sound, and how worrying it will be if nothing develops to change the current state of affairs before the run-up to the elections.
The postponement of the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting, planned for several weeks ago, was understandable in the aftermath of the tragedy of 11 September, but it was particularly unfortunate with respect to the Zimbabwean situation. We must ensure that the diplomatic momentum that could have been continued at that meeting will not be lost. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) called for smart sanctions to tackle the Zimbabwean regime. That might include an arms embargo, the freezing of overseas bank accounts and restrictions on overseas travel—for shopping trips or otherwise—for key individuals in the regime. Perhaps even suspension from the Commonwealth should be considered.
If the elections are not prepared properly or are unable to meet international standards, the question will increasingly arise whether we should recognise their outcome. Javier Solana, the Secretary-General of the Council of the European Union, said recently that without minimum standards
"it will be very difficult for the presidential election to be recognised by the EU".
It would be helpful if the Minister could explain what the UK stance will be.
Zimbabwe is in a fragile state. Neighbouring states rightly fear the consequences of further decline towards anarchy. The international community has been ignored so far and must now respond.
11.47 am
Mr. Richard Spring: I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Rosindell) on initiating the debate. He is a new Member of Parliament showing a lively interest in foreign affairs and he painted a most effective picture of the current crisis.
I pay tribute also to my hon. Friends the Members for East Devon (Mr. Swire) and for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), who both spoke movingly and passionately, highlighting some of the key issues that give rise to concern and basing their remarks on considerable knowledge. My hon. Friend the Member for East Devon reminded us that the human stories in the tragedy of Zimbabwe show us how fortunate we are to live in a peaceful and democratic society.
The hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore) made several points about the so-called anti-terrorist legislation—also remarked on by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield—and about the attempts to delay or cancel elections and the
216WH
failure of the Abuja agreement. We have heard some excellent contributions, but I regret that no Labour Back Bencher has felt able to attend the debate.
For decades, Zimbabwe was the bread basket of southern Africa. After independence, its future was bright. It was at the forefront of international hopes for southern African democracy and for a prosperous and stable future for its people and the region. Alas, today it is a sorry sight—a veritable tragedy. Since the 1980s, successive British Governments have given around £40 million to the Government of Zimbabwe to effect fair land reforms. Recently, at Abuja, the Foreign Secretary once more focused efforts on that issue.
The problem is that the money has not been used for land reform. It has been wasted, salted away and stolen by Mr. Mugabe and his corrupt cronies. Worse than that, however, not content with simply misusing much of the money, Mugabe's Government have taken to oppressing the citizens of that country. They have interfered in the independence of the judiciary, culminating in the forced resignation of Anthony Gubbay, the chief justice, at the start of this year. They have undermined and clamped down on free media organisations. It is a brave man who dares to venture a critical opinion in public and such oppression is unacceptable.
Let me be blunt with the Minister. We have been dismayed at the pusillanimous and unfocused approach of our Government. We have repeatedly called for travel bans the freezing of overseas assets and suspension from the Commonwealth, which is the tough action that is required to combat Mugabe's thuggery. It is sad that our European partners in France and Belgium welcomed him in March, and it is disappointing that our own Government did not feel moved to speak out at the hospitality of those Governments. The publicity and international acceptance was a huge propaganda coup for Mugabe. Indeed, following the recent meeting in Harare between Mr. Mugabe, Louis Michel, the Belgian Foreign Minister, Lord Patten, the European Union Commissioner, and Javier Solana, the European Union High Representative, Mr. Michel referred to Mugabe's brutal reaction to them. That is the richest of ironies.
The land issue remains a flashpoint and the consequence is agricultural collapse. We are witnessing economic refugees fleeing in their hundreds of thousands to South Africa, food shortages, requests for international aid to avert starvation and rampant inflation. The problem is that while the images of land theft by Mugabe's thugs are horrific, the land issue is something of a red herring. It suits Mugabe that it is something of a distraction, despite its terrible consequences. The real issue is how this previously affluent, hopeful and successful country—this regional lynchpin—is being destroyed by a megalomaniac thug who recently responded to his people's hunger by purchasing a new fleet of luxury Mercedes-Benz escort cars for his motorcade.
Zimbabwe stands at an historically important crossroads. It is make or break. The future of the people of Zimbabwe and the whole region is at stake. If Mugabe wins next year's elections through violence and corrupt electoral practices and thereby denies the Zimbabweans the chance freely to decide their own futures, we risk the final implosion of the economy. For a clear example of the economic turmoil that another

217WH
term of office for Mr. Mugabe could cause, we need look no further than South Africa this year. In the past few months, the value of the South African rand has dropped by approximately 20 per cent. Investors will inevitably shy away from the whole region. There are no internal economic factors that could justify such a dramatic fall in the currency in such a short time. South Africa, which is the powerhouse of sub-Saharan Africa, is being adversely affected by the instability engendered in the region by Zimbabwe. South Africa needs foreign businesses to invest their money to provide the economic growth to absorb high levels of unemployment and Zimbabwe, under Mr. Mugabe, is an important factor in stalling that essential growth.
If Mugabe wins next spring, it is equally likely that Libyan influence will increase to the extent that the peace and cohesion of the surrounding countries may be affected. If, on the other hand, free and fair elections take place that are properly monitored, Zimbabwe may return to stability with the hope of prosperity for her people and be able to resume her role as an important regional power and valued member of the Commonwealth.
Mr. Peter Duncan: Does my hon. Friend agree that next year's elections are the crux of the issue? Should the Government not tell Mugabe and his cohorts that unless the elections can be independently and freely observed, expulsion from the Commonwealth will follow forthwith?
Mr. Spring: I have great sympathy with my hon. Friend's remarks, and I shall deal with the importance of the election monitoring procedures. My hon. Friend is right—
Mr. Frank Cook (in the Chair): Order. It is important that the Chairman can hear what is said.
Mr. Spring: I am sorry, Mr. Cook. I said that I agreed with my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan). I shall deal in a few minutes with how the election should proceed and how it should be monitored. If it is a failure, we shall have to revisit the question of Commonwealth membership, to which my hon. Friend rightly alluded.
A recent opinion poll suggested that the MDC, whose leaders and activists are so mercilessly harassed and attacked, has a good chance of winning the elections if the Government do not gerrymander them. Free and fair elections are crucial to Zimbabwe's future. The key to free and fair elections is the electoral recommendations of the 14 members of the Southern African Development Community. Hon. Members may be aware of them, but they deserve to be described in detail as they are vital.
SADC's recommendations include the acceptance of impartial international and regional observers from the earliest possible stage, which is now. They call for an independent electoral commission that is totally free from Government intervention and for all parties to enjoy equality of access to the media and to funding. SADC also encourages the use of private media,
218WH
although we should note that what free or private media there are in Zimbabwe are under constant threat of Government and ZANU-PF violence. The freedom to campaign unhindered by the Government during elections features highly in the recommendations, which then turn to the registration process for voters and to the administration of voting. If Zimbabwe is to have the slightest chance of fair elections, those recommendations must be acted on now because voter registration is already under way and we are getting reports of abuse and intimidation. The recommendations also call for an electronic electoral roll to be freely available to all parties and for nondiscriminatory nomination and voter registration procedures to be enshrined in the national constitution. There should also be free and impartial policing.
Mugabe cannot deride those recommendations as colonial or as having been imposed by Europeans. They come from African countries and represent regional concerns. Most importantly, Zimbabwe itself signed up to them earlier this year. It is vital that international support and pressure hold Mugabe to those recommendations.
Whatever the temptation to focus on other aspects of the Zimbabwe issue, we must not be distracted from pressing for free and fair elections. We must not engage in a debate about what constitutes observers and monitors; that is merely semantics. We must be clear that what we want and what Zimbabweans deserve is independent monitors or observers—we can call them what we will—who have open access to every aspect of the election procedure, including early registration, and who can state with authority whether the elections are indeed fair and free.
We must work with SADC to solve that problem. I was, therefore, somewhat disappointed by written answers to questions that I tabled on the issue. The Minister's replies made no reference to SADC and offered no appreciation of its role. Instead, they focused entirely on the role of the European Union.
The United States of America takes an active interest in the matter. It is hoped that the Senate and the House of Representatives will soon implement restrictions and sanctions against Zimbabwe. The international community has a duty to play its part. We should—indeed, we must—give our total support to the SADC proposals, to ensure that the elections are free and fair. Zimbabwe's proper participation in the region is crucial to ensure long-term regional stability and prosperity for people in neighbouring countries. We must work tirelessly to ensure that its people are given the opportunity, free from intimidation, to choose the path that they wish their country to take in the years ahead. We owe it to southern Africa and the people of Zimbabwe to push for the restoration of justice and democracy that the elections represent. We must act now—there is simply no time to lose.
12 noon
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Ben Bradshaw): I congratulate the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Rosindell) on securing the debate, and a number of other hon. Members on their excellent and heartfelt contributions. If there were no crisis in Afghanistan, the

219WH
seriousness of the situation in Zimbabwe would put it on the front page of our newspapers virtually every day and give it a far higher profile.
As several hon. Members have said, a human tragedy is unfolding in Zimbabwe as a direct result of Zimbabwe Government policy. Several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire), read out moving e-mails. We have all received such e-mails containing testimony of the oppression and injustice being meted out to the Zimbabwean people. Hon. Members will know that this is our second Adjournment debate on Zimbabwe within a matter of weeks. It is a measure of the deep concern in all parts of the House at the situation in that country. In the last debate on 7 November, proposed by the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham), I set out the five principles that underpin the Government's policy on Zimbabwe. It might help hon. Members if I restate those principles.
The first is our wish to see a stable, prosperous and democratic Zimbabwe for all Zimbabweans. For the sake of the whole region, Zimbabwe's slide into political and economic chaos must be reversed. The second principle is that. Zimbabweans deserve and should get the help of the international community. The European Union signalled its concerns on 29 October by opening formal consultations with Zimbabwe on human rights, democratic principles and the rule of law, under article 96 of the Cotonou agreement. If those consultations do not lead to remedy after 75 days, the EU may take "appropriate measures". As several hon. Members have mentioned, a senior EU ministerial team visited Zimbabwe last week to explain Europe's concerns openly to President Mugabe. The way in which that team was treated can only rebound badly on the Government of Zimbabwe.
The Commonwealth, in an initiative of President Obasanjo of Nigeria, brokered an agreement at Abuja on 6 September. Among other things, the Zimbabwe Government committed themselves to respecting the democratic and human rights principles contained in the Harare Commonwealth declaration and the Millbrook action programme. They committed themselves to refraining from further occupation of farmland; the movement of occupiers to legally acquired land; a process of land reform; the restoration of the rule of law; and respect for freedom of expression. They also gave an undertaking to take firm action against violence and intimidation.
However, three months on, I am afraid that there is little evidence that the Zimbabwe Government are honouring any of those commitments. That inaction is seriously undermining the Abuja agreement. The Commonwealth must now press the Government of Zimbabwe to take the action that they agreed and to protect the integrity of the Commonwealth Harare declaration. Zimbabwe will no doubt feature prominently in this context at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting next March. Hon. Members will know that the United States has repeatedly condemned the violence and intimidation in Zimbabwe. Mindful of the economic damage that Zimbabwe is inflicting on the region, the countries of the Southern African Development Community have set clear benchmarks against which they will measure the Zimbabwe Government's conduct.
220WH
We welcome SADC's efforts to encourage stability and dialogue in Zimbabwe. I apologise to the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) if he feels that we do not. We do. Indeed, we give it a great deal of support for the measures that it is taking. The hon. Gentleman put his finger on something important. The reason that SADC can be so effective is that, because it is made up of neighbouring southern African countries, it removes President Mugabe's ability to try to portray it as some sort of neo-colonial problem.
Mr. Moore: The Minister said that it was important for the Commonwealth to press the Zimbabwe Government to go along with the Abuja agreement, but he immediately conceded that the Commonwealth Heads of Government would not meet until March to discuss the matter. That is a long time, during which intimidation will continue. What precise steps is the Commonwealth taking now?
Mr. Bradshaw: I would not want to prejudge what steps the Commonwealth might take before the March meeting, but the fact that the meeting does not take place until then does not mean that discussions about the serious situation in Zimbabwe are not continuing almost every day among Commonwealth members.
SADC has framed impressive electoral norms and standards for the region, which we believe should guide the international community in assessing Zimbabwe's forthcoming presidential election. The growing international consensus will be the most effective means of holding the Zimbabwe Government to account. It will bring concerted international pressure and the prospect of concerted international action. It will also allow a number of respected international envoys to become active in Zimbabwe, as most recently Chief Shonekan has on behalf of Nigeria's President.
Our third principle is that Zimbabwe's future prosperity depends on respect for the rule of law and an end to political violence. We will not be deflected from pressing the Zimbabwe Government on their disregard of fundamental rights, or from drawing international attention to those abuses. I reassure the hon. Member for Romford that the strong language used by the Foreign Secretary over the weekend is not simply a response to pressure from the press; the Government feel strongly about the matter, and we used similar language when the Zimbabwean Government last behaved unacceptably.
We have already taken a number of measures. We have imposed a complete embargo on arms sales to Zimbabwe, we have cut non-humanitarian aid, we have withdrawn our military training team and we shall continue to encourage international consensus for a change of direction in Zimbabwe. In the light of more worrying recent developments, the Foreign Secretary said at the weekend that he would be speaking to European Union and Commonwealth colleagues to consider how else we might respond.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am listening carefully to the Minister's constructive response to this important debate. Following the intervention of the hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore), does he believe that it would be appropriate for the Commonwealth to meet exceptionally, so that it can

221WH
take a decision on what should be done in Zimbabwe if there is no change in the policy of harassment and the total lack of law and order in that country? Otherwise, the so-called re-election of Mr. Mugabe will take place and the problem will continue. Is it not important to have an exceptional meeting of the Commonwealth to take action in the very near future?
Mr. Bradshaw: It certainly would not be sensible to rule anything out. As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, the Commonwealth meeting is four or five months away. That is a long time, and if the situation does not improve other exceptional measures may have to be taken. There has been much talk of targeted sanctions, a subject raised by the hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore). They could include a ban on travel, the freezing of assets and, ultimately, suspension from the Commonwealth.
It might help if I explain why the Government have not yet taken those steps. There are three practical reasons. The first is timing. As I have already said, we are working hard with the EU, the Commonwealth and others to persuade the Zimbabwe Government to change course. Those processes, including Abuja, must be given a chance—Abuja goes back only to the beginning of September. However, the processes are not open ended. The credibility of the efforts depends on immediate action by the Government of Zimbabwe to honour their commitments.
The second reason is effectiveness. Further unilateral UK measures would not be effective. We must not play into President Mugabe's hands by engaging in a bilateral spat. The hon. Member for West Suffolk lauded the efficacy of SADC and acknowledged that it was effective and should be supported because President Mugabe could not portray it as a colonial body. My difficulty with the tactical approach advocated by some Opposition Members is that it would play directly into President Mugabe's hands. We do not want to do that. I shall quote briefly from an interview given by the leader of the Zimbabwean opposition on the "Today" programme last Wednesday. When asked by Sue MacGregor whether the international community or Britain could be doing more, he replied:
"Well, we've seen a lot of initiatives on Zimbabwe but all of them, unfortunately, have failed to produce the requisite result. So I think that it is really up to Zimbabweans to ensure that changes obtain."
From the conversations that we have had with him, I think that he was trying to get across his belief that if Britain were seen to be doing something unilaterally, stepping out of line from the rest of the international community, that would play directly into President Mugabe's hands.
The hon. Member for East Devon said that we should treat the Government of Zimbabwe in the same way as we have been treating international terrorists since 11 September. One should not underestimate the seriousness of the situation in Zimbabwe, but I do not accept the accuracy of his parallel if he means that we should take military action against the Zimbabwean Government, as we have against al-Qaeda and bin Laden. That would be a foolish mistake.
222WH
The third reason that we have not yet taken the practical measures that several hon. Members have advocated is the reality of the modern Commonwealth. The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) asked why, as head of the Commonwealth, we could not do something. It is the Queen who is the head of the Commonwealth. We are just one of its 50 members and it works on consensus. However, there is a growing concern within the Commonwealth at the Zimbabwean Government's blatant disregard for the principles of the Harare declaration. The Commonwealth may well need to take some tough decisions in the run-up to CHOGM in March.
We are also determined to pursue our fourth principle, that Britain will help a democratic Zimbabwe achieve prosperity through successful land reform. That is central to fair and equitable economic development in Zimbabwe. The hon. Member for West Suffolk said that land reform was a red herring used by President Mugabe. While it is true that he blames all his problems on it, that does not mean that land reform is not important. It is very important, not least to the people of Zimbabwe.
Mr. Spring: Successive British Governments have been extremely generous to the Government of Zimbabwe, in an attempt to effect land reform. It simply has not happened. We have to remember that, despite the money that has been given, we have not had the land reform that is held to be desirable. The money has been abused. That was my point.
Mr. Bradshaw: Yes, I agree. Land reform in Zimbabwe cannot simply be an exercise in compensating commercial farmers. Donor funding will depend on a land reform that empowers the country's rural poor and creates greater equity in the ownership of the country's resources. However, we will not write blank cheques. The Abuja agreement made it clear that land reform would need to be based on the proposals of the United Nations development programme of December 2000.
The hon. Member for Macclesfield raised the serious problem of the terrible state of the Zimbabwean economy and made the good point that in the past Zimbabwe was the bread basket of the region, a net exporter and full of natural resources. There is no reason why it should not be an extremely successful country that sets an example to all its neighbours.
Hon. Members might like to have some figures that illustrate the dire state of the Zimbabwean economy. At the latest count, unemployment was 60 per cent. and rising. Inflation is 86 per cent and is expected to rise to 100 per cent. There was negative growth in the past 12 months of 8 per cent.
Our fifth and final principle is that the future must be left in the hands of the people of Zimbabwe. As a number of hon. Members have said, there will be presidential elections by mid-March. We want the people of Zimbabwe to be given a genuine opportunity to make their voice heard. That means avoiding the violence and intimidation witnessed during the last parliamentary elections. As hon. Members have said, that violence continues today, often against those who merely express a different point of view from the

223WH
Government's. It is becoming clear that the Government of Zimbabwe are taking steps that will make a free and fair presidential election next spring more difficult to achieve. Campaigns of harassment against non-governmental organisations, judges and independent journalists remain commonplace.
The hon. Member for Macclesfield drew attention to the newly proposed public order and security Bill, which could place further restrictions on freedom of expression. A large number of Zimbabweans could be disfranchised. The management of the election rests with the supervisory commission appointed by the Zimbabwe Government. They have also decreed, as the hon. Member for Romford reminded us, that only civil servants can monitor the conduct of next year's poll. The Zimbabwe Government should know that there are bound to be searching questions in due course about the legitimacy of the poll if those efforts to manipulate the process continue.
The people of Zimbabwe showed courage and dignity last year when they voted in large numbers, despite the levels of intimidation. They showed that they expect and deserve genuine democracy. Britain and the international community will respect the will of the people of Zimbabwe at the presidential election, whatever their decision, so long as the campaign and poll are demonstrably free and fair.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: As the Minister is obviously coming towards the end of his speech, would he deal with the policy of the Zimbabwe Government under Mr. Mugabe in respect of humanitarian aid to that country? They will not allow the independent charitable agencies to distribute it and insist on distributing it themselves, perhaps to ensure that it goes only to their supporters. The Minister also touched on the importance of land redistribution. If land is being taken off the commercial white farmers, those black Zimbabweans who take over must be taught to farm it so that it does not go back to the bush.
Mr. Bradshaw: Yes, the humanitarian aid is still going through via NGOs. The British Government have been extremely careful in recent years to ensure that, with two small exceptions, our humanitarian aid programme
224WH
goes through NGOs rather than through the Government of Zimbabwe. As the hon. Gentleman says, we do not trust the Government of Zimbabwe to administer it effectively. He is also right about the future role of agricultural workers from Zimbabwe. One of the great tragedies is that although most of the violence that one reads about in the papers here is against white farmers, violence against ordinary black farm workers is more regular and frequent. There is a huge refugee problem spilling out from the borders of Zimbabwe into neighbouring countries.
I was talking about what would happen if we did not feel that next year's elections were being planned in a fair and democratic way. If, as President Mugabe has said repeatedly, he truly believes that he enjoys the backing of his people, he need not fear the outcome of a genuine democratic process, but the Zimbabwe Government's approach gives little cause for optimism. That is why the European Union, the United States and others are insisting on international election observers being in place well before the election.
As I said on 7 November, anyone who ever doubted that good governance is essential to sustainable development need look no further than the crisis that has befallen Zimbabwe in the past few years. Worse still, as hon. Members have mentioned today, Zimbabwe's tragedy threatens to infect the whole region by weakening business investment and sentiment. Investor confidence in Botswana and South Africa, two of the region's modern-day success stories, has already been unfairly tainted by Zimbabwe's bad example. Mozambique, Zambia and Malawi are suffering from the dislocation of thousands of Zimbabwean farm workers and the downturn in regional trade.
The Government of Zimbabwe know what they need to do to return to the international fold, but they are not listening. Let us hope that future Governments get back on the side of their own people and the law. If they do, Britain and Zimbabwe's many friends in the international community stand ready to help. If they do not, the prospects for that wonderful country look grim.
12.21 pm
Sitting suspended.

Telephone Licensing (Aberdeen)
12.27 pm
Mr. Frank Doran: I am pleased to initiate this debate, because my constituents and people throughout Scotland who subscribe to the services of Atlantic Telecom are facing serious problems. The company appeared to be successful, but it went into administration in October, leaving its many thousands of cable customers in the lurch. On 9 November, telephone services were completely withdrawn. I propose to focus less on the short-term issues, however important, than on the longer-term consequences of the collapse.
I am grateful to the Minister for E-Commerce and Competitiveness and to the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning in the Scottish Executive—by happy chance his sister, making it a family affair—for working together to find the funds for an emergency system that will allow telephone calls to continue in affected cities. It is only a short-term solution, and by the end of January 2002 the problems faced particularly by businesses will not have gone away.
Mr. Malcolm Savidge: Does my hon. Friend agree that this problem shows the weakness of existing legislation? If it were not for the helpful actions of the Minister and his sister and of British Telecom, the crisis would indeed have been grave.
Mr. Doran: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Although I am grateful to the Minister for spending £500,000 of public money on the rescue effort, it shows that the structural problems are deep.
I have heard various figures for the number of Atlantic Telecom customers. BT told me that the number was 16,000. However, the Atlantic Telecom figure is nearer 12,000 customers, 2,000 of which are businesses that are concentrated mainly in Aberdeen, but are also in Dundee, Glasgow, Edinburgh and Manchester.
Domestic consumers have been seriously hit. Telephone services were withdrawn with minimum notice. Most people found out from the local newspaper on the morning that the services were withdrawn that they would not be able to make telephone calls. However, most domestic consumers have been able to have lines installed or get on to a programme to have lines installed.
The most serious consequences have fallen on the business consumers. This is the second collapse of a telephone supplier since competition was introduced in the telephone industry. It is the largest and the most significant collapse, and there are serious lessons to be learned from it, the most important of which is that there is almost no protection for the consumer in the regulatory system.
All consumers were given notice of the intention to withdraw what the Office of Telecommunications calls "the complete service". The minimum legal obligation on a telephone provider when it decides to withdraw a service is to give 14 days' written notice to its subscribers of its intention. It has to provide access to emergency numbers only, so consumers cannot make outgoing calls, but they can receive incoming calls. In the case of
226WH
Atlantic Telecom, the 14 days' notice expired on 25 November. I mentioned earlier the rescue plan that has been put in place, and I have tested the system. People are receiving calls, which is important.
By far the most serious consequence for businesses has been the fact that, if they had an Atlantic Telecom line, they have lost that number.
Miss Anne Begg: A taxi company in Aberdeen has suffered as a result of the collapse of Atlantic Telecom. If someone is drunk in Union street in Aberdeen and is looking for a taxi, especially on a Saturday night, that company's number might be the only one that they remember or that is pre-programmed into their mobile phone. The loss of a well-known number is very serious, especially for a taxi company.
Mr. Doran: I agree with my hon. Friend, although I do not accept that anyone is drunk in Union street in the heart of my constituency on a Saturday night. That apart, I agree entirely.
I will give some examples of businesses that have been affected. My hon. Friend mentioned Abcabs, which is a small business in my constituency that started up three years ago. It was extremely successful and is now the third most used taxi company in Aberdeen. It had a very memorable number—45 45 45—and got a lot of business from that. On 9 November, it learned that its telephone service was to be withdrawn. It was in an awkward position, because it had foreseen the problems with Atlantic Telecom and had asked BT to install a new system.
That system was in place and was due to be implemented on the Wednesday after Atlantic Telecom went bust. In the meantime, the company was using its Atlantic Telecom number to forward calls to its new system. No calls were forwarded, because the Atlantic Telecom system could not make outgoing calls. For a company that expects 2,000 calls a day at the weekend, the sudden disconnection of the telephone line has had a devastating effect on its business. It advertised for three years, invested in literature, and put the number on its cabs—a huge investment—but what it considered its most valuable business asset was suddenly pulled away.
Another small company, Aberdeen North-East Heating Ltd., supplies and fits boilers. It is five years old and began work in a rural area but set up in the city three years ago. The company, which is important in my constituency, supplies about 120 to 130 boilers a year and is an approved contractor for the Government's energy efficiency scheme. It tracks its advertising, which appears only in Yellow Pages and on yell.com, and knows exactly where its business comes from. Ninety per cent. of its business comes from the Yellow Pages advertisement.
The company's telephone number has been taken away. Yes, it can still receive incoming calls and, because of the Minister's intervention, will be able to do so until the end of January, when it will have to reconsider its position. The problem is that people do not use a heating company every day of the week. They go to Yellow Pages and run through the list to pick someone who suits their needs, based on an advertisement that attracts them. Yellow Pages in Aberdeen will not be republished until June, which is six months later.

227WH
The company is looking at other means of advertising—it will do everything that it can to let the citizens of Aberdeen know about the business—and there will be a small amount of business from word of mouth, but it feels that 90 per cent. of its business will collapse from the end of January. That successful small business, which employs four people, is afraid for its future.
Those examples show that serious consequences stem from the loss of a telephone number. The Office of Telecommunications, which is the industry regulator, has spent a great deal of time and used much advertising space to tell us about portability. Telephone numbers are supposed to be portable. I looked on its website and picked out a couple of random statements. One is from a review of portability that was published in 1998:
"Changing number can be a major inconvenience for customers and a barrier which prevents them from exercising choice and taking advantage of growing competition in the telecommunication market. Number portability means that customers can change to a new operator without the hassle of having to change their number."
We all welcomed that important statement as a sign of progress in the newly liberalised telephone market, but what happens when an operator goes into administration or withdraws from the market? Atlantic Telecom customers discovered that portability was meaningless because, when the company collapsed, Oftel automatically reclaimed all the numbers. I asked Oftel why the numbers could not be reallocated to BT, which had put in the emergency services and was to be the new provider. I was told that the numbers could be redistributed only in tranches of 10,000 numbers, and that there were various technical reasons why the numbers could not be transferred. I understand those reasons, but it seems that the system militates against the consumer. There is a drive for portability, which is sold as a benefit of the system, but in practice there is no portability if the supplier does not continue in business.
A problem with competition is that there will be failures, even if they are not as spectacular as Atlantic Telecom's. From my experience of the gas market, which I know a little better than the telecoms market, I know that companies come and go. They may not go bust, but if they do not achieve their aspirations, they will move on to other areas in which they prefer to invest their money. In this age of communication, customers are put at a distinct disadvantage in such a situation.
I am uncertain about one matter, which I would like the Minister to address. I asked for a short brief on the consequences of reclaiming the numbers and what it would mean for existing consumers who had already transferred their number to another organisation, such as BT, and were no longer Atlantic Telecom customers at the time of the collapse. The response stated that
"if a number was allocated by Atlantic this cannot be ported to a new supplier. Number portability obligations on telecoms operators work on the basis of reasonableness and although it would be possible for all Atlantic's numbers to be transferred to other operators, this would be technically difficult and expensive as it would require operators to reconfigure the databases in their exchanges to recognise the new numbers."
I would appreciate it if the Minister would tell me whether I am interpreting this correctly. The response seems to say that, as well as existing customers, any customers during the lifetime of Atlantic Telecom who
228WH
took their numbers to a new supplier such as BT will lose their number, despite not being a customer at the time of the collapse. That seems to me the logical interpretation of that response.
What protection is there for consumers in that situation? If I have read the response correctly, it implies that portability depends on the liquidity of the supply company and on historical factors. It is a serious situation, and I have tried to understand why it has occurred. I understand the technical reasons and financial consequences—I have been told that it may cost as much as £1 million for BT to take all the Atlantic Telecom numbers and reconfigure its own system to deal with them. However, I cannot understand why the relatively small number of consumers who decide to take advantage of portability should be punished and put at risk. I still do not know whether that is happening because it is more convenient for or a requirement of the regulator. I do not accept that we cannot devise a regulatory system that protects consumers, or that the problems of technical difficulty and cost in transferring telephone numbers between companies to sustain the portability principle are insurmountable. The system seems to operate for the convenience of the industry, not the consumers.
Miss Begg: There has been a failure of regulation in television, which is another aspect of Atlantic Telecom's business. It took over Aberdeen Cable, but the business went bust before the telephone system went down. People in Aberdeen arrived home to discover a message on their television to say that they had lost their service. There is a problem with regulation, or more particularly consumer protection. We must ensure that people continue to have a service when companies go bust.
Mr. Doran: That is right. We are shortly to have a telecommunications Bill, and I hope that that topic will be addressed.
Mr. Savidge: My point follows that made by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg). My hon. Friend has rightly concentrated on the business implications, but it is important to emphasise that domestic customers who lost both their television and telephone service at the same time have been caused considerable stress.
Mr. Doran: Again, I accept that point, and I hope that it will be addressed in the telecommunications Bill.
There are serious implications for competition in the telecoms industry. The collapse of Atlantic Telecom has shown that there is no protection for the consumer in this new era of competition in the telephone industry. In any competitive situation, some companies will succeed while others fail. If a company fails or decides to pull out of the market, services are liable to be withdrawn overnight and telephone numbers, which may be a small business's single biggest asset, could be taken away without compensation. That would have a devastating effect on the businesses concerned.
The issue is not local to Aberdeen and the other centres that I have mentioned; it affects the whole industry. We encourage individuals and businesses to enjoy the new marketplace in telephone services,

229WH
but there is no health warning and nothing to tell consumers of the risks that they are running. If consumers knew the risks that they were taking, would there be any competition in the telephone market? Would consumers take the risk of leaving large but apparently stable companies such as BT to sign up to companies like Atlantic Telecom? If they knew the whole picture, I doubt that they would. What incentive would they have under the current regulatory framework?
The Minister and the Scottish Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning have done everything possible to mitigate the immediate effects. I take their intervention as an admission of the seriousness of the problem. They have dealt with the short term, but the long term must involve a complete overhaul of the regulations governing the telecoms industry in order to give consumers more protection and tilt the balance away from the industry. I welcome the Minister's public statement at the weekend that he will consider the regulatory framework. All the evidence from Atlantic Telecom's collapse is that such a review is needed extremely urgently.
12.46 pm
The Minister for E-Commerce and Competitiveness (Mr. Douglas Alexander): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, Central (Mr. Doran) on securing the debate. I acknowledge his diligence in representing his constituents' interests at this difficult time, following the failure of Atlantic Telecom. I welcome the debate as an opportunity to place in context the announcement that the Scottish Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning and I made on Saturday afternoon. I hope that I can assure my hon. Friend and others affected by the closure of Atlantic Telecom that, working together, the Minister and I are doing everything possible to ensure a smooth transfer of telecoms services.
I shall address the circumstances of the weekend's events, before discussing how I intend to take forward the policy issues raised by my hon. Friend. Atlantic Telecom was a company of about 260 employees, with a total of 128,000 customers—7,000 of whom were business customers—covering the cities of Glasgow, Edinburgh, Dundee, Aberdeen and Manchester. As my hon. Friend said, the challenge was not confined to the Aberdeen area.
Some of those customers were served by a fixed wireless access telephone system. The company was established in 1991. Atlantic Telecom went into administration on 5 October 2001. At the time, there was a fair degree of confidence that the company would be sold. However, five weeks later, on 8 November, the administrators concluded that they could not sell the company as a going concern and duly informed Oftel that the fixed-wireless network was likely to be switched off shortly, without notice to customers.
Administrators are appointed by a court to try to rescue a failing company or to achieve a better return for its creditors. To help them to do that, the company is protected from any legal action while the administrators are in place. That includes enforcement action by Oftel,
230WH
which is the independent regulator established under the Telecommunications Act 1984. It is specifically charged with responsibility for promoting the interests of consumers and ensuring that telecoms services are provided in the UK to meet all reasonable demands. Oftel cannot require an administrator to act in breach of its duty, but after intensive discussions on 8 and 9 November, it agreed that the administrators would maintain the network with a minimum service until 25 November. It also agreed that the administrator would give all customers immediate written notice to that effect.
The Government hold the view that competition brings choice of services to customers, encourages innovation and drives down prices. That is why we believe in promoting competition widely. It is a fact of life that, in a competitive environment, not all companies are guaranteed to succeed, as my hon. Friend said. When a telecoms company fails, the customers can usually be easily transferred to alternative suppliers. Indeed, that has happened for most of Atlantic's customers. Those using Atlantic's indirect access service have a wide choice of alternative suppliers. Those using Atlantic's fixed-line network have been able to transfer to BT or another cable operator.
BT and other telecommunications companies that have received orders for new lines have been working as fast as possible to process the orders. However, it was proving impossible for BT or any other company to provide services to everyone by Sunday 25 November, when the administrator planned to switch off the Atlantic network. Some of Atlantic's customers would have realised only late in the day that they had to make alternative arrangements for their telephone services. That is why the Government, the Department of Trade and Industry and the Scottish Executive resolved to act to ensure that Atlantic's customers—particularly its business customers—were given a reasonable time to make the switch to an alternative network provider before the Atlantic network was completely switched off.
Mr. Savidge: My hon. Friend mentioned that Atlantic Telecom used fixed radio access. Did that technical issue make the problem worse?
Mr. Alexander: I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution. We struggled with several technical issues during the hours immediately before the switch-off. One of those was the nature of the access provided by Atlantic Telecom. As I understand it, following the provision of a wireless service, lines into some properties had been removed. That obviously made the problem more complicated and increased the delays for those seeking alternative line access. Despite the technical constraints, BT and other telecom companies that received orders for the new lines worked as fast as possible to process them.
I met my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, Central on 19 November and he spelled out the concerns of his constituents at that DTI meeting. The following day I met the director general of Oftel and expressed my resolve that everything possible should be done to smooth the transfer of customers from Atlantic to other operators. On 21 November, I met my hon. Friends the Members for Edinburgh, North and Leith

231WH
(Mr. Lazarowicz) and for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg), who explained the problems that their constituents were having in transferring telephone numbers and obtaining alternative operators. I pay tribute to all those hon. Members for their effective and constructive representation of their constituents.
The next day I arranged to meet the chief executive of BT, Sir Peter Bonfield, and the group commercial director, Colin Green, to seek their assistance in expediting the connection of Atlantic customers. At that meeting, Sir Peter assured me that BT would do all it could to help facilitate a quick transfer of customers. He confirmed that the company had already diverted resources from elsewhere to help speed up the process, and that it would work closely with Oftel and the DTI to minimise the disruption to Atlantic's customers.
The Scottish Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning—my sister, Wendy Alexander—met the Stop Atlantic Closure campaign on 21 November and again on 23 November. She also met the administrators on 22 November and the Scottish Chambers of Commerce and Scottish Enterprise on 23 November. From those meetings we were clear about the importance to Atlantic's business customers of not losing telecom services for any period, and about the difficulties surrounding the transfer of numbers.
We required a complex deal. We needed to persuade the administrators to keep the Atlantic network running long enough for Atlantic's customers to obtain telecom services from BT or other operators, but all customers with a number from Atlantic's allocation would lose its use as soon as the network was switched off. We therefore decided that the Atlantic network must be kept running until customers had had a reasonable time to organise alternative arrangements. For an interim period, a messaging service was also needed to provide the new telephone numbers when calls were made to the old Atlantic ones.
The administrators would not fund that arrangement, so we quickly secured the Treasury's approval and considered whether providing public money to support businesses in that way would constitute state aid, which the European Commission permits only in limited circumstances. We believe that the money meets well-established criteria for rescue aid. This week, we are notifying the Commission of that aid, and we believe that it will be approved.
I pay tribute not only to the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning, but to my officials in the DTI, the Scottish Executive and the staff of Oftel who, under considerable pressure, worked flat out on this package on Thursday, past midnight on Friday and again on Saturday morning. Everything was in place and the deal was concluded with the administrators by Saturday afternoon, when we notified the campaigners and announced the deal publicly.
As part of the deal, we are working with Oftel and telecom companies to ensure that a message to every caller on the old Atlantic numbers provides the appropriate new numbers. That service will remain in place during Christmas and new year. By 2 January 2002, not only will all Atlantic's fixed wireless customers have working fixed lines, but businesses will have had several weeks to advertise new numbers. Some of those who benefit from the messaging service will want it to
232WH
remain for longer, so at least one switch in the Atlantic network will have to continue operating. Those customers must arrange the financing.
Assuming that people act on the notice of network closure from the administrator, the rescue package announced on Saturday will ensure that 12,000 residential users and 2,000 businesses have time to get a new telephone line and to advertise the new number. This time of year is traditionally busy, and the £500,000 grant provided by the DTI and the Scottish Executive is essential to maintaining vital telephone services. We have financed the administrators to keep the Atlantic network operating with a messaging service up to 2 January 2002.
I want to consider the regulatory regime under which the events took place. In future, the regulatory regime should provide adequate consumer protection in a fully competitive telecommunications market. The regime presently provides several safeguards, the terms of which merit consideration.
Mr. Doran: I see that the Minister is on the last page of his speech, and I do not want him to sit down without addressing the concerns of business consumers, who are losing a major business asset. What does he have to say to them?
Mr. Alexander: My hon. Friend asked whether customers who moved from Atlantic before it went into administration, and who transferred their old numbers to an alternative supplier, would lose those numbers when the network closes. That is the case, because of the technical difficulties, but the possibility remains of further discussion about a messaging service based on a single Atlantic Telecom switch.
Under current terms, BT is subject to a universal service obligation. It will provide a service to all Atlantic's customers who make a reasonable request. Other operators, such as Telewest Broadband and Thus, are also taking ex-Atlantic customers. It should be possible for all Atlantic's fixed wireless customers—business and residential—who had placed an order with another operator for a replacement service by last Sunday to receive that service in two weeks—or four at most.
As for portability, telephone customers have the right under present arrangements to require the transfer of a telephone number from the existing operator to a new operator if that is reasonable. However, I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the terms of that definition, especially the word "reasonable". It is for the operator to judge what is reasonable, although ultimately it may be a matter for the director general of Oftel, who would consider whether the operator had complied with its obligation on number portability.
It is technically possible for all Atlantic's numbers to be transferred to BT, but it would have to rebuild the databases at each of its exchanges. BT has intimated in discussions with the regulator that that would cost about £1 million—an amount that the company does not consider reasonable—and would take several weeks to complete. Given the technical and operational characteristics of Atlantic's telecommunications system, similar difficulties would arise if numbers were transferred to other operators. Ultimately, the director general of Oftel may have to consider the reasonableness of a request for a number.

233WH
The Atlantic case has shown the clear limitations of present customer protection measures. Now that the rescue package is in place, I assure my hon. Friend that I shall review whether steps should be taken in the light of those limitations. I welcome the views of all hon. Members, as we seek to establish appropriate further action. My hon. Friend accepted that providing such assistance is not something that the Government do lightly. Atlantic did not ask for assistance. We took action because the administrator, acting in the interests of the creditors, announced that the network would be switched off faster than Atlantic's customers could transfer to alternative operators. For reasons beyond their control, that placed those customers—especially businesses—at unacceptable risk. Jobs were clearly at stake at a peak period of the year for many of the companies, and at an especially sensitive time for their employees.
We have listened to Atlantic's customers. The DTI, in close partnership with the Scottish Executive and Oftel, worked hard and fast under real time restrictions to find what we believed was a workable solution. The other operators have also played their part—
Miss Ann Widdecombe (in the Chair): Order. We now move on to the next debate.

GoVia (South London)
1 pm
Tom Brake: I welcome the opportunity for a short debate about GoVia services in south London. I hope that the Minister can respond today to the issues, about which he has received advance notice.
The Minister may be tempted to stray from the subject of today's debate to that of Liberal Democrat spending plans, so I want to put one thing on the record. In a recent debate, the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) asked me how much of the Liberal Democrats' tax increase of 1p in the pound, which we proposed at the general election, was for transport. My response, correctly, was none. because that increase was earmarked for education. However, our spending plans for transport at the general election included the same level of funding as the Government's 10-year transport plan. If the Minister intends to criticise our transport spending plans, he will also be criticising the Government's plans.
The Minister will not have missed the reports in Sunday's and yesterday's papers about the state of transport infrastructure in the United Kingdom. According to a report commissioned by the Government, Britain has the worst transport system in Europe. The most congested roads, the longest commuting times and some of the highest rail fares can be found in the UK, according to the Government's Commission for Integrated Transport. The franchise process was an opportunity under the Labour Government to start to tackle such problems. I want to focus on the transfer of the Connex South Central franchise to GoVia, and whether it is tackling the problems outlined in that report.
The experience has not been entirely happy so far. I want to refer to a letter and two e-mails that I have received in the past couple of days from constituents who were aware that this debate would take place. Mr. Brown said:
"Since GoVia took over the franchise from Connex South Central, the services to Victoria from Carshalton and Carshalton Beeches have been appalling."
Another constituent told me that she used to catch the 7.30 train from Hackbridge to Victoria, which was always crowded, but it has now been cancelled. She said that she dreaded to think what the overcrowding on earlier and later trains would be like. A third constituent who travelled on the 7.33 train from Hackbridge to London Bridge alleged that since GoVia took over the train had not run on time once and some services had been cut out indefinitely.
I am realistic, as my constituents probably are. There was no way in which the service would improve miraculously, or even perceptibly, as soon as GoVia took over. However, people did not expect it to deteriorate to the extent that it apparently has. Many of the services that GoVia was to provide have been removed in a revised timetable that it had to issue, as it hoped to be able to guarantee a particular level of service. That is not a good omen.

235WH
It seems as though the handover process has failed in some respects. I hope that the Minister can say what lessons the Government have learned from this franchise experience, and what changes, if any, they intend to make to the process to ensure that future franchise renewals give passengers what they want.
There are a number of problems with the franchise bidding and renewal processes. First, there is the too-many-cooks syndrome. GoVia was selected in the final stages of the franchise bidding process from a shortlist of two companies—Connex and GoVia. One must question whether a real choice was possible with only those two companies bidding. However, at the end of that process, the Strategic Rail Authority and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions were happy that the contract should be awarded to GoVia, and that GoVia should take over the franchise. The Office of Fair Trading then became involved, and that significantly delayed the process, but it raised no queries. Clearly, during that period, a great deal of confusion was created for GoVia, its staff and commuters, as they expected the handover to take place, but it did not happen. That led to a loss of morale among staff, and probably caused significant problems in retaining the staff within Connex who were going to be taken on by GoVia. Perhaps the Minister, as a result of that delay, has reflected on what can be done to shorten the process and to ensure that all Government Departments are on board with the company shortlisted by the Government, rather than allowing such a delay to occur.
The second problem is the lack of information about the service and the staff that were employed. Clearly, much of that information is commercially confidential, but driver shortages and the need to recruit more maintenance engineers are the two most significant problems that GoVia has reported to me that affect its ability to deliver the new service. What action are the Strategic Rail Authority and the Government taking to ensure that, within the bounds of commercial confidentiality, all parties bidding to take over the franchise are aware of the staffing levels in the organisation that they will succeed, and what maintenance regime applies? Connex assured me that, if GoVia had wanted the information about the maintenance regime, it could have obtained it. That may be true, but it would appear that GoVia did not do so. In future, will the Government ensure that that information is available at the beginning of the process, so that companies bidding for the franchise know where they stand, without having to delve into areas that they did not realise they had to delve into?
That matter is pertinent not only to the franchises but to the public-private partnership for London Underground, which is another transport plan close to the Government's heart. Clearly, if the consortiums involved in that partnership do not know the staffing levels in London Underground, I can guarantee that when they take over the service they will say, "We did not know how many staff there were, so we will not be able to deliver because we are understaffed."
The third problem is that of driver shortages. The Minister may be aware of correspondence from Connex and comment in the press from GoVia about where responsibility for the driver shortage problem lies. In a letter to Go Via, Connex said that when it handed over
236WH
the franchise, South Central was 14 drivers short of establishment. If that was the case, GoVia did not need to implement cuts on the scale that it has. Connex claimed that the service was only 14 drivers short, but GoVia said that it had to rejig the timetable completely.
Jim Dowd: Even if the issue of train drivers were clear—and it is not—that does not explain why so many GoVia services, which affect my constituency as much as the hon. Gentleman's, are running short trains and why trains are being reduced from eight to six or four carriages. That is a matter of service, not drivers. Many of my constituents used to write to me saying that the franchise should be taken away from Connex because the service could not get any worse, but I am now inundated with letters from people who say that they were wrong and that the service has got far worse.
Tom Brake: I thank the hon. Gentleman for those helpful comments. The issue was highlighted in an email that I received from a constituent who could not understand why a short service was running during the peak period—it was cancelled, in any case—whereas long trains were running during off-peak periods later in the day. That seemed to her to be a rather illogical approach to providing the right capacity. I shall be interested to hear whether the Minister has had discussions with Connex or GoVia about driver shortages, and when he expects the problem to be resolved and the normal service—I say that hesitantly—to resume.
The new franchise is the fourth problem area. Commercial confidentiality may prevent the Minister from telling us what is happening with the new franchise, although GoVia is the sole company involved in the negotiations, so there cannot be too many such issues. None the less, I should like to know whether GoVia is on track to sign a new franchise deal in 2002, and what guarantees the SRA is seeking from GoVia on levels of investment. It would be useful to have key, tangible indicators that commuters will be able to understand at the end of the new 20-year franchise, if that is what it is to be. For example, how much new rolling stock will have been rolled out?
I must again refer the Minister to an issue that is of great concern to commuters in my area. Which stations will train services from my constituency go to? We have been told that they might go to London Bridge, but not Victoria. Clearly, the majority of commuters would prefer them to go to both. When the SRA gets involved in the negotiations about franchises, will it consider that level of detail, which commuters understand and can use to judge improvements to the service?
The sudden switch from the new extended 20-year franchises that GoVia is negotiating to short extensions to existing franchises has introduced some confusion into the new franchising arrangements. Connex must be spitting, because it sought a three or four-year extension to its franchise a few years ago in the belief that that was the best way to guarantee significant improvements in investment and new rolling stock. It was told that that was not an option, and that the Government were going for the long, 20-year franchises. However, shortly after negotiations started with GoVia on the new extended

237WH
franchise, that approach was no longer taken, and the Government were considering two or three-year extensions to existing franchises.
I want to give the Minister a decent length of time in which to respond, so I shall come to my final point, which is about the impact of Railtrack going into administration on the investment plans of GoVia and other train operating companies. The Minister ran out of time when I raised the subject at column 219WH in a debate on 30 October. Fortunately, he will have longer to respond today.
What assessment was made before Railtrack was put into administration of the impact on the investment plans of GoVia and the other train operating companies? What assessment has been made since? In response to my parliamentary question 9894, the Minister said:
"The recent Railtrack developments will not impact on the existing or new franchise"—[Official Report, 29 October 2001; Vol. 373. c. 479W.]
Why did he say that when Metro had reported on 26 October that GoVia had already suspended a £330 million upgrade of track and signalling on lines into Victoria because of uncertainty about the Railtrack plans, and when it had been reported in the Evening Standard's News and City section on 25 October that Connex South East had put
"a question mark over £900 million plans to alleviate overcrowding"?
Does he still maintain that there has been no impact, despite what Go Ahead stated in a letter to me on 12 November? It said:
"We require clarification from Government on infrastructure projects which impact on South Central to allow us to proceed".
As recently as yesterday, GoVia stated that uncertainty surrounding Railtrack and its future structure was not helping it to progress its work, especially on infrastructure improvements.
Handing over the franchise to GoVia was supposed to launch a renaissance of the railways. Instead, we appear to be slipping back into the dark ages. I hope that the Minister will confirm that lessons have been learned from the GoVia franchise, and that future franchise renewals will be a guarantee of improvements in service.
1.16 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Mr. David Jamieson): I congratulate the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), resplendent in his new hairstyle—it seems to be catching, Miss Widdecombe—on securing the debate. I also thank him for giving me prior notice of some of the questions. It is a pleasure, Miss Widdecombe, to serve under your watchful eye. It is the first time that I have had that pleasure. I recall that you were once a candidate in the constituency that I now represent. Sadly, I was not a candidate there then, but had I been, we could have both lost together.
Jim Dowd: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In the days when I used to sit in this Chamber and say nothing, the tradition was that you would be
238WH
addressed as Madam Deputy Speaker, rather than as Miss Widdecombe. If that has been changed, I should be grateful to know.
Miss Ann Widdecombe (in the Chair): I am not a Deputy Speaker. I am afraid that I am plain Miss Widdecombe.
Mr. Jamieson: Thank you, Miss Widdecombe. Having also served as a Whip in this Chamber, I keep up to date on matters of House procedure. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Jim Dowd) is a stickler in such matters, but on this occasion I seem to have the edge on him.
The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington raised some important points and I shall endeavour to cover as many as I can, as always. He rather spoiled the beginning of the debate, sullying it with a bit of party politics. There is obviously some sensitivity about matters that have been raised in previous debates. We are delighted to hear that the Liberal Democrats' spending plans for transport are equal to the Government's. Perhaps at some future date, when there is more time, he will tell us how they could afford them.
The hon. Gentleman shows a keen interest in rail issues, and we have had an opportunity to debate some of them previously. I shall try today to cover some of those that we have perhaps not dealt with in as much detail as we should have done. The hon. Gentleman's constituency is served by South Central and Thameslink, and as he said, both those franchises are owned by GoVia.
Before I respond on the main issues, it will be helpful to provide an update on the operators' current service provision. As the South Central franchise was transferred from Connex to GoVia only on 26 August, it is still too early to make overall judgments on GoVia's performance. However, there is a driver shortage across the whole network. When the franchise was transferred there was a driver shortage as well as a shortage in depot fitters. Those staffing shortages have led South Central to make a number of cancellations to its services in recent weeks. It takes several months to provide full training for new drivers, and that should not be speeded up at the risk of compromising safety. However, I am informed that there is already an accelerated programme of driver recruitment and training, which I hope will secure drivers in excess of the current establishment by next spring.
The problem of staffing shortages was added to by a deal that was concluded by the previous incumbent, Connex Transport UK, for a 35-hour four-day week for drivers plus an additional four days leave per annum, which came into effect in September. I understand that South Central is seeking to buy back drivers' annual leave by agreement to help alleviate short-term difficulties. I hope that that is helpful in dealing with driver shortages.
As it was clear that a full service timetable could not be met, the Strategic Rail Authority, in discussion with South Central, the London Transport Users Committee and the rail passengers committee for southern England, agreed a revised timetable. That timetable mitigates the effects of unplanned cancellations on passengers by providing a timetable that can be delivered reliably to

239WH
passengers so that they can plan their journeys accordingly. I would be the first to accept that that is hardly satisfactory, but at least there is now a degree of predictability in the services that was previously lacking. The revised timetable took effect from 12 November: it will apply beyond Christmas and may last until Easter next year. The Strategic Rail Authority will closely monitor South Central's progress towards the reintroduction of a full timetable. I am sure that that is good news for the hon. Gentleman's constituents. I expect every effort to be made to restore a full service as soon as possible.
The latest performance statistics published by the Strategic Rail Authority in July show that improvement also needs to be made in the performance of Thameslink services. The figures show that from 27 May to 23 June, 74 per cent. of Thameslink's trains throughout the day arrived on time, with 71.2 per cent. arriving on time during peak periods. Services are deemed punctual if they arrive at their destination within five minutes of the timetable.
The Connex South Central agreement was due to be transferred to GoVia in June. That was not possible as compliance with competition legislation had to be shown before the takeover could happen. The change of control was dependent on the decision of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on the competition issues involved. As I said earlier, the handover eventually took place on 26 August. South Central Ltd will continue to run the franchise under the terms of the existing agreement until a new franchise agreement is concluded.
The new South Central franchise is a particular interest of the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington. Some issues surrounding it are also important to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West, who takes a great interest in these matters on behalf of his constituents and has written to me copiously on them recently, which I appreciate.
Negotiations between the Strategic Rail Authority and GoVia are continuing towards a new 20-year franchise agreement. There is no fixed timetable for completing those negotiations, but we have made it clear that we want to see more benefits for passengers secured in the near future, so there is every incentive for early resolution.
As I said during the debate secured by the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) on 31 October, a series of major enhancements are planned over the term of the new franchise to boost capacity and improve service frequency and comfort. It is also worth reminding the House that total investment of £1.5 billion is planned by GoVia to improve South Central services. It is too early to say when those new agreements will be made.
I note from the debate secured by the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) that the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington referred to a delay to his journey caused by a slam-door stopping train. There was not time to cover that issue on that occasion. The South Central franchise agreement included a commitment by Connex to replace mark 1 rolling stock by 1 January 2005 as required by Health and Safety Executive regulations. On 26 August, that commitment was passed to GoVia. I am sure the hon.
240WH
Gentleman will be delighted to know that GoVia has subsequently ordered the first 240 new vehicles to replace slam-door mark 1 stock. The new vehicles are due to start entering into service on its South Central franchise next year.
The current Thameslink franchise is not due to run out until April 2004. On 14 September last year, the Strategic Rail Authority announced the eight companies that had successfully met their pre-qualification criteria to allow them to compete for the new Thameslink franchise. Since then, the Secretary of State has announced his new policy statement on franchising, which the hon. Gentleman touched on.
The hon. Gentleman asked what lessons the Government had learned from the franchising process. He may be aware that the Secretary of State has asked the Strategic Rail Authority to concentrate on negotiating improvements for passengers under existing franchises, or to negotiate short two-year extensions, and to make the early replacement of franchises the exception rather than the rule.
That new approach focuses on the key 10-year plan targets, which both parties can afford, and aims to deliver earlier passenger benefits such as improved performance and better rolling stock and passenger facilities. We do not rule out the early replacement of the shorter seven-year franchises, but our approach will be adopted only if benefits cannot be obtained in other ways.
The Strategic Rail Authority has reviewed its franchise replacement programme, and is seeking the Secretary of State's approval for a revised programme that will follow the draft directions and guidance and his policy statement on franchising.
The Strategic Rail Authority has been given the priority of reducing overcrowding and achieving better reliability on commuter services. That can be achieved by providing reliable, extra, new rolling stock, tougher performance targets, extra drivers, spare trains for emergency use and enhanced maintenance cover.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned Railtrack administration. We have touched on those issues in debates in the other Chamber, but I am happy to reinforce them. The placing of Railtrack into railway administration by the High Court should not affect the Strategic Rail Authority's ability to conduct a franchise replacement programme. For some time now, we have envisaged that special purpose vehicles and other such innovative mechanisms could complement the more traditional approach to financing railway enhancement investment projects. In particular, we acknowledge that some projects cannot be undertaken by Railtrack alone because of the risks involved.
A financially robust successor to Railtrack plc will be important to ensure the delivery of replacement franchises. However, while the company is in administration, passenger safety and services will not be affected. We will ensure that the administrator has the funds necessary to maintain the full operation of the rail network.
Benefits such as improvements to rolling stock and to the resilience of train operating companies, which, in turn, will enable better performance, are independent of infrastructure network ownership. When major infrastructure improvements are necessary, the Strategic

241WH
Rail Authority considers that long-term franchise replacement is not the only key delivery mechanism. The programme of long-term franchise replacement has made slower progress than hoped, largely because of Railtrack's inability to deal with infrastructure enhancements on the contractor model, by which it would provide initial capital and be remunerated through access charges after completion of the new asset.
That problem was recognised in the project endeavour agreement between the Government and Railtrack in April, under which Railtrack was to concentrate on operations, maintenance and renewals and co-operate with the Strategic Rail Authority and the Government in devising an alternative framework for the procurement of enhancements.
The method that the Strategic Rail Authority now envisages for enhancement projects is the special purpose vehicle—bespoke joint-venture companies. Those would have been largely separate from Railtrack plc, and we have confirmed that that separate approach will be pursued when the successor to Railtrack is established.
I hope that I have managed to cover the major concerns that were sensibly and rightly raised by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington on behalf of his constituents, many of which are shared by the hon. Member for Lewisham, West. We accept that a lot more needs to be done to improve the railway service across the whole network, not only in south London. I hope that hon. Members will agree that we are taking bold steps to ensure that the framework is in place to ensure that improvements happen. Our 10-year plan provides the investment, and the Strategic Rail Authority will shortly publish its strategic plan that sets out its priorities for enhancement to the network. The newly appointed chairman of the SRA, Richard Bowker, will bring fresh ideas to the industry and will play a key role in delivering a better, safer railway.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising those matters, and for giving me the opportunity to answer some of them in this debate.

Retired Miners (Compensation)
1.30 pm
Mr. Tom Clarke: I am grateful to have obtained a debate on the important subject of compensation for retired miners and, by implication, widows. The subject was raised in the House, and in Westminster Hall on 13 March when we last debated the matter at my request.
My hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Energy will be aware that the matter is on-going, but important. I welcome him to his comparatively new responsibilities, but as he comes from Ayrshire with all its mining influences, I am sure that he understands all the issues and how those of us in Lanarkshire feel. We recognise that he also has responsibilities for such matters in the United Kingdom.
Compensation for miners is of great concern to my constituents. I am grateful to my local branch of the Retired Miners Association, which meets frequently, and especially to the branch secretary, Eddie Hendry, and the chairman, Peter Downie, who ensure that I am kept fully informed on the matter and who invite me to meetings. At the last meeting on 26 October, I undertook to seek the debate and am pleased to have been able to obtain it so quickly.
I am also grateful to the National Union of Mineworkers in Scotland. The Minister will understand that my thoughts are with the union today when it struggles with the problem of Longannet. We trust that it can save as many jobs as possible in that difficult situation.
I sought the debate because, despite the progress made since we last discussed the matter in Westminster Hall, there are still great problems with regard to compensation, prioritisation and ensuring that if tests are necessary they are carried out with the maximum sensitivity. When decisions are taken, they should be implemented as speedily as possible.
I am aware of the backdrop to the issue of compensation for retired miners. There was inactivity and indolence for 18 years, and the new Labour Government took on the responsibility and accepted that there were problems. The Minister is aware of the Government's sensitivity in recognising the suffering, pain and hardship of people with lung disease, such as chronic bronchitis and emphysema, the consequences of which we have both seen in our constituencies and elsewhere. The Minister is also aware of the suffering of those who have experienced the problems of vibration white finger.
We are debating again today the biggest industrial compensation scheme in history, perhaps in the world. Unfortunately, there are still many people who recognise the concept but feel that it simply has not yet applied to them in their homes and villages. In March this year, the estimated costs were £2.4 billion for the lung scheme and £2.1 billion for vibration white finger—£4.5 billion in total. The Minister will have the up-to-date figures, but I understand that the total has gone up to £5 billion. Of course, that money is welcome, but the concern is—as it has been since the scheme was announced—to ensure that compensation is delivered.
I am revisiting the debate that I was able to obtain on 13 March 2001 because there are outstanding issues in Scotland and in other important mining areas of the

243WH
United Kingdom. When the then Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Peter Hain), replied to the previous debate, he acknowledged those problems. Concerns remain about implementation and administration to ensure that the compensation reaches the miners and the widows, many of whom have waited for far too long.
A few days after the then Minister replied to that debate, he was kind enough to come to Scotland and visit my constituency. He visited the Miners Institute of Auchengeich, which was appropriate because in 1959 Auchengeich experienced the ultimate sacrifice when 47 men were killed in a dreadful disaster. To many people, that remains the price of coal. I pay tribute to him and to all my colleagues who have held that post, including my hon. Friend who will reply to the debate today.
On his visit to Scotland, the then Minister met Lawrence Lumsden, the solicitor who advises the National Union of Mineworkers in Scotland, as well as retired miners and their families. That visit was very welcome, and Mr. Lumsden acknowledges that much progress has been made. Given Mr. Lumsden's standing on these issues—he is mentioned a good deal in the Library notes—I would like to draw my hon. Friend's attention to some of the points that he made in a paper that he provided me with only yesterday. I make these points for the record, as I am sure my hon. Friend will understand that, with the greatest respect to him and to his predecessors in that post, it is only fair that Mr. Lumsden's views are noted in this debate.
Mr. Lumsden said:
"In summary, the position is that despite undertakings made to the mining community that the speed of settlement of claims would increase, and payments made would increase significantly, progress has been disappointingly slow, with very few seriously disabled live men paid their full and final settlement amounts and no real progress made to date, in prioritising elderly widows' cases amongst the posthumous cohort of claims."
He went on to say that
"the Government must be just as disappointed at the rate of progress."
I am sure that my hon. Friend can give us more up-to-date figures.
The previous Minister, on a visit to Scotland on 16 March 2001, forecast that the rate of payment would increase dramatically over the following six months to the end of September, rising across the United Kingdom to a total of £360 million. The actual amount paid out to miners by the end of September was £210 million, which is about £150 million short of the forecast.
In Scotland, the forecast was for £26.1 million to be paid out by the end of September. The actual amount paid was £16.7 million. My hon. Friend will understand that we are keen to distribute the other £10 million to those in Scotland who qualify for it and who very much need it.
I am sure that my hon. Friend is too experienced to take this personally, but Mr. Lumsden states:
"The new minister announced recently that his target was for 3,000 of the most compelling cases to be the subject of full and final offers by the end of the year with a target of 50,000 full and final offers during 2002. It is to be hoped that these promises which echo similar commitments made by his predecessors, do come to fruition but it is regrettable that announcements of this kind have been made well in advance of tangible evidence that the elaborate
244WH
machinery set up to compensate miners and their families for occupational respiratory disease, is capable of producing any significant number of settlement offers at this stage."
I accept that that is pessimistic and extremely worrying, but my hon. Friend will recognise that it is what many people think, not least in my own constituency. Although the situation has improved for many people since the spring, frustrations remain for those who are still looking forward to settlements, and have been for a long time.
At the meeting in Auchengeich on 26 October, I had a brief discussion with a man named Alex Anderson, who was 75 years old and had a 75 per cent. loss of lung function. He was a widower living with his son Brian. I have a poignant recollection of his comment to me: "Tom, by the time these payments are fully made, some of us won't be around." Sadly, he died the following week. Another constituent, Arthur Stewart, died last week in Muirhead. He was 69 and had a 40 per cent. loss of lung function. Again, the final settlement that people are desperate about had not been received.
I know that my hon. Friend agrees on the need to prioritise claims, and I welcome everything that he has said and done since taking up his post. However, it is because of our interest in prioritising claims that we are still calling for improved procedures, extra resources where necessary and more urgent payments to needy groups, including widows. Is the Minister satisfied that medical assessments are completed as quickly as they should be, and is he constantly reviewing Healthcall's performance?
My right hon. Friend, the then Minister, said in the debate on 13 March:
"We are trying to recruit, partly by advertising more widely, a large number of additional respiratory consultants because there is a national shortage."
He went on:
"I am bound by a court judgment, which has been both an opportunity and a frustration. We would not have started from this position. When the Labour Government of the 1970s granted compensation for pneumoconiosis, they were not constrained and straitjacketed, as they are now."—[Official Report, 13 March 2001; Vol. 365, c. 223.]
Has my hon. Friend the Minister obtained the views of the Scottish sub-group of the monitoring group on the progress of this and other matters? I am sure that he welcomes, as do I, the appointment to that monitoring group of our hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Rachel Squire). She replaces Eric Clarke, who did an absolutely first-class job. Has my hon. Friend had discussions with them about the input of IRISC Claims Management's Edinburgh office? I am sure that it would argue that older, sicker miners need to be dealt with first.
There is evidence that, because of the way in which respiratory tests work and because the process moves on to the second stage, the vast majority of offers have been made not to men with the most severe disabilities but to men suffering from lesser complaints. I cannot believe that it is fair for compensation of hundreds of pounds to be given precedence over compensation that runs to thousands of pounds and is obviously vital in cases of chronic bronchitis or emphysema.
I should like to ask a few quick technical questions. Will my hon. Friend comment on the implementation of schedule 10 as a calculating model? There is much

245WH
concern in England and Wales about the many lawyers involved, but in Scotland there is only one. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) had an answer to that on the Floor of the House. It would be helpful if my hon. Friend could comment on that. Would he also ensure that up-to-date Compensation Recovery Unit certificates are on file when full and final offers are made? Will he afford appropriate authority to the Department's claim-handling contractors, IRISC Claims Management, to negotiate full and final settlement amounts with solicitors without referring back to the Department of Trade and Industry civil servants in London, sometimes on relatively minor matters?
I conclude by thanking my hon. Friend for what he is about to say, and by inviting him to visit my constituency where he will be made very welcome. He should tell it straight and let my constituents, the people of Scotland and the former miners of Britain know that he is on their side and is determined to ensure that this scheme works with the utmost urgency.
1.46 pm
The Minister for Industry and Energy (Mr. Brian Wilson): I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke) for giving me this opportunity to update hon. Members on our progress on the compensation schemes for vibration white finger and respiratory disease. I shall deal with as many points as I can, and I shall write to him about those that I do not reach.
I am in no doubt of the importance and the emotive nature of this issue and the strength of feeling to which it gives rise in the mining communities. My right hon. Friend made an important point that should be reinforced: whatever the problems with administering the scheme and putting a system in place that will deal with claims more effectively, the Government have accepted the legal and moral obligation to meet all the claims of miners, former miners, and their widows and families. It took so long to reach that point, and there is an ever increasing sense of urgency. A large number of claims are being pressed, many of them relating to events that took place many years ago. If that responsibility had been accepted long ago, we would not be faced with such a compressed timetable, which is the source of many of our difficulties.
Although I have done a great deal to solve these problems since I became the Energy Minister, this is the first time that I have replied to a debate on the coal health issue. I welcome the opportunity, and should also like to reinforce the point that, with over 300,000 claims registered, this is the biggest personal injury scheme in the UK, and indeed in the world. It is absolutely enormous. More than 1,200 new claims continue to be received each week, so it is impossible to say when the final claims will be settled. Therefore, even the figures that my right hon. Friend quoted are speculative. No one can say that the final figure will be £4.5 billion or £6 billion, as is being predicted, because we do not have all the claims yet. It is important to emphasise that there is no cap in the scheme; each case will be judged on its merits and payment will be made in full. There is not a certain size of cake that must be divided between a finite number of claimants.
246WH
In letters to my hon. Friends that they pass to me, the feeling is often expressed—it has been encouraged in some quarters—that there is a clandestine benefit to the Government in delaying payment, because the claims will go away. I stress that none of the claims will go away. There is no Government vested interest in delaying settlement, because ultimately the Government will pay more if the ex-miner has died than they will if a claim is settled while the miner is still alive. It is in our interest to deal with claims as promptly and fairly as possible.
It is important to stress that we are not acting unilaterally. It is fair for my right hon. Friend to quote the views of solicitors, and it is fair for me to say that we cannot do anything without agreeing with solicitors. Structures were in place long before I was around for agreeing how to proceed through consensus with solicitors. The solicitors have to answer for the positions that they take in reaching that consensus. The Government cannot, with a stroke of the pen, make everything work more efficiently. Solicitors, rightly, represent their clients' interests, and they are cautious about any changes to or refinements of the scheme. They have to judge the likely impact on their clients.
The structure is working well, but it is worth bearing in mind the fact that, when solicitors complain about delay, at least part of the problem is due to the structure, which I am sure they would not sacrifice.
Mr. Ronnie Campbell: Why cannot the letter saying that the claim has been finalised be written to the claimant rather than to the solicitor? There are delays in solicitors' offices; solicitors get the cheque, which goes into their account where it might stay for a couple of months before the client knows that he has his final settlement.
Mr. Wilson: My hon. Friend is right. At a recent meeting of the Welsh monitoring group, our hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig) mentioned six cases in which there had been inordinate delays. In three of those cases, payment had been made, but it was lying in the solicitors' office. Such things happen, and I have discussed with solicitors ways in which they could deal more efficiently with large numbers of claims. Solicitors are paid; they do not act out of philanthropy, so there is no reason why they should not have people to answer the phones and to deal expeditiously with the business. I am willing to listen to criticisms of solicitors, but I must point out that we work with them in everything we do.
Another constraint on our ability to act unilaterally is the fact that we can act only within the terms of the judgment, which is complex. It insists that each case should be settled individually according to the particular circumstances of the individual ex-miner, which is in the interests of the claimant. Any talk about blanket payments is outwith the terms of the scheme, because it would disadvantage many claimants, as some would end up getting much more money than they would do if there were an across-the-board settlement.
My right hon. Friend referred to a constituent to whom he had spoken a week before he died. That is the ultimate tragedy, but it is in the nature of the scheme. The long delay between the men retiring from the pits and lodging claims means that many of them will be very

247WH
old and very sick. Therefore, the challenge is to minimise the number of people who die before their claims are met. Given the chronology, that will sometimes happen, but our highest priority is to minimise the number of such cases.
I had a productive meeting recently with solicitors representing claimants. I also met mining union representatives, coalfield campaigners and the Department's contractors under the auspices of the ministerial monitoring groups. I went to coalfield areas, including Cumnock, where I met claimants and heard their views. Their overwhelming message, which I took on board, was that we need to do more to deliver the benefits of the scheme.
Jeff Ennis: I thank the Minister for giving way. and I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke) on securing this important debate. The Minister met some former miners from Barnsley a fortnight ago to discuss the issue, and I thank him on their behalf. They really appreciated his attendance. MPs from the mining areas appreciate the enormous number of claims before the Minister and the problems that he faces. He is sincere in wanting to clear the claims as quickly as possible.
Will my hon. Friend say something about the bereavement awards, which are based entirely on paper evidence, such as the death certificate and the former miner's work record? Such claims should be dealt with in a much shorter time than they are at present; they should be on a fast track.
Mr. Wilson: I agree with my hon. Friend in principle. A bereavement is a bereavement; I do not know why there should be any delay in confirming it. Part of my approach, on which we have made progress with the solicitors, is to try to stop the paper chase—the exchange of correspondence about work records.
248WH
Sometimes there are letters about what people were doing 30 or 40 years ago, which go into the finest points of detail, before an offer is made. Agreeing with the solicitors that their client will have the right to accept a full and final offer based on our information is one of the factors that will speed up the number of such offers.
I am aware that time is moving on and, as I said earlier, I shall write to my right hon. Friend and to hon. Members who raised matters that have not been dealt with in the debate. I want to correct the impression that nothing is happening, because a lot is happening and a lot of money is being paid out. In order to give hon. Members better information, as from today constituency breakdowns of payment figures will be available on the website.
I have today written to all hon. Members who are dealing with registered claims. For example, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough (Jeff Ennis), £16.28 million has been paid to claimants for vibration white finger and £5.5 million to claimants for respiratory disease. Roughly £22 million has gone into that mining community, as of absolute right. I believe that the figures will ultimately be eight or 10 times that. That gives me no satisfaction, but it is important that people know that progress is being made and money is being paid. For the most obvious and natural reasons, people who do not receive money sometimes talk about it more loudly than those who do, but it is important that my hon. Friends have that information. In the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston, the problem is not of Barnsley proportions, but £500,000 has been paid out for vibration white finger and £358,000 for respiratory disease.
I never turn down an invitation to visit Coatbridge, although I have not received many.
It being Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the sitting lapsed, without Question put.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Fair Trade
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Solicitor-General what is the value of fairly traded(a) tea and (b) coffee used in her Department in each of the last five years. [17548]

  The Solicitor-General
  Nil.

  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Solicitor-General what fairly traded products, other than tea and coffee, have been purchased by her Department in each of the last five years; and what was their value. [17555]

  The Solicitor-General
  None. The Crown Prosecution Service is currently exploring the provision of fairly traded confectionery by its catering service provider.

TRANSPORT, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE REGIONS

  London Underground
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he expects to(a) receive and (b) publish the Ernst & Young report on the value for money of the proposed PPP for London Underground; and if he will make a statement. [14483]

  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to(a) order and (b) publish an independent review of the value for money of the proposed public private partnership of the London Underground; and if he will make a statement. [14515]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer my hon. Friends to the reply given to my hon. Friend, the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) on 23 November 2001,Official Report, column 493W. Ernst & Young are due to deliver their conclusions before decisions are taken on the value for money of final bids for the Government's modernisation plans for the London Underground. The Secretary of State is still considering the timing of publication.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 7 November 2001,Official Report, column 289W, if he will place in the Library the PricewaterhouseCoopers and the Ernst & Young studies and if he will make a statement. [16594]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) on 12 November 2001,Official Report, column 503W, and to the answer given today to my hon. Friend, the Member for Hammersmith and Fulham (Mr. Coleman) (PQ 14515) at column 745W.

  New Deal for Communities
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he expects to commence the funding mechanism that will replace the new deal for communities programme; and if he will make a statement. [16049]

  Ms Keeble
  There will be no third round of NDC but the existing 39 partnerships will continue piloting many of the ideas in the National Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal. The Government are committed to learning as much as possible from them over the next 10 years and spreading best practice.

  Real delivery in turning round deprived areas requires high-quality public services in all neighbourhoods, rather than specific programmes shoring up poor public services in only a few areas. The main focus of Neighbourhood Renewal is to reshape the way mainstream resources are used and the lessons learned from NDC will help identify ways to achieve this.

  Railtrack
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions on what date he instructed parliamentary drafters to draft(a) the Railway Administration Order Rules 2001 and (b) legislation to give him powers to direct the Rail Regulator. [15624]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 16 November 2001]: Details of internal communications are exempt from disclosure under section 2 of Part II of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he will announce the(a) board of (b) financial backers of and (c) advisers to the proposed not-for-profit company he wishes to take over the assets and liabilities of Railtrack plc. [16369]

  Mr. Spellar
  A bid team is being established to propose a company limited by guarantee which will put a bid to the Administrator to have transferred to it Railtrack plc's railway assets and its role as Network Operator. Information on the company's board, financial backers and advisers will be announced at the appropriate time.

  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he has made a revised estimate of the total cost of the rail element of the 10-year transport plan since the administration of Railtrack; and if he will make a statement on alterations to previous forecasts, broken down by the(a) private and (b) public elements of the plan. [17743]

  Mr. Spellar
  The level of rail funding provided for the 10-year plan for transport has not changed as a result of the Railtrack administration.

  Street Lighting
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what progress he has made in developing(a) comprehensive inventories, (b) risk management strategies and (c) management systems to fund street lighting. [16080]
  747W
  Mr. Jamieson
  A working group representing DTLR and representatives from local government and industry was set up in September to take forward these issues. The need for a comprehensive inventory has been recognised as an important step and proposals in draft form are being produced in a form which could be readily adopted by local authorities.

  Research into a street lighting risk management strategy is being considered. This will be dependent on the collection of accurate information on street lighting stock and condition which is one of the aims of the street lighting inventory.

  When inventories are in place showing sufficient information on street lighting stock at a local and national level, DTLR will consider ways in which this information could be used to allocate funding to highway authorities that would allow them to deal with their street lighting backlog.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to deal with street lighting dereliction; and if he will make a statement. [16081]

  Ms Keeble
  The Government are committed in the 10-year plan for transport to tackling the local road maintenance backlog, including the backlog for street lighting. Over £30 billion is being provided for local road maintenance over the next 10 years, and extra £9 billion above the funding levels in the previous 10 years.

  Homeless Families
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what was the average cost in the last 12 months of housing a homeless family in(a) bed and breakfast and hostel accommodation and (b) private leasing of unsold properties from property developers. [16096]

  Ms Keeble
  [holding answer 19 November 2001]: Information reported to the Department by local authorities about expenditure on accommodation provided under homelessness legislation does not identify average unit costs. Available information derived from the report "Homelessness Statistics 1999–2000 Actuals", published by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA) is as follows:

  Average weekly charges per unit 1

  £

  England

  Wales

  Bed and breakfast

  276.92

  246.54

  Hostels2

  90.42

  76.90

  1 Based on gross charges before deduction of any rent rebate. The figures for bed and breakfast accommodation represent an average for the year 1999–2000, while those for hostels reflect charges in the last rent week of March 2000.

  2 Includes any units in privately-owned hostels (e.g. owned by charities or voluntary organisations) used by local authorities to house homeless families.

  Average rental costs for properties leased from the private sector are not collected centrally.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the methodology changes made since 1997 to the formulae for calculating the standard lending assessment and aggregate external finance figures for(a) Devon county council and (b) east Devon district council; and if he will make an assessment of the net financial effect of these changes. [17272]

  Dr. Whitehead
  There were 15 changes in the method of determining Standard Spending Assessments (SSAs) for the 1998–99 Local Government Finance Settlement; and 20 changes for the 1999–2000 Local Government Finance Settlement.

  In 1999–2000 the Government introduced a new damping grant, Central Support Protection Grant (CSPG), to ensure that no authority received less grant than the year before, and that authorities which had education and personal social services responsibilities received at least 1.5 per cent. more than the year before.

  The July 1998 Local Government White Paper announced a three-year review of Revenue Grant Distribution. It said that the Government did not expect to make fresh changes to the method of calculation of SSAs except where there are changes in the functions of councils, or the funding of particular services.

  In 2000–01 there were therefore only limited adjustments to SSAs to accommodate the establishment of the Greater London Authority and related changes, most notably those arising from the alterations to the boundary of the Metropolitan Police District and the Essex Hertfordshire and Surrey police areas. CSPG was retained in 2000–01.

  In 2001–02 there was only one change in the method of determining SSAs to reflect the transfer of funding for nursery education for four-year-olds. CSPG was replaced for those authorities with education and personal social services responsibilities by floors and ceilings, which guaranteed that no authority would receive less than a 3.2 per cent. increase and that no authority could get more than a 6.5 per cent. increase.

  Changes in the method of determining SSAs are contained in circular letters to local authorities, dated 2 December 1997, 2 December 1998, 25 November 1999 and 27 November 2000, copies of which are in the Library. For convenience, copies of the relevant extracts have been placed in the Library.

  The following table shows the net percentage change in SSAs against adjusted SSAs for the previous year for Devon and east Devon over the period, together with the percentage change due to changes in methodology. It is inappropriate to compare actual SSA between years because of changes to the services financed by grants allocated using SSAs. Adjusted SSAs enable a like-for-like comparison between years.
  749W

  Percentage

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Devon

  Percentage change against adjusted SSAs

  3.2

  5.7

  5.0

  5.0

  Of which: percentage change due to methodology

  -0.7

  -0.6

  0.0

  0.0

  East Devon

  Percentage change against adjusted SSAs

  -1.0

  4.3

  2.9

  5.0

  Of which: percentage change due to methodology

  -0.8

  -0.6

  0.0

  0.0

  Note:

  It is not possible to perform a similar analysis for aggregate external finance.

  Jim Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 16 November 2001,Official Report, column 914W, on the local government finance settlement, what plans he has made regarding the announcement of the provisional local government finance settlement. [19269]

  Mr. Raynsford
  We now expect to make an announcement to the House on. Tuesday 4 December, subject to the progress of parliamentary business.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer, 15 November 2001,Official Report, column 832W, on homelessness, if he will list by (a) bed and breakfast accommodation and (b) temporary local authority accommodation where in (i) 1997 and (ii) 2000 members of households identified as vulnerable due to old age resided. [17575]

  Ms Keeble
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  Automatic Train Protection
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if the automatic train protection equipment built in to Pendolino trains will be fully operable following the cancellation of phase II of the west coast mainline upgrade.. [17373]

  Mr. Spellar
  Discussions on the options for taking forward the west coast main line upgrade are still under way between the Government and stakeholders. At this stage we cannot predict the outcome of those discussions. The protection system for the Pendolino trains will be subject to an acceptance procedure under the aegis of Railway Safety, which will ensure that it meets the requirements of HSE.

  The HSE is considering with the Government and industry the implementation of the recommendation of the Joint Inquiry into Train Protection Systems that the European Train Control System (ETCS) should be installed on principal routes of the network.

  Departmental Intervention
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment he has made with regard to possible interventions by(a) his Department, (b) Department of Health and (c) the Department of Education and Skills into the running of
  750W
  services by (i) Walsall MBC, (ii) Hillingdon LBC, (iii) Derby City Council, (iv) Malvern Hills DC and (v) Waltham Forest LBC. [17733]

  Mr. Byers
  My policy is to take intervention action based on clear evidence of a local authority's failure to comply with the best value requirements in Part I of the Local Government Act 1999. Such evidence would usually be identified in a best value inspection conducted by the Audit Commission and I would expect the Commission to make recommendations to me about the use of intervention powers. I have received no recommendations from the Audit Commission regarding any of these authorities.

  Underground Environment
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the formulas(a) stated for the calculation of the state of the Underground environment as follows:

  what each of the letters stand for; where it is a value, how that value is calculated; and what methods were used in the formulas' production. [17123]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 22 November 2001]: (a) The formula the hon. Member refers to is a weighted average of scores for different aspects of the passenger environment. The PPP contracts refer to this environment, which is an important part of the infrastructure companies' performance, as Ambience.

  The letters in the formula represent:
  A—is the total ambience score, which is calculated each quarter and used to adjust the payments London Underground makes to the infrastructure companies. Total Ambience covers both trains and stations on all lines for which an infrastructure company is responsible.

  751W
  QASASjs—is the quarterly average survey score for a particular aspect of Ambience, such as the level of litter or graffiti, at a particular station.
  QATASjL—is the quarterly survey score for similar aspects of Ambience on trains on a particular line.
  QATASkL—is the quarterly score for specific aspects of Ambience on trains that are measured according to engineering techniques rather than surveys, for example smoothness of ride and on-train noise.
  Wsjs.WTjL,WTkL—are the weights applied by London Underground to these various scores in order to calculate the weighted average.

  In each case the letter used in the formula represent values. The scores are calculated primarily from periodic surveys undertaken by mystery shoppers, a technique for measuring Ambience that London Underground has used for a number of years and which has been adapted for the PPP contracts. Where appropriate, some scores are calculated from engineering tests. The weights are fixed values, set out in the contracts, which have been derived from London Underground's customer research.

  (b) The formula referred to is a weighted average of the Ambience scores for trains only. Under the PPP contracts, the infrastructure companies are measured according to the level of Ambience on trains and stations separately, as well as according to the total level of Ambience on the lines for which they are responsible.

  The letters in the formula represent:
  TMS—is the train Ambience score, which is calculated each quarter.
  QATASj—is the quarterly average survey score for a particular aspect of Ambience, such as the level of litter or graffiti, on trains.
  QATASk—is the quarterly score for specific aspects of Ambience on trains that are measured according to engineering techniques rather than surveys, for example smoothness of ride and on-train noise.
  WTj,WTk—are the weights applied by London Underground to these various scores in order to calculate the weighted average.

  In each case the letters used in the formula represent values. The scores are calculated primarily from periodic surveys undertaken by mystery shoppers, a technique for measuring Ambience that London Underground has used for a number of years and which has been adapted for the PPP contracts. Where appropriate, some scores are calculated from engineering tests. The weights are fixed values, set out in the contracts, which have been derived from London Underground's customer research.

  Housing (London Boroughs)
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many(a) private rented units, (b) social rented units and (c) owner-occupied units there were in each London borough in (i) 1990, (ii) 1995 and (iii) 2000. [17687]

  Ms Keeble
  A breakdown of owner-occupied units on a borough by borough basis is not currently available for the years in question. However, the Survey of English 752W
  Housing (SEH) gives a breakdown of social rented, private rented and owner-occupied units at a regional level as follows:
  As at 31 March 2000, London had:

  1,806,000—owner-occupied dwellings

  472,000—private rented dwellings

  779,000—social rented dwellings

  3,057,000—total dwellings

  Source:
  Housing Statistics 2000 publication

  Local Bodies
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list those local bodies which were set up under legislation which is the responsibility of his Department and its predecessors since May 1997. [17611]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The Greater London Authority Act 1999 created the Greater London Authority and its five functional bodies: the London Development Agency, the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority, the Metropolitan Police Authority, Transport for London and the London Transport Users' Committee. As far as I am aware, there are no other bodies at local level, created under primary legislation which has been introduced since 1997 and is the responsibility of my Department.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) if he will list those public bodies which are the responsibility of his Department and which are not listed in Public Bodies 2000; [17610]

  (2) if he will list those public bodies to which his Department appoints members and which are not listed in Public Bodies 2000. [17609]

  Dr. Whitehead
  'Public Bodies 2000' sets out information on non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs), certain public corporations (including nationalised industries) and NHS bodies. There are four types of NDPB: executive NDPBs; advisory NDPBs; tribunal NDPBs; and boards of visitors to penal establishments. The next edition will be published around the end of the year. Information about task forces, annual reviews and ad hoc advisory groups is set out in an annual report, published by Cabinet Office. Copies of Public Bodies 2000 are in the Library of the House and this publication may be accessed via Cabinet Office's website: http://www.official-documents.co.uk/ document/caboff/pb00/pb00.htm.

  Copies of the annual report on task forces and similar bodies have also been placed in the Library of the House and the annual report is being made available on Cabinet Office's website.

  Since publication of Public Bodies 2000 the Department has created two further executive NDPBs, the Standards Board for England and the Strategic Rail Authority.
  753W
  In addition Ministers make appointments to the following bodies for which the Department is also responsible:

  Arson Control Forum

  Central Fire Brigades Advisory Council

  Fire Service Examinations Board

  Fire Service Research and Training Trust

  Inner Cities Religious Council

  Mersey Conservancy (Acting Conservator for the River Mersey)

  National Cycling Strategy Board for England.

  The Secretary of State appoints the Chair of the national Rail Passengers' Council and seven of the regional Rail Passengers' Committees.

  The Secretary of State make appointments to the following Trust Ports:

  Poole (Chair only)

  Dover

  Harwich

  London

  Milford Haven

  Shoreham

  Tyne.

  The Department has responsibility for the School Travel Advisory Group.

  Fair Trade
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what is the value of fairly traded(a) tea and (b) coffee used in his Department in each of the last five years. [17564]

  Dr. Whitehead
  Fair traded tea and coffee is available through the staff restaurant and for internal meetings. Information on the value of these products is not available due to disproportionate costs.

  Smoke Alarms
  Ross Cranston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 19 November 2001,Official Report, column 43W, what smoke alarm installation work he encourages; and if he will make a statement. [17879]

  Dr. Whitehead
  We encourage the fire service to provide and install smoke alarms to householders as part of their general community fire safety work. Brigades focus their efforts mainly on those households deemed to be at high risk from fire. The implementation of such work is down to individual brigades to determine, using local data and statistics to highlight where within their brigade area fires are most likely to occur.

  Supporting People Strategy
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how much money is being given to local authorities to fund the Supporting People Strategy; and if he will make a statement. [17955]
  754W
  Ms Keeble
  The Government have allocated £40 million to local authorities to fund the implementation of the Supporting People Programme in 2002–03. This is in addition to the £15.2 million allocated to local authorities in 2001–02.

  East Coast Main Line
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans exist for special purpose vehicles to be created to undertake works in connection with the East Coast Main Line; and if he will place the plans in the Library. [17789]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 23 November 2001]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Angela Smith) on 2 April 2001, Official Report, column 8W.

  Terminal 5
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his statement of 20 November 2001, on Terminal 5, what the first date would be on which(a) a new regime for night flight quotas and (b) other arrangements to reduce noise nuisance from night flights would come into practice following completion of the consultation exercise. [17793]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 23 November 2001]: Any changes would be introduced after appropriate consideration but before the opening of Terminal 5

  Children's Social Services (Seaside Authorities)
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment he has made of the ability of the children's social services SSA to meet the demands found in seaside resort unitary authority areas; and if he will make a statement. [17962]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The overall level of formula grant that Government make available to local government, including that for social services, is decided as part of our spending review process. Decisions are based on an assessment at the national level of pressures on services, the scope for greater cost-effectiveness, and what is affordable. We have not made an assessment specific to seaside resort authorities. The SSA formulae are the means by which we allocate this total level of grant between authorities. The grant distribution formulae are currently being reviewed in order to develop a system that is more transparent and fairer to all authorities. To date, the review has not made an assessment of the fairness of the current children's social services SSA formula as it relates specifically to seaside resort authorities. As part of the review, the Department of Health are commissioning research on the children's formula. Such an assessment would be difficult to make until further progress has been made.

  Timber
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what guidance he provides for local authorities regarding their
  755W
  procurement of timber and timber products which have been independently certified as originating from well-managed forests. [18009]

  Dr. Whitehead
  Local authorities are independent and autonomous and responsible within the law for making their own decisions on procurement matters. It is for them to decide whether or not to procure timber and timber products which have been independently certified as originating from well-managed forests. In doing so they will need to have regard to the need to achieve value for money.

  Central Government Departments were formally reminded of the Government's policy to procure timber and timber related products from sustainable and legal sources in a note dated 2 January 2001 issued jointly by HM Treasury and the then Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions. Central Government have not given advice on this subject directly to other parts of the public sector but the Government's advice is widely available and can be adapted or adopted by other organisations.

  Parish and Town Councils
  Richard Younger-Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the average level of precept was for(a) parish and town councils, (b) parish councils and (c) town councils in England in each of the last five years. [18063]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The only information on parish and town council precepts collected by the Department is the total amount received by each English billing authority on behalf of parish and town councils in its area. Separate amounts for parish and town councils are not therefore available, nor are precise figures for the number of parish or town councils in England in any particular year. Total precepts for each year from 1997–98 to 2001–02 inclusive are given in the following table:

  Financial year

  Parish and town council precepts, England total (£ million)

  Percentage increase over previous year

  1997–98

  144

  8.3

  1998–99

  154

  6.9

  1999–2000

  165

  7.1

  2000–01

  181

  9.7

  2001–02

  193

  6.6

  The Department estimates that there are currently about 8,700 parish or town councils in England, so the average precept in 2001–02 is about £22,000, with precepts for individual councils ranging from zero to several hundred thousand pounds.

  Voting Age
  Lembit öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he plans to grant 16-year-olds the vote; and if he will make a statement. [18017]

  Dr. Whitehead
  We have no plans to propose legislation to lower the voting age. We would, however, welcome a public debate on the issue. It is also open to the Electoral Commission to consider it and make recommendations for future policy.

  Aviation Industry
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assistance he is giving to(a) airports, (b) airlines and (c) other service providers in respect of insurance premiums to cover against acts of war or terrorism. [18453]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Government have made available third-party war risk insurance to UK airports, airlines and other service providers in accordance with Community rules and guidance on state aid. In the case of airlines, premiums were waived initially but are now being applied in accordance with guidelines issued by the European Commission on 23 October 2001. Airports and ground service providers have been charged premiums since the inception of assistance on 23 September 2001.

  Challenge for Home Zones
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he will announce the successful bids under the Government Challenge for Home Zones. [18185]

  Ms Keeble
  [holding answer 26 November 2001]: We hope to announce the winners before Christmas.

  A556
  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many(a) road fatalities and (b) road accidents there were on the A556 in each of the last 10 years. [18448]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The numbers of personal injury road accidents and fatalities on the A556 were as shown.

  Year

  Road accident fatalities

  Personal injury accidents

  1991

  1

  96

  1992

  3

  97

  1993

  2

  99

  1994

  7

  100

  1995

  2

  86

  1996

  4

  78

  1997

  3

  101

  1998

  5

  108

  1999

  1

  76

  2000

  1

  46

  Detling Beacon
  Hugh Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions whether the air corridor either side of Detling Beacon in Kent has been altered since 11 September. [18470]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Civil Aviation Authority has confirmed that there has been no alteration to the airspace route structure either side of the Detling Beacon since 11 September.

  Rents
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what he estimates to be the maximum capped rent payable in 2002–03 at current prices for tenants in(a) four bed, (b) three bed, (c) two bed, (d) one bed and (e) bedsit properties. [18660]
  757W
  Ms Keeble
  The maximum capped rent payable by tenants of councils and housing associations in 2002–03 at current prices will be(a) £100 a week, (b) £95 a week, (c) £90 a week, (d) £85 a week and (e) £85 a week.

  Parliamentary Ombudsman
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many formal notices his Department has received in the last year from the Parliamentary Ombudsman expressing an intention to carry out an investigation; and in respect of each notice how long it took to respond. [18767]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The number of cases received since last November by DETR or (after 11 June 2001) DTLR is as follows.

  Number/date received from PCA

  Due date to PCA

  Date replied

  Number of working days taken

  1. 13 November 2000

  27 December 2000

  4 January 2001

  36

  2. 16 February 2001

  12 March 2001

  13 March 2001

  18

  3. 21 February 2001

  14 March 2001

  15 March 2001

  17

  4. 8 June 2001

  20 July 2001

  24 July 2001

  33

  5. 21 June 2001

  11 July 2001

  9 July 2001

  13

  6. 11 September 2001

  2 October 2001

  26 September 2001

  12

  7. 17 September 2001

  15 October 2001

  15 October 2001

  21

  8. 18 September 2001

  9 October 2001

  3 October 2001

  12

  9. 24 September 2001

  2 November 2001

  5 November 2001

  31

  10. 19 October 2001

  29 November 2001

  1—

  2—

  11. 22 October 2001

  19 November 2001

  16 November 2001

  20

  12. 15 November 2001

  20 December 2001

  1—

  2—

  1 Outstanding

  2 Deadline not reached

  Motorway Speed Limits
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to impose 50mph speed limits on motorways; and if he will make a statement. [17649]

  Mr. Jamieson
  There are no plans to introduce 50mph speed limits on motorways.

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what research his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on reducing speed limits on motorways in order to increase traffic flows. [17651]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Highways Agency is currently trialling variable speed limits on sections of the M25. The Controlled Motorway Project automatically adjusts the speed limit to reflect prevailing conditions, and is enforced with speed cameras.

  Independent monitoring and assessment of the scheme by TRL during the first year of operation confirmed its success. The monitoring indicated that traffic flow had improved, with drivers reporting more "comfortable", less aggressive driving conditions, with fewer very short, dangerous spaces between vehicles and fewer long (inefficient) spaces and more even use of the carriageway. There were also indications of improved road safety, and shorter and more reliable journey times.

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what factors underlay the decision to introduce variable speed limits on motorways. [17650]
  758W
  Mr. Jamieson
  Research into traffic congestion and traffic flow improvement found that road capacity was not being maximised.

  Effective speed control has the capability of increasing the capacity of the existing motorway network without the need for an extensive road building programme and evens out speed distribution increasing capacity.

  Physical Agents (Vibration) Directive
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what estimate he has made of the costs to British business of the Physical Agents (Vibration) Directive. [17424]

  Dr. Whitehead
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 8 November 2001,Official Report, column 337W.

  Press Interviews
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the press interviews he gave between 5 and 12 October. [18776]

  Mr. Byers
  As is already a matter of public record, I gave a number of press interviews in the period between 5 and 12 October.

  RenewCo
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the decisions outstanding on the establishment of RenewCo as at 1 October. [18760]

  Mr. Byers
  As at 1 October the Government awaited the decision of the Office for National Statistics on whether the RenewCo proposal would be classified as Government borrowing.

  In addition, I wished to consider the RenewCo proposal in the light of Railtrack's request for further Government support under its "Rainbow" proposal.

  Housing (Radon Emissions)
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what financial provision his Department gives local authorities and housing associations to undertake remedial work on housing stock to protect against radon emissions. [18355]

  Ms Keeble
  Local housing authorities may provide discretionary Private Sector Renewal Grants to assist homeowners with radon remedial works to their properties where the annual average concentration of the gas exceeds the action level.

  The cost of such works to existing registered social landlord (RSL) dwellings contaminated by radon is eligible for Social Housing Grant, funded through the Housing Corporation's Approved Development Programme. The funding is subject to the RSL obtaining a survey report from the National Radiological Protection Board indicating that the remedial works are necessary.

  Mushrooms
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions in how many instances trading standards officers have discovered
  759W
  since December 2000 Dutch mushrooms being sold in United Kingdom supermarkets as British mushrooms; what steps are taken to authenticate the source of mushrooms sold as British; and if he will make a statement. [16392]

  Mr. Morley
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information requested is not available. It is not obligatory for the country of origin of mushrooms to be declared, although general food labelling rules require this information to be given if its omission would be misleading. Consideration is being given to the inclusion of mushrooms in EC Horticultural Marketing Standards which do require the country of origin to be given.

DEFENCE

  HMS Renown
  Phil Sawford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has reached a decision on the proposals to dismantle HMS Renown; and if he will make a statement. [18933]

  Dr. Moonie
  In my answer on 11 May 2000,Official Report, column 447W, to my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Rachel Squire), I announced that we would be investigating the options for the land storage of decommissioned nuclear-powered submarines. I also informed the House that we had separately received an unsolicited commercial proposal from Babcock Rosyth Defence Ltd. (BRDL), the owners of Rosyth Royal Dockyard, to dismantle the reactor compartment of the decommissioned nuclear-powered submarine, HMS Renown, and store the components. At that time we had agreed that planning and feasibility work could proceed, but I assured the House that the proposals would not be implemented until Ministers and the relevant regulatory authorities were entirely satisfied and that I would make a further statement.

  Since May 2000, much valuable work has been undertaken by BRDL to demonstrate the feasibility of their proposals. While I am satisfied on the matter of feasibility, it is clear that the necessary regulatory approvals to commence dismantling Renown will not be in place until next year. Even if the approvals are granted, and that is a matter for the independent regulators, it would be many months before the work to dismantle Renown could be completed. We have already begun the process of inviting industry proposals on the best solution for the land storage of decommissioned nuclear submarines generally and it would therefore he too late for the knowledge gained from dismantling Renown to inform this process. As a result, I have decided that there would be no advantage in proceeding with the dismantling of Renown ahead of the other decommissioned submarines stored at Devonport and Rosyth.

  Renown will continue to be stored afloat at Rosyth until such time as the final decisions on land storage are implemented. These decisions are unlikely to be taken for some two to three years and will be subject to full and open consultation.

  Plastic Baton Rounds (Northern Ireland)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he has taken to bring guidelines covering the use of plastic baton rounds in Northern Ireland into line with the regime governing use of these weapons by the police; what remedies are available for those who wish to complain about any aspect of army use of baton rounds; and if he will place the operational guidelines in the Library. [17752]

  Mr. Ingram
  Differences between the guidelines for the police and the Army on the use of baton rounds stem entirely from the differences in their respective operational structures and practices. In the case of the Army the guidelines have worldwide applicability. There are therefore no plans to bring the guidelines exactly into line with the regime governing the use of those weapons by the police.

  If a member of the public had cause to complain about the Army firing a baton round, for example if they were injured, it should be reported to the police so that they can conduct an investigation. They would receive the full co-operation of the Army and would be able to confiscate any items (ie a baton gun) that they deemed necessary for them to conduct their inquiries effectively. If a member of the public wishes to complain on other aspects of the use of baton rounds by the Army then they can write to headquarters Northern Ireland.

  I am unable to place a copy of the guidelines in the Library of the House as it is a classified document.

  September 11
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to consult the public on work to meet the additional challenges posed by asymmetric threats following 11 September; and if he will make a statement. [17448]

  Mr. Hoon
  As I informed the House on 4 October, it is my intention to conduct the work on the new chapter to the Strategic Defence Review in an open and inclusive manner. As part of this, I welcome views and contributions from the public at any time. I expect to publish discussion material early in the new year outlining the areas we are examining, reflecting emerging thinking and seeking views.

  Afghanistan
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what legal protection is available for individuals detained by Her Majesty's armed forces engaged in duties in or around Afghanistan; what facilities are available to house prisoners captured in the course of the conflict; and what codes of conduct govern their interrogation. [17753]

  Mr. Hoon
  The treatment of prisoners of war is governed by national and international law, which also prescribes how they are interrogated. The international coalition currently has no facilities to house prisoners captured in the course of the conflict, although this will he kept under review as circumstances change.

  Royal Marines
  Mr. Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many soldiers in the Royal Marines have been discharged for drug offences in each of the last four years. [17346]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 23 November 2001]: A total of 17 Royal Marines have been administratively discharged in the last four years through illegal drug use as follows:

  Year

  Number

  1997

  2

  1998

  2

  1999

  5

  2000

  8

  Fair Trade
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the value is of fairly traded(a) tea and (b) coffee used in his Department in each of the last five years. [18160]

  Dr. Moonie
  This information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Depleted Uranium
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many depleted uranium shells have been used in the Afghan conflict. [17486]

  Mr. Ingram
  None.

  Service Vacancies
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many vacancies there are at present in the(a) Army, (b) Navy and (c) Air Force; and if he will make a statement. [18751]

  Dr. Moonie
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) on 26 October 2001,Official Report, column 403W.

  "Survive to Fight"
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) when the new edition of "Survive to Fight" will be(a) published and (b) distributed throughout the armed forces; [17704]

  (2) if he will make a statement setting out the budgetary arrangements for paying for the new edition of "Survive to Fight". [17706]

  Mr. Ingram
  The new edition of the publication "Survive to Fight" (Joint Services Publication 410) is currently in the final stages of editing. Barring technical problems, it is anticipated that the issue programme of this publication will commence in early 2002. The publication is currently funded from the adjutant-general's top level budget.

  Local Bodies
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list those local bodies which were set up under legislation which is the responsibility of his Department since May 1997. [17581]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence has not set up any local bodies since May 1997.

  Territorial Army (Civil Defence)
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the role of the Territorial Army in civil defence since 11 September. [17874]

  Dr. Moonie
  As part of the work announced in March 2001, under the Strategy for the Army (a version of which was placed in the Library) we were already looking at ways of increasing the contribution the Territorial Army makes to our Defence Plans. Following the attacks on 11 September, work is being undertaken to ensure that we have the right capabilities in place to deal with international terrorism. The range of options being considered includes the role of the TA in providing assistance to the civil community in an emergency.

  Recruitment
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many have been recruited through Operation London Soldier. [18064]

  Mr. Ingram
  During the month of October, the number of inquirers at London area recruiting offices has shown an increase of some 25 per cent. over the same period last year. This is a direct result of Operation London Soldier. As yet, it is too early to know what proportion of these additional inquiries are converting into actual enlistments.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many UK ships or aircraft have been(a) refused entry and (b) had additional operational restriction placed on them by the Spanish Government in the last five years with respect to access to (i) ports and (ii) airports after visiting Gibraltar; and if he will make a statement. [17979]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 26 November 2001]: We have no record of any such instances involving military ships or aircraft.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what deployments outside Gibraltar have been made in the past five years by the Royal Regiment of Gibraltar; and if he will make a statement. [17978]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 26 November 2001]: In the past five years, units of the Royal Gibraltar Regiment of between platoon and company size have deployed to the UK nine times, Kenya once, Canada once, Cyprus once and Morocco twice, all for training purposes. Individual career development training is also conducted in the UK.

  Many individuals from the Regiment have also deployed in support of operational deployments in Northern Ireland, Bosnia, Kosovo and Sierra Leone.
  763W
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the visits to HM Base Gibraltar over the past two years by NATO forces; and if he will make a statement. [17974]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 26 November 2001]: In addition to the many UK military visits to Gibraltar, ships and aircraft from other NATO nations visit on a regular basis for training, logistic support and stand-off. Since November 1999, a total of 40 non-UK warships and 59 non-UK military aircraft have visited or operated from Gibraltar. Land forces from non-UK NATO nations also make use of Gibraltar for training purposes.

  The only visit to Gibraltar actually under the NATO flag over the past two years was a joint UK/Canadian detachment of Maritime Patrol Aircraft, which operated out of Gibraltar in support of NATO exercise Linked Seas in May 2000.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many citizens of(a) Spain and (b) Gibraltar applied to join HM armed forces over the past five years; and if he will make a statement. [17977]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 26 November 2001]: Details are not available for the five year period requested. Since 1998 two citizens of Gibraltar have applied to join the armed forces. In that time there have been some inquiries from Spanish citizens about UK armed forces employment but these people were ineligible because they did not qualify under our nationality entry rules. A number of British citizens have made inquiries and applied to join the armed forces while living in Spain or Gibraltar but records of this are held separately from the recruitment of British citizens living in the United Kingdom.

  RAF Halton
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when his Department gave instructions to their agents to submit a planning application to Aylesbury Vale district council in respect of the Princess Mary Hospital site, RAF Halton. [17645]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 26 November 2001]: Instructions were given to the agents in December 2000.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reason his Department has submitted two identical planning applications to Aylesbury Vale district council in respect of the Princess Mary Hospital site, RAF Halton. [17643]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 26 November 2001]: This is known as a 'twin track' application, a practice widely used in the planning system, and one which Defence Estates uses to avoid delays in dealing with planning applications. Such a twin track approach allows one application to be appealed if the eight-week determination period has elapsed without a decision (in this case 16 weeks due to the Environmental Impact Regulations). The remaining application can be subject to further negotiations and if considered satisfactory, the outstanding appeal can then be withdrawn.

  Defence Procurement
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many defence contracts made between 1997 and 2001 are expected to over-run in(a) cost and (b) time. [17242]

  Dr. Moonie
  The information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the use of cost-plus contracts. [17243]

  Dr. Moonie
  Cost-plus contracts are the contracting method of last resort. They now account for less than 1 per cent. of the Ministry of Defence's business (both by value and number). Within a stated limit of liability the contractor is paid all costs reasonably and properly incurred, together with a sum for profit, calculated by applying either a percentage profit or a fixed fee to the costs so incurred. The rate of profit applied to cost-plus work is calculated by reference to the Government Profit Formula which includes a "Non Risk" rate, which is set below that used for prices agreed before work commences; thus the MOD recognises the reduced risk to the contractor.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on(a) partnering, (b) smart acquisition, (c) post-costing and (d) should-cost-data in UK defence procurement. [17244]

  Dr. Moonie
  I will write to my hon. Friend and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of defence procurement deals were put to competition in the last three years; and if he will make a statement. [17245]

  Dr. Moonie
  Obtaining the greatest advantage from competitive leverage at prime and sub-contract level remains our primary tool in defence procurement. Over the last three financial years, the percentage of Ministry of Defence contracts (including amendments), by value, placed by competition was as follows:

  Financial year

  Percentage

  1998–99

  68

  1999–2000

  71

  2000–01

  65

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the responsibilities of the integrated project teams in procurement; and if he will make a statement. [17246]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Integrated Project Team (1PT) was born out of Smart Procurement's objective to deliver projects within the performance, time and cost parameters approved at the time that major investment decisions are taken. The IPT is responsible for managing the project from concept to disposal.

  This means that the TT is responsible for translating the equipment capability customer's requirements into an output-based statement of what a system or equipment must do to meet these requirements. The IPT devises and

  765W
  costs equipment solutions, and produces the material required to support the customer's main gate approval, and manages the development, manufacture, in-service support and eventual disposal of the equipment.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of contracts(a) had an agreed fixed price at the start and (b) arrived to cost and on schedule in the last 12 months. [17247]

  Dr. Moonie
  The latest available data relate to the 12 month period from October 2000 to September 2001. During this period, over 99 per cent. of contracts by number had agreed prices at the outset.

  Information on the percentage of contracts that arrived to cost and on schedule is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Cluster Bombs
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what types of cluster bombs are used by the British Army; and what stockpiles of each are held. [18352]

  Mr. Ingram
  Although the Army does not use cluster bombs, BL755, IBL755 and RBL755 cluster bombs are used by the RAF.

  I am withholding information on the stockpiles of these weapons in accordance with Exemption l (Defence, Security and International Relations) of the Code of Practice on Access to Government information.

  Veterans' Affairs
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 13 November 2001,Official Report, column 630W, if he will list the representatives of the veterans community who attended his task force meeting on 6 November. [16141]

  Dr. Moonie
  The veterans community was represented at the Task Force meeting on 6 November by Major General (Retired) Nigel Richards CB, OBE, Chair of the Confederation of British Service and Ex-Service Organisations (COBSEO) and by Brigadier (Retired) Ian Townsend, General Secretary of The Royal British Legion (TRBL).

  A400M
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is(a) the preferred and (b) the minimum length of runway for the A400M; and what discussions he has had with his (i) German and (ii) French counterparts about their preferred length of runway for the A400M. [17379]

  Dr. Moonie
  We are not planning on the basis of 'preferred' or 'minimum' runway lengths. The requirement is to support operations at the aircraft's Maximum All Up Weight. Our preliminary assessment is that this will mean a runway length of around 8,000 feet. However, runway length requirements for A400M operations will not be confirmed until the aircraft's Performance and Flying Qualities test programme is completed, on current plans, in 2008. The Secretary of State for Defence has not discussed the issue of A400M runway lengths with his French and German counterparts.

  Defence Exports (Employment)
  Ann McKechin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many jobs are dependent on defence exports in(a) the regions of England, (b) Scotland, (c) Wales and (d) Northern Ireland. [17361]

  Dr. Moonie
  We are currently reviewing our methodology on the estimation of employment figures dependent on UK defence expenditure and exports. Therefore, "UK Defence Statistics 2001" does not contain any new figures for employment. The Defence Analytical Services Agency expects to publish relevant employment estimates in the first part of 2002. I will write to my hon. Friend in due course and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Ballistics Protection
  Mr. Swayne:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's budget for developing techniques for ballistics protection. [17702]

  Dr. Moonie
  Funding for research into ballistic protection for personnel in the current financial year is approximately £2 million.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was spent by his Department on developing techniques for ballistics protection in each of the last 10 years. [17703]

  Dr. Moonie
  Figures covering the last 10 years are not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. The amount spent on developing ballistic protection over the past three years for which figures are available is:

  Year

  Amount spent (£ million)

  1998–99

  3.0

  1999–2000

  2.9

  2000–01

  3.2

  These figures include the costs of developing ballistic protection work within the Corporate Research Programme undertaken by Dstl at Porton Down and other developmental work by the Defence Clothing and Textiles Integrated Project Team, now part of the Defence Logistics Organisation.

  Military Exports
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects his Department's report into financial support for military exports will be published. [18605]

  Dr. Moonie
  I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Aircraft Procurement
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his future procurement objectives in relation to(a) fixed wing aircraft and (b) helicopters. [18758]
  767W
  Dr. Moonie
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence gave on 29 October 2001,Official Report, columns 513–14W, to my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann).

  Defence Equipment Demonstrations
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what has been the cost to his Department of providing armed service personnel support to defence equipment demonstrations in the financial years(a) 1999–2000 and (b) 2000–01; [18606]

  (2) what were the net operating costs of DESO and related support functions in financial years (a) 1999–2000 and (b) 2000–01. [18607]

  Dr. Moonie
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers I gave him on 17 July 2001,Official Report, column 144W.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Parades Commission
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will give further details of the proposed review of the Parades Commission. [18974]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Government have appointed Sir George Quigley to undertake the review of the Parades Commission, which forms part of the measures proposed on 1 August following the Weston Park talks.

  The review has the following terms of reference:
  "To review the operation of the Parades Commission, since it took its current form in February 1998, and the legislation under which it was established and to consider whether there are any changes which could promote further public confidence on all sides, respect for the rights of all and the peaceful resolution of disputes on parades."

  The review is to report to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. Any recommendations for legislative change would not be implemented until after summer 2002.

  Terrorist Prosecutions
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland by what process suspected terrorists who are wanted for alleged crimes are having prosecutions against them stopped; and if he will list their names, giving in each case the details of the charges that are being dropped and the known paramilitary affiliations. [12932]

  Jane Kennedy
  Where decisions as to prosecution arise, the prosecuting authorities, who act independently of Government, reach decisions in accordance with the Test for Prosecution.

  In the light of the proposal emerging from the Weston Park talks, the Government have agreed to provide new arrangements to facilitate the return to Northern Ireland of persons who may otherwise be liable to possible prosecution in respect of certain qualifying offences. We are currently considering the mechanism for delivering this.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Conflict Diamonds
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what action her Department is taking to address the issue of(a) conflict diamonds and (b) exploitation of other minerals from conflict zones. [18191]

  Clare Short
  (a) DFID is working with other Government Departments to support the Kimberley Process, in order to build support for an international certification scheme for rough diamonds.

  Together with the Government of Sierra Leone, DFID has commissioned a study to investigate different approaches for the management of diamond producing areas in Sierra Leone. This focuses on how the Government can re-establish control of the diamond areas and industry, establish and maintain a secure environment and effectively manage the industry.

  DFID together with other agencies is supporting the work of Partnership Africa Canada, which aims to build the capacity of Civil Society Organisations to monitor the use of revenues from the trade in diamonds in Africa.

  (b) DFID is currently preparing a joint strategy with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Ministry of Defence to address the Economic Causes of Conflict, including the exploitation of mineral resources from conflict areas.

  DFID has commissioned research on the exploitation of minerals from conflict zones, to find practical ways of addressing this issue, including research on the impact of oil in Sudan.

  HMG are also providing support and information to a UN Experts Panel, looking into links between specific conflicts and the exploitation of economic resources.

  Zimbabwe
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what representations she has made to the Government of Zimbabwe regarding their involvement in mineral exploitation in the Democratic Republic of Congo. [18186]

  Clare Short
  No representations have been made to the Government of Zimbabwe concerning resource exploitation in the Democratic Republic of Congo. We welcome the report from the UN Panel investigating the illegal exploitation of mineral resources in DRC, which was presented to the international community last week. We are reading the recommendations contained in the report with interest, and are presently considering what action to take to respond.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what representations she has made to the Government of Zimbabwe regarding their policy on allowing aid agencies to distribute emergency food supplies to those affected by the famine. [18190]

  Clare Short
  We have been closely involved in the development of a humanitarian assistance plan by the United Nations Development Programme in Zimbabwe which assigns a key role to United Nations agencies
  769W
  and non-governmental organisations in ensuring that assistance is properly targeted. This plan is being discussed by UNDP with the Government of Zimbabwe on behalf of all potential providers of funds.

  Afghanistan
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans the Government have to provide long-term support to de-mining operations in Afghanistan. [18193]

  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.

  Agricultural Export Subsidies
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the impact of agricultural export subsidies of(a) the EU and (b) other countries in the developed world on the economies of the countries which her Department is committed to help; and what plans she has to phase out the subsidies. [17921]

  Clare Short
  Many developing countries suffer from subsidised food being dumped on their markets. Due 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. In response to this, my department is working with DEFRA to push for fundamental reform of the CAP.

  Tariff/Quota-Free Exports
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans she has to act to make developed countries' exports for the developed world(a) tariff and (b) quota free. [17919]

  Clare Short
  The UK supported the European Commission's 'Everything But Arms' initiative that was implemented in March this year providing immediate duty-and quota-free access to the EU for most products from the least developed countries. The European Commission has been calling for other developed countries to follow his lead, and objective that all WTO Members signed up to at the Ministerial meeting in Doha earlier this month.

  We have to ensure a reform of the European Union's generalised system of preferences that is as generous as possible to developing countries.

  The agreement at Doha to launch a new round of trade negotiations put the interests of developing countries at its core. This should be a development round, which includes serious improvements in market access for developing countries.

  Democratic Republic of Congo
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on 770W
  the UN Addendum report on the illegal exploitation of natural resources in the Democratic Republic of Congo regarding the involvement of Uganda and Rwanda. [18187]

  Clare Short
  We welcome the publication of the revised report last week. We are studying it in detail. We shall raise any specific allegations with the Governments concerned and press them to take action to investigate substantiated allegations against groups and individuals.

  Angola
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if the Government will increase financial assistance to humanitarian projects to provide basic health care assistance and clean water to internally displaced persons living in Angola. [18192]

  Clare Short
  We recognise that the situation of many people in Angola is very bad. Since 1999, my Department has provided more than £8.5 million in humanitarian assistance. The absence of peace and a lack of Government commitment to pro-poor policies cause continuing suffering.

  Street Children
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what financial help is being given by her Department to organisations who work with street children. [17885]

  Clare Short
  We are currently providing financial support of nearly £2 million to a number of organisations, such as CHILDHOPE, Concern Worldwide, GOAL, Save the Children and World Vision who are working directly with street children. We also support many more organisations working to tackle the poverty, deprivation and social exclusion which force children to live on the street.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Ageism
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what action her Department has taken to tackle discrimination against older people. [14954]

  John Healey
  The Department for Education and Skills is committed to tackling age discrimination against older people. Our commitment is demonstrated through raising awareness of age issues throughout the Department and eliminating age discrimination against older people. Age is a key element of the Equal Opportunities Strategy and Policy.

  We have recently upgraded our membership with the Employers Forum on Age (EFA) to a 'core member', and have provided access to the EFA website through our intranet. In addition we continuously improve our systems to analyse management information relating to age, which includes information on internal vacancy filling and promotion competitions.

  The Department promotes age diversity and tackles age discrimination when translating its commitment to equality of opportunity into effective strategies and

  771W
  actions. We supported the Better Government for Older People Programme and contributed to the Performance and Innovation Unit report on Active Aging, "Winning the Generation Game".

  Buckingham
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans she has to visit the Buckingham constituency to meet teachers. [16898]

  Mr. Timms
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State regularly visits schools and values the opportunity to meet teachers and to hear their ideas and their concerns. At present she has no plans to visit the Buckingham constituency.

  New Schools
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what provision has been made in

  New pupil places receiving central Government capital support in south east England 1999–2000 to 2001–02

  Total new pupil places 1999–2000 to 2001–02

  Total funding for new pupil places 1999–2000 to 2001–02 (£000)

  Total capital funding 1999–2000 to 2001–02 (£000)1

  London

  Barking and Dagenham

  464

  4,449

  14,112

  Barnet

  —

  —

  21,535

  Bexley

  1,222

  8,688

  23,365

  Brent

  638

  4,080

  49,815

  Bromley

  —

  —

  19,751

  Camden

  147

  1,095

  12,639

  City of London

  —

  —

  186

  Croydon

  619

  3,941

  25,192

  Ealing

  366

  2,546

  25,216

  Enfield

  810

  5,588

  24,248

  Greenwich

  —

  —

  20,683

  Hackney

  637

  5,001

  16,654

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  —

  —

  10,401

  Haringey

  1,911

  11,997

  87,313

  Harrow

  —

  —

  14,334

  Havering

  450

  3,303

  16,078

  Hillingdon

  959

  6,644

  24,187

  Hounslow

  —

  —

  15,733

  Islington

  —

  —

  13,073

  Kensington and Chelsea

  —

  —

  5,455

  Kingston upon Thames

  —

  —

  14,919

  Lambeth

  —

  —

  26,674

  Lewisham

  —

  —

  21,153

  Merton

  —

  —

  40,095

  Newham

  1,246

  6,536

  64,151

  Redbridge

  1,228

  8,463

  43,721

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  —

  —

  27,341

  Southwark

  100

  785

  16,262

  Sutton

  1,147

  7,975

  21,088

  Tower Hamlets

  —

  —

  87,521

  Waltham Forest

  337

  2,056

  39,278

  Wandsworth

  271

  1,480

  16,836

  Westminster

  —

  —

  9,684

  South East

  Bracknell Forest

  —

  —

  6,720

  Brighton and Hove

  606

  4,080

  30,124

  Buckinghamshire

  1,502

  9,683

  45,933

  East Sussex

  1,614

  10,492

  62,353

  Hampshire

  3,680

  22,244

  94,650

  Isle of Wight

  1,698

  9,851

  17,995

  Kent

  8,298

  50,273

  128,487

  Medway Towns

  2,463

  15,524

  29,289

  Milton Keynes

  2,109

  13,941

  30,264

  Oxfordshire

  2,987

  18,139

  59,705

  772W
  budgetary planning for new schools in areas of new housing development in south east England in the last three years. [17117]

  John Healey
  The table shows those local education authorities in south east England, including London, which have benefited from central Government support for new pupil places in the three years from 1999–2000 to 2001–02. This support reflects the need for additional school places in areas of population growth where there is no more capacity in all schools in the surrounding area. It is shown in the context of the total capital support allocated to those authorities in the same period.

  Information on whether this capital support is used to build new schools in areas of new housing development, or to expand existing schools, is not kept centrally. Local authorities may supplement the centrally provided support from their own resources, particularly where there is new housing development which can generate developer contributions to building new schools. This information will be held by local authorities.
  773W

  New pupil places receiving central Government capital support in south east England 1999–2000 to 2001–02

  Total new pupil places 1999–2000 to 2001–02

  Total funding for new pupil places 1999–2000 to 2001–02 (£000)

  Total capital funding 1999–2000 to 2001–02 (£000) 1

  Portsmouth

  135

  837

  17,009

  Reading

  506

  3,400

  11,995

  Slough

  82

  685

  8,428

  Southampton

  553

  3,479

  44,869

  Surrey

  2,907

  19,633

  73,452

  West Berkshire (Newbury)

  779

  5,116

  17,319

  West Sussex

  1,082

  6,909

  48,004

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  46

  340

  9,160

  Wokingham

  1,109

  7,321

  18,249

  Total

  44,708

  286,574

  1,622,698

  1 In addition to the allocations made specifically for new pupil places, some other schools capital programmes, such as PFI, may also be used for this purpose.

  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many(a) new and (b) replacement (i) primary and (ii) secondary schools were built in (A) 1997, (B) 1998, (C) 1999 and (D) 2000. [17473]

  John Healey
  [holding answer 23 November 2001]: We do not hold information about the number of new and replacement schools that have been built.

  We have, however, made significant amounts of funding available to expand, replace and repair school accommodation. Details of the level of central Government support for capital investment made available for schools since 1997 follow:

  Central Government support for capital investment in schools 1996–97 to 2003–04

  Year

  £ billion

  1996–97

  0.7

  1997–98

  0.8

  1998–99

  1.0

  1999–2000

  1.4

  2000–01

  2.1

  2001–02

  2.2

  2002–03

  2.8

  2003–04

  3.5

  Classroom Assistants
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what recent representations she has received from Ofsted about the use of classroom assistants. [17134]

  Mr. Timms
  None, but the increasing use of teaching assistants means that they are mentioned in many Ofsted reports, whether thematically or in relation to individual schools.

  PPP/PFI
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many(a) local education authorities and (b) individual schools and colleges have applied for PPP/PFI funding in the past three years. [17135]

  John Healey
  There have been two application rounds since November 1998. In the first round, the Department received a total of 66 applications from 60 local education authorities (with six authorities applying for funding for 774W
  two separate projects). In the second round, a further 46 applications were received from 46 local education authorities, 23 of which had also applied in the first round.

  Local authorities receive the benefit of PH Credits through Revenue Support Grant. All applications to the Department are therefore submitted by local authorities, even if they relate to individual schools.

  Further education colleges can apply to the Learning and Skills Council for a contribution to the cost of capital projects, including PPP/PFI projects. Higher education colleges do not need to apply for specific PPP/PFI funding because they have discretion over the use of their total resources.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of capital spending on education will come from PPP/PFI sources(a) in 2001–02, (b) 2002–03 and (c) estimated for the next five years. [17136]

  John Healey
  The table shows the proportion of central Government investment in school buildings from PPP/PFI sources for 2001–02, 2002–03 and 2003–04. For 2004–05 and beyond, the amount of schools capital that will be available, and the proportion of PPP/PFI funding within it, will depend on the outcome of the Spending Review in 2002.

  Total schools capital available (£ million)

  PFI/PPP funding (£ million)

  PFI/PPP funding as percentage of total

  2001–02

  2,200

  467

  21.2

  2002–03

  2,800

  750

  26.8

  2003–04

  3,500

  850

  24.3

  Note:

  For 2001–02, £467 million of PFI/PPP funding is made up of £450 million of PFI credits and £17 million of PPP funding from the New Deal for Schools programme. We are not providing specific PPP funding from schools capital in 2002–03 or 2003–04, but it is open to local education authorities and others to use the capital funding we allocate to them for PPP projects.

  Polling Stations
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list the schools in each local education area which were(a) closed and (b) partly closed for use as polling stations on 7 June. [17171]
  775W
  Mr. Timms
  The Department does not collect this information.

  Special Measures
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many schools have been placed in special measures in each of the last three years for which figures are available, broken down by local education authority. [17178]

  Mr. Timms
  The table indicates the numbers of schools placed in special measures in the last three academic years 1998–99, 1999–2000 and 2000–01.

  LEA

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  London

  Inner London

  Camden

  0

  0

  1

  Greenwich

  0

  2

  1

  Hackney

  1

  1

  1

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  0

  1

  0

  Islington

  1

  4

  0

  Kensington and Chelsea

  0

  0

  0

  Lambeth

  0

  2

  0

  Lewisham

  1

  5

  0

  London, City of

  0

  0

  0

  Southwark

  2

  2

  1

  Tower Hamlets

  5

  3

  0

  Wandsworth

  0

  0

  1

  Westminster

  0

  0

  0

  Outer London

  Barking and Dagenham

  1

  1

  0

  Barnet

  2

  1

  1

  Bexley

  0

  1

  1

  Brent

  1

  3

  0

  Bromley

  1

  1

  0

  Croydon

  0

  0

  0

  Ealing

  0

  3

  2

  Enfield

  1

  1

  2

  Haringey

  1

  0

  1

  Havering

  0

  0

  0

  Harrow

  0

  1

  0

  Hillingdon

  2

  1

  1

  Hounslow

  0

  0

  2

  Kingston upon Thames

  0

  1

  0

  Merton

  0

  0

  0

  Newham

  3

  3

  0

  Redbridge

  0

  0

  0

  Richmond upon Thames

  0

  0

  0

  Sutton

  0

  0

  1

  Waltham Forest

  2

  3

  1

  East of England

  Bedfordshire

  0

  2

  2

  Cambridgeshire

  3

  0

  2

  Essex

  9

  11

  5

  Hertfordshire

  1

  3

  4

  Luton

  2

  1

  1

  Norfolk

  5

  7

  2

  Peterborough

  0

  1

  2

  Southend

  1

  0

  1

  Suffolk

  3

  1

  1

  Thurrock

  0

  3

  0

  South East

  Bracknell Forest

  0

  0

  0

  Brighton and Hove

  2

  2

  0

  Buckinghamshire

  0

  6

  2

  East Sussex

  1

  2

  0

  Hampshire

  3

  6

  0

  Isle of Wight

  0

  1

  0

  776W

  LEA

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Kent

  6

  4

  7

  Medway

  1

  2

  1

  Milton Keynes

  0

  0

  1

  Oxfordshire

  2

  4

  2

  Portsmouth

  3

  0

  0

  Reading

  1

  3

  0

  Southampton

  1

  1

  0

  Surrey

  1

  3

  3

  West Berkshire

  0

  1

  0

  West Sussex

  3

  1

  1

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  1

  0

  0

  Wokingham

  0

  0

  1

  South West

  Bath and North East Somerset

  0

  1

  0

  Bournemouth

  0

  1

  0

  Bristol

  2

  2

  2

  Cornwall

  1

  1

  2

  Devon

  3

  2

  1

  Dorset

  1

  2

  0

  Gloucestershire

  3

  4

  0

  Isles of Scilly

  0

  0

  1

  North Somerset

  1

  1

  1

  Plymouth

  0

  0

  0

  Poole

  0

  1

  0

  Somerset

  1

  1

  0

  South Gloucestershire

  2

  1

  0

  Swindon

  1

  3

  1

  Torbay

  1

  0

  0

  Wiltshire

  3

  2

  3

  East Midlands

  Derby City

  0

  1

  0

  Derbyshire

  4

  4

  2

  Leicester City

  5

  1

  1

  Leicestershire

  0

  0

  3

  Lincolnshire

  3

  5

  2

  Northamptonshire

  3

  5

  0

  North East Lincolnshire

  1

  0

  0

  North Lincolnshire

  0

  0

  0

  Nottingham City

  2

  3

  3

  Nottinghamshire

  4

  2

  1

  Rutland

  0

  0

  1

  North East

  Darlington

  0

  0

  0

  Durham

  0

  0

  1

  Gateshead

  1

  1

  0

  Hartlepool

  0

  0

  0

  Middlesbrough

  0

  0

  0

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  0

  1

  0

  North Tyneside

  0

  0

  0

  Northumberland

  0

  0

  0

  Redcar and Cleveland

  0

  0

  0

  South Tyneside

  1

  1

  1

  Stockton-on-Tees

  1

  1

  0

  Sunderland

  1

  0

  9

  North West

  Blackburn with Darwen

  3

  1

  0

  Blackpool

  0

  2

  0

  Bolton

  1

  2

  1

  Bury

  0

  1

  1

  Cheshire

  0

  2

  2

  Cumbria

  3

  0

  2

  Halton

  0

  0

  0

  Knowsley

  0

  0

  0

  Lancashire

  4

  4

  2

  Liverpool

  3

  1

  1

  Manchester

  3

  6

  2

  Oldham

  0

  1

  1

  Rochdale

  2

  1

  0

  Salford

  0

  1

  1

  Sefton

  0

  1

  0

  777W

  LEA

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  St. Helens

  2

  0

  0

  Stockport

  0

  1

  0

  Tameside

  1

  2

  0

  Trafford

  0

  1

  0

  Warrington

  2

  1

  1

  Wigan

  1

  2

  0

  Wirral

  1

  0

  0

  West Midlands

  Birmingham

  8

  2

  1

  Coventry

  2

  1

  0

  Dudley

  2

  1

  0

  Herefordshire

  1

  1

  0

  Sandwell

  2

  3

  1

  Shropshire

  0

  0

  0

  Staffordshire

  1

  4

  2

  Stoke-on-Trent

  1

  2

  1

  Telford and Wrekin

  1

  0

  0

  Walsall

  5

  3

  1

  Warwickshire

  4

  4

  0

  Wolverhampton

  2

  3

  3

  Worcestershire

  1

  4

  3

  Yorks and Humber

  Barnsley

  2

  0

  0

  Bradford

  0

  0

  0

  Calderdale

  2

  1

  1

  Doncaster

  0

  0

  0

  East Riding

  3

  2

  0

  Kingston upon Hull

  0

  2

  3

  Kirklees

  1

  2

  1

  Leeds

  3

  2

  0

  North Yorkshire

  0

  1

  0

  Rotherham

  0

  1

  0

  Sheffield

  4

  4

  1

  Wakefield

  3

  1

  2

  York

  0

  0

  0

  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many and what percentage of schools placed in special measures have been closed by the local education authority in each of the last three years. [17179]

  Mr. Timms
  In 1998–99 38 schools in special measures were closed, representing 8 per cent. of the total number of schools in special measures at the end of that year. In 1999–2000 the equivalent figures were 40 and 9 per cent., and in 2000–01 16 and 5 per cent.

  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what guidance she gives to local education authorities about consultation on closure before(a) an action plan to help a school in special measures is drawn up and (b) the local education authority's plan of support is known; [17181]

  (2) what role the local education authority plays in helping schools out of special measures; [17180]

  (3) what guidance she gives to local education authorities on the amount of time an action plan for recovery for a school in special measures should be accessed before closure of a school is considered; [17182]

  (4) if she recommends closure of a school in special measures before an inspection of progress on an action plan is made: [17196]
  778W
  (5) what guidance she gives to local education authorities on the control of school budgets for schools in special measures; and if control of the budget is automatically vested in the local education authority. [17187]

  Mr. Timms
  The Government are committed to continuing to reduce the number of schools found to require special measures year-on-year, and to ensuring that no school is allowed to remain in special measures for longer than two years.

  Where a school is found to require special measures, the Department writes to the governing body and the local education authority, and where appropriate the relevant Diocesan authority, to offer guidance on the action required. The governing body, in consultation with the LEA, must draw up an action plan to address the key issues identified.

  The LEA must also submit its own commentary and statement of action, which should include an assessment of the scope for the school to be closed. If an LEA concludes that the school should be closed, it must consult on the proposal in the normal way.

  Under Section 19 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State may at any time direct an LEA that a school subject to special measures should be closed. The Secretary of State must consult the LEA and the governing body, and if appropriate the Diocese, before giving such a direction. It may do so at any stage of the process.

  Under Section 17 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, LEAs may suspend a governing body's right to a delegated budget where the school is found to require special measures.

  The Department's Circular 6/99, "Schools Causing Concern", offers schools, LEAs and Diocesan authorities guidance on all these issues. A copy is in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what is the minimum(a) number of lessons, (b) number of teachers and (c) percentage of lessons to be deemed unsatisfactory for a school to be placed in special measures. [17183]

  Mr. Timms
  A school requires special measures when it is judged to be failing or likely to fail to give its pupils an acceptable standard of education. The criteria used in reaching this decision are a matter for HM Chief Inspector of Schools. I have therefore asked Mike Tomlinson to write to the hon. Gentleman, and to place a copy of his letter in the Library.

  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what the average score in(a) England and (b) Essex County Council was for Key Stage 2 in (i) mathematics, (ii) science and (iii) English in the last three years for which figures are available; [17186]

  (2) what the average score is for a school placed in special measures for key stage 2 in (a) mathematics, (b) science and (c) English in the last three years for which figures are available. [17184]

  Mr. Timms
  Information on average scores at Key Stage 2 will not be available until the publication of the primary school performance tables next month. I shall
  779W
  write to the hon. Gentleman with the information requested as soon as possible thereafter. However, we do not collate this information separately for schools placed in special measures.

  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the average length of time a school stays in special measures is. [17185]

  Mr. Timms
  The average length of time for schools in special measures is 21 months.

  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what guidance she issues to local education authorities on the retention of staff while a school is in special measures; [17189]

  (2) what powers local education authorities have for the control of personnel issues where a school is placed in special measures. [17188]

  Headcount of pupils in schools 1 in England

  January

  2001

  2000

  1999

  1998

  1997

  Aged under 2

  3,883

  3,295

  2,832

  2,433

  2,353

  2 years old

  50,520

  52,355

  49,417

  46,420

  45,605

  3 years old

  326,828

  324,541

  326,164

  327,582

  316,008

  4 years old

  593,262

  600,166

  615,016

  614,141

  626,985

  5 years old

  613,863

  628,723

  628,864

  652,330

  656,607

  6 years old

  629,072

  629,471

  652,865

  657,275

  650,485

  7 years old

  630,628

  653,860

  658,063

  650,305

  640,571

  8 years old

  654,553

  658,754

  651,415

  641,342

  649,377

  9 years old

  659,642

  652,153

  642,157

  649,990

  630,204

  10 years old

  653,452

  643,546

  650,710

  630,884

  616,153

  11 years old

  643,368

  650,688

  630,812

  616,283

  613,457

  12 years old

  651,947

  631,726

  617,418

  613,980

  591,230

  13 years old

  632,577

  618,386

  614,612

  591,595

  592,799

  14 years old

  618,397

  614,564

  591,640

  592,154

  587,290

  15 years old

  605,344

  581,902

  581,256

  575,766

  587,114

  16 years old

  212,121

  211,535

  207,127

  210,403

  210,035

  17 years old

  172,282

  167,541

  167,622

  166,169

  158,458

  18 years old

  19,254

  19,573

  19,492

  18,593

  17,272

  19 years old

  3,126

  3,036

  2,994

  2,937

  2,961

  Total all ages

  8,374,119

  8,345,815

  8,310,476

  8,260,582

  8,194,964

  1 Includes maintained and independent schools

  School Grants (Shropshire)
  Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what are the total grants made by her Department in 2001–02 to date to schools administered by(a) Telford and Wrekin council and (b) Shropshire county council. [17434]

  Mr. Timms
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given on 15 November 2001,Official Report, columns 861–62W.

  Bullying
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proposals she plans to introduce to combat bullying in post-16 education. [17443]

  Mr. Timms
  Schools are required by law to have anti-bullying policies covering all their pupils, and in December 2000 we launched a new anti-bullying pack for schools entitled "Bullying: don't suffer in silence" with an accompanying video aimed at pupils.
  780W
  Mr. Timms
  The Department's Circular 6/99 "Schools Causing Concern", which advises local education authorities on dealing with schools in special measures, does not specifically cover staff retention. However, the circular does make clear that, where an LEA withdraws a school's delegated budget because it is subject to special measures, it automatically takes over responsibility for most personnel issues, including the appointment and dismissal of staff.

  School Children (Statistics)
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many children there were in each school year in England in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [17385]

  Mr. Timms
  Information on the number of pupils in each year group is not collected centrally. Information on the age of pupils in schools is shown in the table.

  The Learning and Skills Council (LSC) is responsible for the remaining post-16 learning other than in higher education. I have therefore asked John Harwood, the Council's Chief Executive, to write to my hon. Friend with the information requested and to place a copy of his reply in the Library.

  Following the tragic events of 11 September and subsequently we have placed some new guidance for all educational establishments on our departmental website. This reminds establishments to be vigilant for any name calling, racial abuse or bullying and deal with any incidents promptly and sensitively. A copy of the guidance has been sent to the LSC.

  A-levels
  Mr. Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what information she has collated on the length of time it is taking to re-mark A-levels on appeal; and if she will make a statement. [17913]
  781W
  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Information on the length of time it is taking to re-mark A-levels on appeal for 2001 is not yet available because the 'Enquiry about Results' and appeals process is incomplete. The information will be published by the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA) at the end of March 2002.

  School Exclusions
  Mr. Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what advice she gives to local authorities on acceptable time limits for pupils to spend out of school following permanent exclusion for(a) primary and (b) secondary schools; what information she has by local authority on (i) numbers and (ii) length of exclusion in the latest year for which figures are available; and if she will make a statement. [17914]

  Mr. Timms
  The advice given to local education authorities is that ideally many permanently excluded pupils should rejoin a mainstream or special school within days or weeks, or exclusion. Rapid re-integration is particularly important for excluded primary pupils and I expect that most of them would be re-integrated within one term. Conversely, for pupils approaching the end of compulsory schooling, a return to school may he unrealistic.

  Reintegration Panels are responsible for co-ordinating services for excluded pupils. They must draw up an individual re-integration plan for each excluded child. This plan should be in place within a month of the governors upholding the exclusion and it is reviewed on a monthly basis. It should include a target date for return to school, once the school to which the child will return has been identified.

  The latest figures available on permanent exclusions in England for 1999–2000 were published in a Statistical First Release on 19 July. A break down by local authority is available on the Department's website at www.dfes.gov.uk/statistics/DB/SFR/s0275/index.html Department does not collect data on the length of time between a pupil's permanent exclusion and their subsequent return to full time education.

  Drugs (Disciplinary Guidance)
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans she has to issue revised guidance to schools and local education authorities regarding disciplinary arrangements for pupils found(a) in possession of, (b) dealing in and (c) under the influence of illegal drugs. [18364]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  We plan to issue revised guidance on the use of exclusion by schools early in the new year. The guidance will restate the right of head teachers to exclude permanently when necessary students involved in drug misuse and other drug related incidents.

  Key Stage Test Results
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when she expects her Department's inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the release of the 2001 Key Stage results to conclude; and if she will publish the report. [18526]
  782W
  Mr. Timms
  I expect the inquiry to make a preliminary report before Christmas. A statement will be made as soon as possible thereafter. The National Statistician will comment more generally on the operation of statistical release practices across Government in his National Statistics Annual Report 2001/02 next summer.

  Local Education Authority Performance
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what options her Department can take in respect of a local education authority which does not address problems highlighted by Ofsted to her satisfaction. [17956]

  Mr. Timms
  Where she judges that an LEA is failing or lacks the capacity to take the necessary measures to improve its performance, the Secretary of State has a range of options depending on the nature of the failings identified and on local circumstances. To date, these have included full or partial outsourcing of LEA services, private sector management delivery and non-outsourcing solutions, usually based on the re-structuring of internal strategic management, partnerships with other LEAs and/or structured arrangements for involving elected members, local stakeholders and independent expertise, as in partnership boards.

  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether her Department has been approached by Torbay Unitary Authority for support following the Ofsted report into the performance of Torbay Local Education Authority; and if she will make a statement. [17958]

  Mr. Timms
  My Department has not been approached by Torbay Unitary Authority since the publication of the Ofsted report on the LEA. The Authority is preparing its Post-Inspection Action Plan, which will be submitted to my Department by 15 January 2002.

  Online Centres (Norfolk)
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills who the applicants were for Phase 3 Capital Modernisation Fund funding to establish United Kingdom online centres in the North Norfolk constituency; and for what reasons these applicants were unsuccessful. [18174]

  John Healey
  Government Office East received two applications. These were from separate areas of the Norfolk Library and Information Service. In consultation with the applicants, the two applications were trimmed to one without cutting any proposed provision, and the combined application was successful in securing phase 3 Capital Modernisation funding. There were no unsuccessful applications from North Norfolk in phase 3.

  Expenditure Per Pupil
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if data showing the expenditure per pupil in individual schools(a) are and (b) could practicably be made available centrally to her Department. [18265]
  783W
  Mr. Timms
  Data are submitted, on an annual basis by Local Education Authorities, to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in the form of financial statements under section 52 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998.

  Teacher Vacancies
  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many teacher vacancies there are at each(a) primary and (b) secondary school in the Tatton constituency. [18443]

  Mr. Timms
  The information is not collected centrally.

  In the Cheshire local authority area in January 2001 there were 12 full-time teacher vacancies in nursery and primary schools, or 0.5 per cent. of teachers in post. In secondary schools there were 11 full-time teacher vacancies, or 0.4 per cent. of teachers in post.

  Individual Learning Accounts
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what representations she has received from(a) Pitman Training and (b) the Association of Computer Trainers on solutions to the problems concerning individual learning accounts. [18296]

  John Healey
  We have received papers from Pitman Training and from Internet Exchange acting on behalf of the Association of Computer Trainers. Officials have already met Internet Exchange and plan to meet Pitman Training shortly. The papers and meeting were extremely helpful and the issues raised will be taken into account as we continue to develop future plans which build on the successful elements of the ILA programme.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Stop Now Orders
  Ross Cranston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what(a) training and (b) additional resources have been given to bodies, other than trading standards departments, towards the (i) legal and (ii) administrative requirements of the Stop Now Order Regulations; and if she will make a statement; [16578]

  (2) pursuant to her answer of 9 November 2001, Official Report, column 442W, on Stop Now Orders, how much money has been transferred to cover the additional costs associated with the implementation of the Stop Now Order Regulations; from which bodies the money has been transferred; which bodies are receiving this money; and if she will make a statement; [16576]

  (3) pursuant to her answer of 9 November 2001, Official Report, column 442W, on Stop Now Orders, how many trading standards departments have received training in the legal and administrative requirements of the Regulations; whether more seminars are planned; and if she will make a statement. [16577]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  As I said in my answer of 9 November 2001,Official Report, column 442W, DTI has agreed with the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, a transfer of resources to local authorities in England to cover the additional costs
  784W
  associated with the enforcement by county councils, metropolitan districts, unitary authorities and London boroughs of the Stop Now Orders Regulations. Subject to Parliamentary approval, additional provision is being made to the general grant in 2002–03 and beyond.

  The National Assembly for Wales has agreed with DTI a transfer of resources to local authorities in Wales to cover the additional costs associated with the enforcement of the Regulations by county councils and unitary authorities. Additional provision for this new provision will be added to the general revenue settlement in 2002–03 and beyond. It will be distributed through the Consumer Protection Standard Spending Assessment. The Assembly's provisional settlement was announced on 15 November and the final settlement will be announced on 8 January 2002 and debated on 24 January.

  DTI has also agreed with the Scottish Executive that they will receive formula consequentials for this transfer. These will be included within Scottish local authorities' revenue grant allocations.

  Figures provided by the Trading Standards Institute indicate that over 90 per cent. of trading standards departments (182) attended the six seminars that the Institute organised for the DTI on the legal and administrative requirements of the Stop Now Orders Regulations. We are considering with the Office of Fair Trading, LACOTS and TSI what further training or other support might help. The OFT organised a conference on 16 November to educate other regulators. We do not foresee any transfer of resources to these regulators.

  Airlines (Competition)
  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what research her Department has undertaken to evaluate the effect the proposed alliance between British Airways and American Airlines would have on competition in the north Atlantic market place; and if she will publish the conclusions of such research; [17282]

  (2) what her policy is on the proposed alliance between British Airways and American Airlines. [17281]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Analysis of the effects of the proposed alliance on competition is a matter for the Director General of Fair Trading, who, as the UK's independent competition authority, has the final decision making powers in such cases.

  Publication of such analysis is also a matter for the Director General.

  Responsibility for deciding on the competition issues raised by the proposed alliance also lies with the Director General of Fair Trading.

  Electricity Generation
  Dr. Ladyman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on current station lifetime plans, what her Department's projections are for the percentage contribution nuclear power will make to electricity generation in(a) 2005, (b) 2010, (c) 2015 and (d) 2020. [17369]

  Mr. Wilson
  The DTI published, in Energy Paper 68 (EP68), energy demand projections for the period 2000 to 2020 in November 2000. Figures in Annex D of EP68
  785W
  show the projected amounts of electricity generation for a range of generating plant. Generation from nuclear plants is projected to be 86TWh in 2005, 66TWh in 2010, 40TWh in 2015 and 27TWh in 2020. These levels of nuclear generation represent approximately 24 per cent., 17 per cent., 10 per cent. and 7 per cent. of the total projected generation by the major power producers respectively.

  Plant lifetimes are a matter for the operators but the projections were based on lifetime assumptions believed to be in broad agreement with those of the nuclear generators at the time of publication. There have been some recent indications from the industry that nuclear output in 2010 may be a little lower than previously projected. Small reductions in output would not endanger the UK's ability to meet its Kyoto targets.

  Energy Paper 68 is available in the Libraries of the House.

  CFCs (EC Regulation)
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what assistance is being offered by her Department to retailers to allow them to continue to take back used fridges and freezers as part of their home delivery service, once the EC Regulation 2037/2000 has been implemented; [17897]

  (2) what representations her Department has received from (a) retailers, (b) local authorities and (c) environmental groups regarding EC Regulation 2037/2000; [17899]

  (3) what guidance she has given on the safe disposal of goods containing CFCs as required by EC Regulation 2037/2000; [17898]

  (4) what measures her Department is taking to ensure that the UK conforms to EC Regulation 2037/2000. [17896]

  Mr. Wilson
  EC Regulation 2037/2000 on substances which deplete the ozone layer is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

  Officials in my Department have been working closely with officials in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) to encourage retailers either to continue their take-back service or, in the case of retailers that have withdrawn their service, to consider ways in which it might be restarted. Proposals are being developed by DEFRA in consultation with retailers, local authorities and other stakeholders that might help to facilitate this.

  The Department has received a number of representations from retailers, local authorities and environmental groups concerning EC Regulation 2037/2000, and has taken steps to keep in regular contact with both retailers and local authorities, in particular through stakeholder meetings held by officials in DEFRA.

  Officials in DEFRA have written to all local authorities and other interested parties informing them of the new requirements. Draft guidance on standards for facilities to extract ozone depleting substances from foam in refrigeration equipment and on standards for storage of
  786W
  waste refrigeration equipment has already been circulated to stakeholders for consultation and final versions will be issued shortly.

  Officials in the Department have been working closely with officials in DEFRA to help make stakeholders aware of the new requirements.

  Motor Vehicles
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the future of the EU block exemption of the selective and exclusive distribuiton of motor vehicles. [18467]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government await with interest the European Commission's proposals concerning the block exemption. We are pressing the Commission for radical pro-consumer change.

  Gas and Electricity Consumer Council
  David Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will take steps to ensure the Gas and Electricity Consumer Council provide more staff at the Energywatch office in Birmingham to deal with calls and inquiries. [18663]

  Mr. Wilson
  It is for Energywatch to determine, within the budget agreed with the Department, the staffing levels required for it to carry out its duties under the Utilities Act 2000 and the particular activities identified in its Forward Work Programme. Energywatch is aware of the importance of responding in a timely and efficient manner to inquiries and complaints and is working to improve its response times further. Over the next coming months, a one-stop lo-call telephone number for all gas and electricity consumers, and a more sophisticated call management system that will reduce the time it takes consumers to reach a consumer adviser will be installed at Energywatch's Birmingham and other regional offices, which will be fully operational by May 2002.

  Galileo Project
  Syd Rapson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment her Department has made of the European Commission's estimate of the number of jobs that would be created directly and indirectly by the Galileo Project; and what measures her Department is taking through(a) providing development and validation funding and (b) other measures, to ensure the UK maximises its ability to benefit from jobs created; and if she will make a statement. [18524]

  Ms Hewitt
  At the end of last year, the European Commission provided a Cost Benefit Analysis for Galileo which predicted the growth in employment resources for Europe as a whole at around 3,800 jobs a year for the four to five year development phase, rising to 19,000 a year over the two-year deployment phase. On the basis of these figures the UK could be expected to attract 15 to 20 per cent. of these jobs. Some of these may, however, displace existing jobs.

  My Department is working closely with the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and others within Whitehall to examine the economic case for providing further funding to the Galileo project, if it goes ahead.

  Liabilities Management Agency
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the objectives of the proposed Liabilities Management Agency. [17423]

  Mr. Wilson
  Arrangements for managing public sector civil nuclear liabilities have been considered as part of the quinquennial review of the UK Atomic Energy Authority and of related work on the future of BNFL. One of the options put forward by the review team is the establishment of a Liabilities Management Authority to bring sharper focus and stronger strategic direction to nuclear clean up.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, will be making a statement to the House shortly on how the Government intend to proceed.

  European Energy Market
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action she is taking to encourage competition in the energy market in Europe. [17426]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Government support the proposals published earlier this year by the Commission to complete the internal energy market by 2005. These measures would provide the mechanisms and regulatory structures needed for a functioning single market in electricity and gas.

  The proposals are currently being negotiated in the Energy Council, where we are seeking their early adoption.

  Pyrolysis and Gasification
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what are the location of the pilot plants using(a) pyrolysis and (b) gasification. [17425]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Department is supporting with Border Biofuels a project to build, test and run by July 2003 a fully integrated combined heat and power facility, including a pyrolysis plant capable of processing a minimum of 25 tonnes per day. The total project cost is £4.65 million, with my Department's contribution being £1.16 million. The location of the proposed demonstration site is under consideration.

  So far, the leading gasification pilot plant has been the Arable Biomass Renewable Energy (ARBRE) project at Eggborough, Yorkshire, which is currently in the final stages of commissioning. The project has been developed by First Renewables Limited (FRL) with support from the European Commission THERMIE programme and from NFFO. ARBRE will consume about 43,000 tonnes of wood fuel per year supplied from forestry residues and short-rotation coppice, and will generate 10 megawatts of electricity per year, of which 8 megawatts will be transported to the grid.

  Research is concentrating on scaling-up and developing the technology deployed in ARBRE. The Department has recently approved a project with ALSTOM Energy Limited, First Renewables Limited and Cambridge University which will involve setting up a plant about four times as big as ARBRE. The total cost of this project will be £7.3 million, with the Department contributing £2.9 million. Possible sites are being investigated.
  788W
  Small-scale biomass gasification projects are being taken forward in Swansea and in Newton-le-Willows near Warrington. There are also two small-scale gasification demonstrator facilities in Northern Ireland that are already in operation. These are at Brook Hall Estate, County Londonderry and the Blackwater Valley Museum, County Armagh.

  Spacecraft
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what her policy is on(a) the location and movement of satellites and (b) the movement of spacecraft; and if she will make a statement. [17431]

  Ms Hewitt
  The launching and operation of satellites by United Kingdom nationals is governed by the Outer Space Act 1986 which introduced a licensing regime for the activities of launching and operating a space object and for any activity in outer space. UK nationals wishing to carry out such launch and movement activities must apply to my Department for a licence. I have discretion as to whether to grant a licence and on the conditions to which a licence should be made subject, but before granting a licence I must be satisfied that the activities (i) will not jeopardise public health or the safety of persons or property, (ii) will be consistent with the international obligations of the UK, and (iii) will not impair national security. Satellites are also subject to International Telecommunications Union (ITU) regulations and procedures in respect of the orbital locations and frequencies used.

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions she has had with other Departments and Government bodies to encourage them to increase their use of renewable energy. [18350]

  Mr. Wilson
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and I regularly communicate with the Minister for the Environment and other Green Ministers on matters including the promotion of renewable energy in departments and other public bodies.

  The Green Ministers have set a target for 31 March 2003 for at least 5 per cent. of Government Departments' electricity to come from renewable sources that are exempt from the climate change levy, or from self-generation, and for 31 March 2008 for at least 10 per cent. to be obtained from such sources, provided that this does not entail excessive cost. The target will be reviewed by 31 March 2003.

  Earlier in the year my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry wrote to her Green Ministerial colleagues calling for Departments to give active consideration to the use of solar-photovoltaic (PV) panels on Government buildings in support of a major market stimulation programme and to provide a highly visible demonstration of the Government's commitment to renewable energy.

  All facilities managers for the Government Estate have been issued with guidance on the use of PV, and Government buildings are eligible to apply for funding under the DTI's Large-Scale Buildings Integrated PV programme.

  Electrical Goods
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on how many power stations would not need to be used if everyone stopped leaving their televisions and computers on standby; and what plans there are for a European Union directive that would reduce the power consumption of electrical goods while in standby mode. [16747]

  Mr. Wilson
  Estimates from DEFRA' s Market Transformation Programme suggest that in 2000 electricity consumed in standby mode by televisions was 980 GWh, domestic PCs consumed 670 GWh, while office PCs consumed 1,300 GWh. On the basis of these estimates, total electricity consumption by these appliances equate to just under 1 per cent. of all electricity consumed in the UK in 2000. This is roughly equivalent to the output of one mid-range CCGT power station. However, since many of these appliances would not be in standby at peak times there is still a need for this power station.

  While I am not aware of any plans for a directive governing the power consumption of electronic equipment in standby mode, there are already a number of voluntary agreements in place which seek to establish minimum standards for the power consumption of electronic equipment in standby mode. These include voluntary agreements with industry in respect of TVs, VCRs, digital TV services and external power supplies.

  In addition, the recent EU/US agreement will extend into Europe the use of voluntary energy labelling of office equipment via the US EPA's Energy Star scheme which requires minimum standards for computers and other office equipment in standby mode before the label can be used.

  The European Commission will also shortly be making proposals for a Framework Directive for Minimum Energy Efficiency Requirements for End-Use Equipment which may cover this area too.

  Public Service Orders
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to extend the provision of public service orders. [18724]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.

  Any application for the imposition of a public service obligation will be considered by the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions against the criteria set out in European Regulation 2408/92.

  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what criteria have to be met in order for a route to be granted a public service order. [18729]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.

  The use of public service obligations is governed by European Council Regulation 2408/92 on access for Community air carriers to intra-Community air routes. This empowers members states to impose a PSO in respect of scheduled air services on a route serving a peripheral or development region or on a thin route to any regional airport, where such a route is considered vital for the economic development of the region in which the airport is located and where an adequate standard of service would not be provided by carriers having regard
  790W
  solely to their commercial interest. Standard of service covers continuity, regularity, capacity and pricing. In assessing adequacy, member states are expected to have regard to the public interest and to the availability of other forms of transport and whether these offer a reasonable alternative to flying.

SCOTLAND

  Departmental Publications
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many publications were issued by her Department in each of the last four years. [11822]

  Mrs. Liddell
  In 1997–98 the Scottish Office issued 92 publications, in 1998/99 it issued 121 publications and in the period 1 April 199 to 30 June 1999 it issued 13 publications.

  The Scotland Office was established in its present form on 1 July 1999. Since then the Department has issued seven publications.

  Consultation Documents
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many consultation documents were issued by her Department from(a) 15 October to 14 January, (b) 15 January to 14 April, (c) 15 April to 14 July and (d) 15 July to 14 October in each year from 1996. [12877]

  Mrs. Liddell
  From 1996 the Scottish Office issued the following number of consultation documents for the periods 15 October to 14 January, 15 January to 14 April, 15 April to 14 July and 15 July to 14 October:

  Scottish Office Consultation Documents

  Issued:

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  15 October—14 January1

  23

  18

  31

  —

  15 January—14 April

  29

  11

  33

  27

  15 April—14 July

  26

  16

  27

  12

  15 July—14 October

  28

  20

  20

  —

  1 Of following year

  The Scotland Office was established in its present form on 1 July 1999. The Department since that date has issued no consultation documents. The Scotland Office is a small Government Department with minimal programme expenditure and no responsibility for service delivery functions.

  Scottish Borders Council
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will make a statement on the ability of Scottish Borders Council to carry out its statutory functions in relation to reserved matters. [17388]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Most of the statutory functions of the Scottish Borders Council relate to devolved matters. To the best of my knowledge, reserved matters have been dealt with appropriately by the Council.

  Nuclear Installations
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what representations she has made to the Nuclear Inspectorate relating to security at nuclear installations in Scotland following the events of 11 September; [16781]

  (2) what representations she has made to the Energy Review Group relating to security at nuclear power stations in Scotland following the events of 11 September; [16780]

  (3) what discussions she has had with the Scottish Executive on the security of (a) nuclear power stations and (b) nuclear installations in Scotland folllowing the events of 11 September. [16777]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 22 November 2001]: Security at nuclear installations is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry acting through the Office for Civil Nuclear Security (OCNS). The OCNS works closely with the Health and Safety Executive—the safety regulator for the industry—and which provides advice on the safety implications of events including external hazards, at nuclear installations. Security and safety precautions at nuclear sites are kept under constant review. Both regulators are reviewing all relevant precautions in the light of the recent terrorist attacks in the USA. It is not Government policy to disclose details of security measures taken at civil nuclear sites.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Sports Clubs
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what European Union funding schemes are available to sports clubs in the United Kingdom for(a) capital and (b) training projects. [17466]

  Mr. Caborn
  All European Union funding is channelled towards precise objectives and priorities under the various common policies, which, in turn, are based on provisions of the EU Treaties. The European Union does not have a legal base for sport in its Treaties. As such, there are no funding programmes designated specifically to sport.

  However, sports clubs in the United Kingdom may be eligible for funding under other European Union programmes which integrate sport into such actions as regional development or training and education. These programmes include:
  Structural Funds/Regional Development Programmes—such as the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) may be relevant to sports organisations where their activities include vocational training opportunities and/or are part of the economic development of deprived areas. Many of these funding programmes are restricted to specific regions and it is usually national or regional authorities specified in each programme that are fully responsible for the choice of projects. These programmes tend to focus on the development of small and medium enterprises to encourage job creation and social inclusion and require applicants to identify the specific economic and local benefits their scheme will achieve.
  Vocational Training/Education for young people/Youth Programmes—initiatives such as Leonardo and Socrates support vocational training and cultural exchange programmes for young people. There is a clear emphasis on any Europe-wide dimension to the activities.

  Playing Fields
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many playing fields were disposed of in each of the last five years. [17463]

  Mr. Caborn
  Information on the number of playing fields disposed of for the last five years is not collected. Sport England does, however, monitor the number of planning applications concerning playing fields in their role as statutory consultee. The Government intend to publish, with Sport England, detailed statistics on planning applications concerning playing fields when the data are finalised, in the new year.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills has published figures on applications by state schools to dispose of or change the use of school playing fields since October 1998 when the Amendment to Section 77 of the School Standards and Framework Act was brought in to halt the previous administration's policy of forcing schools to sell off playing fields. I would refer the hon. Member to the answer my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for School Standards gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) on 18 October 2001, Official Report, column 1292W.

  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many(a) school and (b) community playing fields have been sold for development in East Devon in each of the last five years. [18283]

  Mr. Caborn
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills has not approved any applications made by schools under Section 77 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 to sell school sports pitches sized areas or larger in the constituency of East Devon.

  Information on the number of local authority owned playing fields available to the local community and disposed of in the last five years is not collected. Sport England does, however, monitor the number of planning applications concerning playing fields in their role as statutory consultee. The Government intend to publish, with Sport England, detailed national statistics on planning applications concerning playing fields when the data is finalised, in the new year.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many(a) community and (b) school playing fields have been sold for development in the Buckingham constituency in each of the last five years. [17843]

  Mr. Caborn
  Information on the number of local authority owned playing fields available to the local community and disposed of in the last five years is not collected. Sport England does, however, monitor the number of planning applications concerning playing fields in their role as statutory consultee. The Government intend to publish, with Sport England, detailed national statistics on planning applications concerning playing fields when the data is finalised, in the new year.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills has not approved any applications made by schools under Section 77 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 to sell school sports pitches in the constituency of Buckingham.

  Sports Projects
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what her latest estimate is of the funds available annually through the Sports Lottery Fund for community sports projects. [17465]

  Mr. Caborn
  Sports England's income from the National Lottery for 2000–01 was £225.5 million while the forecast for 2001–02 is £214,233. As Sports England's lottery strategy makes clear, at least two thirds of funding will be invested in community facilities or activities.

  Museum Attendance (South Tyneside)
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the level of museum attendance in South Tyneside was in(a) 2000 and (b) 2001; and what is the projected figure for 2002. [17407]

  Mr. Caborn
  I am advised by Tyne and Wear Museums and South Tyneside district council that visitor attendance at the South Tyneside museums is as follows:

  2000

  20011

  20022

  Arbeia Roman Fort

  76,613

  98,605

  100,000

  South Shields Museum/Art Gallery

  261,924

  217,432

  145,000

  Bede's World

  44,360

  38,000

  50,000

  Customs House (Art Gallery only)

  9,000

  10,000

  12,000

  Total

  391,897

  364,337

  307,000

  1 2001 figures are year to date plus estimate to the end of December

  2 Projected

  Gambling Review
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many responses the Government have received to Recommendation 43 of the gambling review report; of these, how many(a) supported, (b) opposed and (c) were neutral. [18072]

  Mr. Caborn
  Seventy submissions commented specifically on this recommendation. Sixteen expressed varying degrees of support; and 54 varying degrees of opposition.

  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what assessment the Government have made of the compatability of Recommendation 43 of the Gambling Review report with the Human Rights Act 1998; [18083]

  (2) what estimates the Government have made of the impact on employment if all local authorities used their powers under Recommendation 43 of the Gambling Review report to ban all types of gambling in their locality; [18074]

  (3) what estimate the Government have made of the impact on levels of illegal gambling activity of local authorities using their powers under recommendation 43 of the Gambling Review report to ban all types of gambling in their locality. [17960]

  Mr. Caborn
  We have not yet completed our assessment of the impact of this recommendation.

  Voluntary Athletics Officials
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans her Department has for providing further support for voluntary athletics officials; and if she will make a statement. [17942]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Government fully recognises the contribution of volunteers to the running of sport and the need to continue to invest in their training, recruitment and support. The Government's Plan for Sport provides that Sport England should be the national advocate of volunteering in sport in England and to provide support to national governing bodies of sport in the development and implementation of volunteering strategies. Key to these strategies will be the appointment by governing bodies of National Volunteer Managers to implement the strategies and Volunteer Co-ordinators at Regional and county level to provide support and raise the profile of volunteering.

  A further recognition of the importance which the Government attach to volunteers in sport, particularly in ensuring that they are well trained, is the introduction of a £7 million training programme which the Department is currently developing. The programme will aim to build on existing schemes such as the Community Sports Leader and the Junior Sports Leader Awards run by the British Sports Trust and the Youth Sports Trust's Millennium Volunteers programme to provide training for up to 50,000 volunteers, of whom around 8,000 would be older people, to be coaches, administrators, officials, leaders and mentors. The programme will run for two years beginning in April 2002.

  Resorts Task Force Group
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) how often the resorts task force group has met since its creation; [17870]

  (2) what work has been undertaken by the Resorts Task Force Group; and if she will make a statement. [17869]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Resorts Task Force was set up by the English Tourism Council (ETC) in response to the Government's tourism strategy "Tomorrow's Tourism", published in 1999, which highlighted the regeneration of our traditional resorts as one of its 15 key action points. The Task Force's remit was to suggest ways in which resorts could be repackaged for tourism purposes and to highlight examples of best practice in successful resort regeneration for tourism.

  The group met five times and in the light of its advice the English Tourism Council's published its Sea Changes report in February 2001. The Government have welcomed the report and this Department has asked the ETC to consider how it can best be implemented and to what timescale. To that end, the ETC is working closely with the British Resorts Association and relevant tourism officers.

  Tourism
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment she has made of the effect on tourism in the Buckingham constituency of
  795W
  (a) the foot and mouth disease outbreak and (b) the terrorist attacks on the United States on 11 September; and if she will make a statement. [17844]

  Mr. Caborn
  Our best estimate at this stage is that the revenue loss to the English tourism industry for March to October is likely to be around £3.3 billion in "value added" terms. We have not attempted to apportion an overall estimate to individual regions, such as the Buckingham constituency, or individual tourism destinations since the available data does not enable this to be done with a sufficient degree of reliability.

  It is too early to predict with any accuracy what the effects of the terrorist attacks in the US are likely to be on UK tourism. Early indications are that there was a small drop in incoming tourists in September, but on the other hand a survey by the English Tourism Council found that nearly one million Britons have changed their plans from holidaying abroad to taking a trip in this country. Reports also suggest that the main impact of the drop in overseas tourists has been felt in London rather than in the regions.

  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment she has made as to the effect on tourism in Arundel and South Downs of(a) the foot and mouth disease outbreak and (b) the terrorist attacks on the United States on 11 September; and if she will make a statement. [18327]

  Dr. Howells
  Our best estimate at this stage is that the revenue loss to the English tourism industry for March to October is likely to be around £3.3 billion in "value added" terms. We have not attempted to apportion an overall estimate to individual regions, such as Arundel and South Downs, or individual tourism destinations since the available data do not enable this to be done with a sufficient degree of reliability.

  It is too early to predict with any accuracy what the effects of the terrorist attacks in the US are likely to be on UK tourism. Early indications are that there was a small drop in incoming tourists in September, but on the other hand a survey by the English Tourism Council found that nearly one million Britons have changed their plans from holidaying abroad to taking a trip in this country. Reports also suggest that the main impact of the drop in overseas tourists has been felt in London rather than in the regions.

  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the level of Government grant-in-aid was to the(a) English Tourism Council, (b) Welsh Tourist Board, (c) Scottish Tourist Board and (d) Northern Ireland Tourist Board per head of population in 2000–01. [18415]

  Dr. Howells
  Grant-in-aid available to each national tourist board in 2000–01 was as follows:

  GIA (£ million)

  Population (million)

  GIA per head (£)

  English Tourism Council

  11.0

  49.6

  0.22

  Visit Scotland

  25.9

  5.1

  5.08

  Wales Tourist Board

  15.4

  2.9

  5.31

  Northern Ireland Tourist Board

  13.9

  1.7

  8.18

  Sport England
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what progress has been made on the Quinquennial Review of Sport England; and if she will make a statement. [18484]

  Mr. Caborn
  DCMS is currently engaged in the second stage of the quinquennial review of Sport England, in which we are looking at its strategic management function, its regional role, and the way in which it carries out partnership working and forges alliances. I expect the review to be completed early in the New Year, at which point I will discuss its findings with the new Chief Executive of Sport England and with Sport England's Council members, with a view to implementing the recommendations as promptly as possible.

  Lottery Funds
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) at the end of each financial year from establishment of the fund to the latest date for which figures are available, how much lottery money was held and not committed to projects by(a) the new opportunities fund, (b) the heritage lottery fund, (c) the Millennium Commission, (d) UK Sport, (e) Sport England, (f) the Community Fund, (g) the Arts Council of England and (h) the Film Council; [18167]

  (2) what level of funds unallocated to good causes has been held by each of the lottery fund distributors in each of the past five years; what percentage of their total balance this represented in each year; and if she will make a statement; [17946]

  (3) if she will list the amount of lottery money held and uncommitted that has been carried forward at the end of each financial year, from establishment of the fund to the latest date for which figures are available by (a) the New opportunities fund, (b) the heritage lottery fund, (c) the Millennium Commission, (d) UK Sport, (e) Sport England, (f) the Community Fund, (g) the Arts Council of England and (h) the Film Council. [18169]

  Mr. Caborn
  This information is not readily available and I will write to the hon. Member as soon as the statistics have been collated, placing copies of my letter in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what the average period was between a project being approved for lottery funding and first payment being made to the project, for each of the Lottery distribution bodies in the last 12 months, and if she will make a statement; [18245]

  (2) what recent representations she has received concerning delays between the approval of projects by lottery distributors and the eventual transfer of funds; and if she will make a statement; [18246]

  (3) what the average level of allocated, but unspent, funds has been for each of the lottery fund distributors at the end of the financial year in each of the last five years; and if she will make a statement; [18247]

  (4) pursuant to her answer of 19 November 2001, Official Report, column 21W, on the National Lottery, how much money which is not committed to specific projects has been held by the National Lottery

  797W
  Distribution Fund at the end of each financial year since the National Lottery's inception; what proportion of the NLDF's total balance at the end of each year this sum constituted; and if she will make a statement. [18244]

  Mr. Caborn
  [holding answer 26 November 2001]: This information is not readily available. I will however, write to the hon. Member as soon as the statistics have been collated, placing copies of my letter in the Libraries of both Houses.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Afghanistan
  Ann McKechin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Government's intentions for encouraging the involvement of the female population in a post-Taliban Government in Afghanistan. [15436]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  One of the most appalling features of the Taliban regime was their treatment of women.

  We are working closely with the UN and a wide range of other interested parties to help the Afghan people establish a broadly based Government representative of all Afghans, including women. Afghan women are participating in the talks on the future of Afghanistan that begin in Bonn today.

  It is also worth noting the very real improvements in the condition of women in those parts of Afghanistan that are no longer controlled by the Taliban.

  Hugh Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his recent meeting with United Nations special envoy to Afghanistan, Lakhdar Brahimi. [15438]

  Mr. Straw
  I have held a number of meetings with Lakhdar Brahimi and saw his deputy, Francesc Vendrell, in Islamabad on 22 November, in each case to discuss the process of building a broad-based, multi-ethnic future for Afghanistan. I am sure the whole House will join me in paying tribute to Ambassador Brahimi's efforts, which have led to the meeting of Afghan groups taking place in Bonn today, and in hoping for a successful outcome.

  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the prospects for Government in Afghanistan. [15441]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The international community set out its vision for Afghanistan's future in UN Security Council Resolution 1378, adopted on 14 November. This Resolution sets out the UN's central role in the political process and establishing the essential conditions for stability, peace and security in Afghanistan.

  Mr. Rammell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on developments in Afghanistan. [15444]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Taliban is being defeated across Afghanistan. Its rule has collapsed in all but two provinces. But we should remember our primary goals are 798W
  to bring Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda to account and to end international terrorism—the defeat of the Taliban is a step towards that.

  The humanitarian situation is improving. An average of over 2,000 tonnes of food per day had been despatched since 4 November. This is four times the amount in October.

  We welcome the efforts of Lakhdar Brahimi and the UN in convening today's meeting of Afghan factions in Bonn. We hope that the talks will mark the first step towards establishing the broadly based Government so vital to rebuilding the country.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the role of the UN in the future Government of Afghanistan. [15449]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I welcome the new UN Security Council Resolution 1378 (2001), adopted unanimously on 14 November, which sets out the international community's vision for the future of Afghanistan. The resolution outlines the principles that should govern the formation of a new Administration and affirms that the UN should play a central role in supporting the efforts of the Afghan people to establish their new Government.

  We also welcome the UN Secretary-General's nomination of the Administrator of UNDP, Mark Malloch Brown, to lead the early recovery effort in Afghanistan. We will continue to work closely with the UK on rebuilding Afghanistan.

  Mr. Russell Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Government's intention to support a post-Taliban Government in Afghanistan. [15458]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The UK fully supports UNSCR 1378 (2001) which expresses its strong support for the efforts of the Afghan people to establish a new and transitional administration leading to the formation of a government, both of which:should be broadly based, multi-ethnic and fully representative of all the Afghan people and committed to peace with Afghanistan's neighbours,
  should respect the human rights of all Afghan people, regardless of gender, ethnicity or religion,
  should respect Afghanistan's international obligations, including by co-operating fully in international efforts to combat terrorism and illicit drug trafficking within and from Afghanistan,
  and should facilitate the urgent delivery of humanitarian assistance and the orderly return of refugees and internally displaced persons, when the situation permits.

  Barbara Follett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations his Department has received from Afghan women about their role in the future Government of Afghanistan. [15430]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  While we have received no specific representations from Afghani women, we are working closely with the UN Special Representative for Afghanistan, Lakhdar Brahimi, and a wide range of other interested Governments and parties to help the Afghan people establish a broad-based government representative of all Afghans, including women.
  799W
  However, the form of that government and the process leading to its establishment must be up to the Afghan people themselves, with the support of the international community. As part of this process UN Security Council Resolution number 1378, unanimously adopted on 14 November, sets out a blueprint for such a government.

  Middle East
  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with Muslim regimes in the middle east about their response to terrorism. [15437]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has had recent discussions about the international community's response to terrorism with his counterparts from Egypt, Iran, Jordan, the Palestinian Authority, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Sudan, Tunisia and, most recently, a visit to Iran Pakistan and Bahrain on 22–23 November. Governments in the middle east, like to rest of international community, have condemned the 11 September attacks and made very clear their determination to combat terrorism.

  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his recent discussions to take forward negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. [15442]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave earlier in the House today to my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Roger Casale), at column 827.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action his Department is taking to ensure greater peace and stability in the middle east. [15445]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave earlier in the House today to my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Roger Casale), at column 827.

  Greece
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next intends to meet the Foreign Minister of Greece to discuss bilateral relations. [15439]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Both the Foreign Secretary and I frequently meet the Greek Minister for Foreign Affairs. The last full bilateral being on 4 October 2001.

  Euro
  Rosemary McKenna
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how widely he circulated the leaflet published by his Department giving information to British travellers on the introduction of euro coins and notes from 1 January 2002. [15440]

  Peter Hain
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has distributed the leaflet on euro notes and coins widely, including to: airports, Eurostar, Stena P&O, the travel agency Trailfinders, Citizens Advice Bureaux, Members of Parliament in the UK and British MEPs, European Resource Centres, European Public Information Centres, Euro Regional Fora, British embassies in the European Union and EU embassies in London.
  800W
  In addition, a number of leaflets have been sent directly to members of the public at their request. The leaflet is also available to download from the FCO and BAA websites.

  World Cup
  David Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Governments of Japan and Korea about the organisation and security of the FIFA world cup in 2002. [15443]

  Mr. MacShane
  Our representatives in Korea and Japan have been in close contact with the organising committees, stadia authorities, police and security authorities to provide advice and assistance. The Foreign Office has invited representatives to the UK to experience matches in the UK and look at how we handle security here. We have also held seminars in host countries on stadium security, crowd control and dealing with trouble-makers.

  The Foreign Office has facilitated contacts between the Home Office, police and other relevant agencies and their Japanese and Korean counterparts.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his policy towards Zimbabwe. [15446]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We urge the Government of Zimbabwe to honour the commitments they made in Abuja on 6 September; to end violence and intimidation; to permit freedom of expression; to restore the rule of law to land reform. With the Commonwealth, Southern African Development Community and EU partners, we share the same ultimate objective: a stable, prosperous and democratic Zimbabwe.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met the Secretary General of the Commonwealth to discuss the situation in Zimbabwe. [15447]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary met the Commonwealth Secretary General in Abuja on 6 September. My noble Friend, Baroness Amos, accompanied the Commonwealth Secretary General to Zimbabwe during the Commonwealth Committee visit on 25–27 October.

  EU Enlargement
  Dr. Desmond Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress is being made towards the enlargement of the EU. [15448]

  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress is being made towards the enlargement of the EU. [15461]

  Peter Hain
  I refer my hon. Friends to the answer I gave earlier in the House today to the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), at column 828.

  Iraq
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the Government of Iraq about(a) bombing and (b) sanctions. [15451]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  None.

  EU Subsidiarity
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made in returning sovereignty to member states of the EU since the introduction of the subsidiarity provisions. [15452]

  Peter Hain
  Subsidiarity is not about returning powers to the member states. It is the principle which ensures that where the EC Treaty allows for action at both community and member state level, the most appropriate level is chosen each time action is required. Article 5 TEC and the Subsidiarity Protocol to the Amsterdam Treaty spell out how the principle is to be applied in practice.

  Terrorism
  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about international diplomatic efforts against terrorism. [15454]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The response of the international community to the appalling events of 11 September has been united and determined. The UN response has been swift.

  Immediately following the attacks, the UN Security Council in Resolution 1368 said that it would hold accountable those indirectly and directly responsible; UNSCR 1373 followed this and obliged all countries to target terrorist finances and deny terrorist organisations a safe haven.

  Following 11 September, the EU have prepared an action plan enhancing police and judicial co-operation, cutting funding of terrorists and improving air security. The G8 are working on a G8 Counter Terrorism Action Plan which will provide a solid basis for future counter-terrorism efforts.

  Rough Diamonds
  Mr. Lammy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress of the Kimberley process and the implementation of an effective global certification scheme for rough diamonds. [15455]

  Peter Hain
  The Kimberley process is meeting in Botswana. On the final day of the meeting (29 November) Ministers and senior officials will, I hope, agree that the detailed proposals for a global certification scheme for rough diamonds, which have been developed over the last nine months by the process, are ready to be presented for endorsement by the UN General Assembly early next year.

  Russia
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to foster good relations with Russia. [15456]

  Peter Hain
  Encouraging Russia's transformation into a reliable and predictable economic and political partner is a key UK foreign policy priority. Recent efforts to develop our relations have included visits to Moscow by my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister, Foreign Secretary and Defence Secretary. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is in regular contact with President Putin.

  We strongly welcome Russia's support for the fight against international terrorism. We believe we have an opportunity to reassess relations with Russia and to find new ways of working together. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has written to Lord Robertson and NATO leaders with ideas for a new partnership between Russia and NATO. We are also considering how to develop EU-Russia links.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and. Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his recent discussions with the Spanish Government over Gibraltar. [15457]

  Peter Hain
  The Government resumed talks with Spain under the Brussels Process in July. In accordance with the terms of the Brussels Communiqué issued in November 1984, the talks are aimed at overcoming all the differences between the UK and Spain over Gibraltar and at promoting co-operation on a mutually beneficial basis on economic, cultural, touristic, aviation, military and environmental matters. The Communiqué also establishes that issues of sovereignty will be discussed under the process.

  A further round of talks was held in Barcelona on 20 November. A joint statement was issued copies of which are available in the Libraries of the House.

  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with his Spanish counterpart concerning the sovereignty of Gibraltar. [15450]

  Peter Hain
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given earlier in the House today by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton).

  Nigeria
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on relations with Nigeria. [15459]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The bilateral relationship with Nigeria is excellent. We are supporting the reform programme of President Obasanjo. We have encouraged high-level exchanges under UK/bilateral forum and we offered practical support through development assistance. We welcome Nigeria's active role in regional and international matters, including its helpful role on Zimbabwe.

  China
  Mr. Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of China's commitment to the global campaign against terrorism. [15460]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We welcome China's support for the international fight against terrorism. China is an important partner in this. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister discussed this with Vice President Hu Jintao on 29 October during his visit to the UK.

  Balkans
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Government's recent actions in the regeneration of the Balkans. [15462]

  Mr. MacShane
  The United Kingdom has played a leading role in promoting political stability in the Balkans, which is key to regeneration. In support of this, we have made major military and civilian commitments to Macedonia, Kosovo and Bosnia, and have provided significant development assistance to these and other Balkan countries.

  Israeli Exports
  Richard Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has been made of Israel's responses to post-verification requests by the EU in respect of imports suspected to originate outside the internationally recognized borders of Israel. [15892]

  Peter Hain
  [holding answer 19 November 2001]: The EU has concluded, from the responses to member state's post-verification requests and from continuing discussions with Israel, that there remains a requirement to address the issues underlying the rules of origin dispute. The EU returned to this issues at the 20 November association council, noting that it wanted to continue efforts to resolve the question with Israel.

  Richard Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the Israeli authorities have responded fully to EU post-verification requests for certificates of origins for goods alleged to be from illegal settlements; and if he will detail those responses. [15891]

  Peter Hain
  [holding answer 19 November 2001]: Such requests are made by members states' Customs authorities in respect of individual cases of imports from a third country. Since April 2001 the UK has received 13 responses from Israel to requests for verification that the goods in question qualified for preferential treatment under the terms of the EU-Israel Association Agreement. In all but one of the cases Israel responded that the goods were originating products under the terms of the Agreement and thus qualified in Israel's view for preferential treatment. In the other case, the Israeli authorities were unable to validate the exporter's claim that the goods in question qualified for preferential treatment. The EU has made it clear, most recently at the 20 November association council, that it wants to pursue discussions with Israel to resolve this issue.
  804W
  Richard Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what mechanisms are available to the EU to review the operation of the EU-Israel Association Agreement. [15889]

  Peter Hain
  [holding answer 19 November 2001]: The EU-Israel Association Agreement provides for regular review by the Ministerial-level Association Council, to which either party may refer disputes over its application or interpretation. Below the level of the Council the Association Committee operates at official level and has power, under the terms of the Agreement, to take decisions relating to its management.

  Richard Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what deadlines the EU has placed for full responses by the Israeli authorities to EU post-verification requests for certificates of origin for goods alleged to be from illegal settlements; what the deadlines are; and what actions are available to the EU in the event of full responses not being received. [18655]

  Peter Hain
  Requests for verification of goods are made by member states' Customs authorities in respect of individual cases of imports from a third country. According to the terms of the EU-Israel Association Agreement, the country requesting the verification should be informed of the results within a maximum period of 10 months. In the event of full responses not being received., further information may be requested, and if this does not satisfactorily resolve the issues, it may be referred to the Association Council under the terms of the Agreement.

  Richard Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps were considered by EU foreign Ministers at the 19 November General Affairs Council to stop the import into the EU under preference of goods labelled as made in Israel but which originate in Israeli settlements in the occupied territories; what decisions were taken; and what the reasons for these decisions were. [18654]

  Peter Hain
  The 19 November General Affairs Council agreed that the EU should make it clear to Israel at the 20 November EU-Israel Association Council that it attached great importance to correct application of the Association Agreement and that it would do its best to find a sustainable solution to the rules of origin issue. It noted that, if the Association Council process was not able to find a solution, the EU would have to review its position, in accordance with the provisions of the Agreement. The two sides have agreed to pursue discussions on this issue.

  Richard Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the results of the EU-Israeli Association Council held on 20 November in respect of the implementation of the EU Association Agreement. [18523]

  Peter Hain
  The EU side noted that work in many areas of the Association Agreement is proceeding satisfactorily. It underlined its commitment to resolve the rules of origin issue, noting that efforts so far had not succeeded. The EU further noted that, if the Council was unable to find a solution, the EU would have to review its position, in accordance with the provisions of the Association Agreement. Discussions with Israel will continue on this issue.
  805W
  Richard Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he had made an assessment by the time of the EU-Israel Association Council of 20 November of Israel's responses to post verification requests by the EU in respect of imports suspected to originate outside the internationally recognised borders of Israel; and if he will give details of that assessment. [18657]

  Peter Hain
  The UK concluded that there remains a requirement to address the issues underlying the rules of origin question. This took into account the responses to the post-verification requests and continuing EU expert-level discussions with Israel. The EU has agreed to continue efforts to resolve the issue, as discussed with Israel at the 20 November Association Council.

  Richard Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the Israeli authorities responded fully to EU post-verification requests for certificates of origin for goods alleged to be from Israeli settlements by the time of the EU-Israel Association Council on 20 November; if he will give details of the responses received; and on what date they were received. [18656]

  Peter Hain
  Such requests are made by member states' Customs authorities in respect of individual cases of imports from a third country. Since April 2001 the UK has received thirteen responses from Israel to requests for verification that the goods in question qualified for preferential treatment under the terms of the EU-Israel Association Agreement. In all but one of the cases Israel provided a standard response that the goods were originating products under the terms of the Agreement and thus qualified in Israel's view for preferential treatment. In the other case the Israeli authorities were unable to validate the exporter's claim that the goods in question qualified for preferential treatment. Of the twelve responses which verified the origin of the goods, one was received on 4 April; three on 22 April; one on 24 April; three on 24 May; one on 5 June; one on 12 June; one on 15 August and one on 14 September. The other response was received on 5 June.

  Chemical Weapons Convention
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to formulate a co-ordinated strategy to ensure compliance with the Chemical Weapons Convention; and if he will make a statement. [16689]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Chemical Weapons Convention contains comprehensive compliance measures. These include the requirement to declare activities with scheduled chemicals, and of past chemical weapons production facilities and stockpiles; consultations; routine inspections of industrial and military facilities; and challenge inspections for alleged breaches of the Convention. The UK supports the implementation of these measures in the Executive Council of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) and on a bilateral basis. The UK reviews declarations by other State Parties and, where appropriate, has bilateral consultations to clarify possible ambiguities and omissions with the country concerned in order to ensure full transparency. The UK also undertakes practice 806W
  challenge inspections, and provides training and technical assistance to the OPCW. We continue to press for the universal adoption of the Convention.

  Drugs Trade
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent assessment he has made of the international effort to reduce the drugs trade in Colombia and Bolivia. [16892]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Colombia remains the world's principal source of cocaine. The international community and the Government of Colombia are committed to tackling the drugs trade and reducing the violence and instability with which it is linked. We support the Colombian Government's aim of reducing the cultivation, processing and distribution of drugs by 50 per cent. over the next six years. The UK has also been at the forefront of international efforts to support the peace process in Colombia.

  We welcome the considerable progress being made in tackling the drugs trade in Bolivia. The United Nations International Drug Control Programme estimates that illicit coca cultivation in Bolivia has been reduced from 48,600 hectares in 1995 to 14,800 hectares in 2000. This reduction is due to the Bolivian Government's own efforts and international support.

  Mongolia
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps his Department is taking to encourage exchange of young professionals and students between the United Kingdom and Mongolia. [17460]

  Mr. MacShane
  The British Government have been running a successful programme of scholarships in Mongolia for a number of years. Since 1993, the Embassy administered-scheme has sent 44 Mongolians to the UK. Four places were awarded for the academic year 2001–02 at a cost of £105,000. We also co-fund six scholarships per annum with the Soros Foundation for Open Society and the Universities of Manchester and Essex.

  We have provided funding for Raleigh International's three year programme of expeditions to Mongolia, which gave over 300 UK students the opportunity to work together with young Mongolians on a variety of projects. This ended in summer 2001.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance his Department is providing for English language teaching in Mongolia. [17459]

  Mr. MacShane
  My Department has focused its English language teaching efforts on the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, since we judge that greater competence there has a valuable multiplier effect in enabling Mongolia to interact with the international community more effectively in a wide range of areas. We are supporting programmes in English for special purposes; communication and presentation skills; and interpreting skills.
  807W
  We also provide support through our embassy for 10 Department for International Development-funded VSO volunteers working on English language teaching for secondary school teachers.

  International Criminal Court
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made to the United States following the passage of the International Criminal Court Act 2001; what UN state parties have now ratified the International Criminal Court Convention; and which members of the Council of Europe have not ratified it. [17769]

  Peter Hain
  Since the passage of the International Criminal Court Act on 11 May 2001, the United Kingdom has continued regularly to use our wide bilateral contacts with the United States to explain that we believe US reservations about the ICC are unfounded, and to encourage the US to ratify the Rome Statute. In addition we have participated in European Union action to the same end. The presidency of the European Union wrote to the Secretary of State Powell on 30 October 2001, drawing his attention to the EU Common Position of full support for the early entry into the force of the ICC Statute. The letter expresses the hope that the US will change its mind on the ICC and will not, in the meantime, obstruct those states which support the court and wish to seek to accede to it.

  The following 46 UN member states have, as at 22 November 2001, ratified or acceded to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC): Senegal,

  Scottish Ministers attendance at Council 1 July 1999— September 2001

  Year/date

  Council

  Minister

  1999

  24–25 September

  Informal meeting of Ministers of Education (Finland)

  Sam Galbraith

  26 October

  Fisheries Council (Luxembourg)

  John Home Robertson

  22 November

  Fisheries Council (Brussels)

  John Home Robertson

  13 December

  Environment Council (Brussels)

  Sarah Boyack

  14 December

  Agriculture Council (Brussels)

  Ross Finnie

  16 December

  Fisheries Council (Brussels)

  John Home Robertson

  2000

  17–18 March

  Informal Council for Ministers of Lifelong Learning (Portugal)

  Nicol Stephen

  20 March

  Agriculture Council (Brussels)

  Ross Finnie

  8 June

  Education Council (Luxembourg)

  Nicol Stephen

  16 June

  Fisheries Council (Luxembourg)

  John Home Robertson

  22 June

  Environment Council (Brussels)

  Sarah Boyack

  17 November

  Fisheries Council (Brussels)

  Rhona Brankin

  20 November

  Agriculture Council (Brussels)

  Ross Finnie

  30 November

  Justice and Home Affairs Council (Brussels)

  Jim Wallace

  14–15 December

  Fisheries Council (Brussels)

  Rhona Brankin

  2001

  12 February

  Education and Youth Council (Brussels)

  Nicol Stephen

  26 February

  Agriculture Council (Brussels)

  Ross Finnie

  8 March

  Environment Council (Brussels)

  Sam Galbraith

  24 April

  Agriculture Council (Luxembourg)

  Ross Finnie

  25 April

  Fisheries Council (Luxembourg)

  Rhona Brankin

  4 June

  Health Council (Luxembourg)

  Susan Deacon

  18 June

  Fisheries Council (Luxembourg)

  Rhona Brankin

  28 June

  Transport Council (Luxembourg)

  Sarah Boyack

  13 July

  Informal Council on Regional Policy (Namur)

  Angus MacKay

  808W
  Trinidad and Tobago, San Marino, Italy, Fiji, Ghana, Norway, Belize, Tajikistan, Iceland, Venezuela, France, Belgium, Canada, Mali, Lesotho, New Zealand, Botswana, Luxembourg, Sierra Leone, Gabon, Spain, South Africa, Marshall Islands, Germany, Austria, Finland, Argentina, Dominica, Andorra, Paraguay, Croatia, Costa Rica, Antigua and Barbuda, Denmark, Sweden, Netherlands, Yugoslavia, Nigeria, Liechtenstein, Central African Republic, United Kingdom (on 4 October 2001), Switzerland, Peru, Nauru and Poland.

  The following 23 member states of the Council of Europe have not ratified the Rome Statute of the ICC: Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Georgia, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Malta, Moldova, Portugal, Romania, Russian Federation, Slovakia, Slovenia, Turkey, Ukraine. The following three applicant member states have not ratified: Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Monaco.

  Scottish Executive
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 23 October 2001,Official Report, column 117W, on the Scottish Executive, at which Council of Ministers' meetings since May 1999 Scottish Executive Ministers have (a) been present and (b) spoken to the Ministers in formal session. [18182]

  Peter Hain
  [holding answer 26 November 2001]: The answer to (a) is given in the table.

  Scottish Ministers speak at Council meetings whenever appropriate.

  Kosovo
  Jim Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the level is of the UK's civilian policing commitment to the United Nations Mission in Kosovo. [19090]

  Peter Hain
  The UK currently contributes 140 civilian police officers, mainly on secondment from the Police Service for Northern Ireland and the Ministry of Defence Police, to the United Nations Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) international civilian police force. These officers are engaged in both operational duties to maintain civil law and order in Kosovo, and in duties related to the work of UNMIK's Criminal Investigation Unit in Pristina. UNMIK police officers, including those seconded from the UK, played a key role in ensuring that the Kosovo elections on 17 November were conducted peacefully.

  On 6 December the UK will deploy 18 recently retired British police officers to Kosovo. The secondment of recently retired British police officers is a new initiative and will increase our commitment in Kosovo to 158 officers. This figure excludes Mr. Chris Albiston, the Police Commissioner in Kosovo, who is a serving Assistant Chief Constable on secondment from the Police Service for Northern Ireland. If this initial deployment of retired police officers proves successful there might be scope for the deployment of increased numbers of retired policemen to peacekeeping duties with the UN in Kosovo and elsewhere.

  MI6
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs under what circumstances MI6 may decide that major decisions it takes need not be communicated to him; and what mechanism exists to ensure such decisions are in the public interest. [18536]

  Mr. Straw
  The Intelligence Services Act 1994 requires the explicit authority of the Secretary of State in respect of a wide range of major operations of the Secret Intelligence Service. There are therefore no circumstances in which major decisions by the Secret Intelligence Service would not be submitted to me or one of my Cabinet colleagues for approval, or of which I or they are not otherwise informed.

  Lorry Drivers (France)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what(a) assessment he has made of and (b) representations he has received in relation to incidences of physical attacks on British lorry drivers at French ports. [17648]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We have had no recent reports of physical attacks on British lorry drivers at French ports.

  If incidents do occur we will take them up with the French authorities.

  Czech Republic
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with his counterparts in the Czech 810W
  Republic concerning the reasons behind the number of applications in the UK for asylum by Czech nationals; and if he will make a statement. [17417]

  Peter Hain
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have had numerous contacts with our Czech counterparts in recent months. I issued a joint statement on 7 August with the Czech Foreign Minister expressing the commitment of both Governments to the highest standard of human rights for all our citizens and our shared concern that substantial numbers of Czech citizens continue to make unfounded asylum applications in the UK. The text of the statement is available on the FCO website at www.fco.gov.uk/news/newstext.asp?5215.

  While there can be no justification for citizens of a NATO ally and strong EU applicant to seek protection in the UK, the two Governments recognise that the position of the Roma minority is a problem in the Czech Republic. The UK fully supports the efforts of the Czech Government to address this problem.

  Bulgaria
  Mr. David
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made with Bulgaria's EU accession negotiations. [17838]

  Peter Hain
  Bulgaria has opened 23, and closed 12, of the 31 chapters of the EU acquis under negotiation. The European Commission judged, in its progress report published on November 13, that Bulgaria had made some good progress on alignment with the acquis in key areas. But work was still needed on administrative and judicial reform, and in combating corruption. The UK will continue to provide advice and support to Bulgaria in meeting the accession criteria in these and other areas.

PRIME MINISTER

  Energy Policy
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) what plans he has(a) to publish and (b) otherwise to distribute the PIU report on energy policy when he receives it; [17937]

  (2) when she expects the Performance and Innovation Unit report on energy policy to be completed; and if Ministers will see the report before it is published. [17935]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) on 12 November 2001,Official Report, column 546W.

  Campaign Against Terrorism
  Mr. Pope
  To ask the Prime Minister what arrangements he has made for ministerial oversight of the campaign against terrorism. [18975]

  The Prime Minister
  I have established a Sub-Committee of the Defence and Overseas Policy Committee to oversee the Government's role in the international coalition against international terrorism.
  811W
  Its membership and terms of reference are as follows:

  Sub-Committee on International Terrorism

  Composition:

  Prime Minister

  Deputy Prime Minister

  Chancellor of the Exchequer

  President of the Council

  Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs

  Secretary of State for the Home Department

  Secretary of State for International Development

  Secretary of State for Defence

  The Chief of the Defence Staff, the Attorney-General and the heads of the Intelligence Agencies also attend when required.

  Terms of Reference
  "To keep under review the Government's policy on international terrorism, in particular the political, military and humanitarian response to the attacks in the United States on 11 September and preventive security measures in the United Kingdom and overseas".

  In addition, as part of this Sub-Committee, I have established a ministerial group, chaired by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, to keep under review policy on protective security.

  Its membership and terms of reference are as follows:

  Ministerial Group on Protective and Preventive Security

  Composition:

  Secretary of State for the Home Department (in the Chair)

  Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs

  Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

  Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions

  Secretary of State for Health

  Secretary of State for Northern Ireland

  Secretary of State for Defence

  Chief Secretary to the Treasury

  Secretary of State for Trade and Industry

  Minister of State, Home Office

  The President of the Association of Chief Police Officers and the heads of the Intelligence Agencies will attend as required.

  Terms of Reference:
  "To keep under review the Government's policy on preventive and precautionary security measures to counter the threat of terrorism in the United Kingdom and to British interests overseas; and to report to the Sub-Committee on International Terrorism as appropriate".

  Honours System
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Prime Minister what action has been taken to reform the UK honours system since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [18254]

  The Prime Minister
  Since 1997, the honours lists have recognised in particular the achievements of people in the key public sectors including education, health, law and order, and in voluntary service, nationally and in the community.

  Workforce Development
  Kevin Brennan
  To ask the Prime Minister when the performance and innovation unit's report on Workforce Development will be published. [18382]
  812W
  The Prime Minister
  The performance and innovation unit's report "In Demand Adult Skills in the 21st Century" is published today as a report to the Government.

  Copies have been placed in the House Library. Additional copies and further information can also be found on the Cabinet Office website at www.cabinet-office.gov.uk/innovation.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Poverty
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, what recent assessment he has made of the extent of poverty amongst the clergy. [16896]

  Mr. Bell
  Responsibilities for clergy stipends have been transferred to the Ministry Division of the Archbishops' Council, which set up a review group to look at clergy stipends in 1999. As part of its work, the group conducted a survey of all clergy on the central payroll in 2000 in order to find out how clergy were managing financially. A copy of the survey results will be placed in the Library. The survey showed that one third of those households where the clergy stipend was the sole source of income either struggled to pay their bills or to provide extra things such as holidays.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Early-day Motions
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, what his latest estimate is of the cost of(a) printing and (b) administering early-day motions. [17642]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  [holding answer 23 November 2001]: For the latest estimate of the cost of printing early-day motions I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Richard Younger-Ross) on 3 July 2001, Official Report, column 91W. The cost of administering early-day motions, including such tasks as editorial preparation and control and electronic publication, is not separately identifiable.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Public Service Agreements
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on progress towards meeting the public service agreement target for the long run rate of growth of crime. [17310]

  Mr. Denham
  There is no Public Service Agreement (PSA) target on the long run rate of growth in crime as such. The PSA targets for crime set by Spending Review 2000 and progress on them are:To reduce vehicle crime by 30 per cent. by 2004. Recorded vehicle crime fell by nine per cent. in the 12 months to March 2001.

  813W
  To reduce burglary by 25 per cent., no local authority having a domestic burglary rate more than three times the national average by 2005. Recorded Domestic Burglary fell by nine per cent. in the 12 months to March 2001.
  To reduce robbery in our principal cities by 14 per cent. by 2005—while recorded robbery rose by 13 per cent. in the 12 months to March 2001, these rates of increase were much slower than those recorded in the previous 12 months. The British Crime Survey, a more accurate measure of crime, shows that violent crime is actually falling overall (down 19 per cent. between 1999–2000).

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on progress towards the public service agreement target for drug action teams to name comprehensive programmes involving lifeskills in schools, the youth service, further education and the community. [17151]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The Home Department does not have a public service agreement (PSA) target for drug action teams to name comprehensive programmes involving lifeskills in schools, the youth service, further education and the community. The PSA relating to young people is to reduce the proportion of people under the age of 25 reporting the use of Class A drugs by 25 per cent. by 2005 and 50 per cent. by 2008.

  However, the Government do believe that drug, alcohol and tobacco education is best delivered within a framework of personal, social and health education (PSHE). Good personal social and health education and citizenship education, when well delivered in schools, provides a vital foundation for the personal development of young people and prepares them for adult life. It can help to give pupils the knowledge, skills and understanding they need to lead confident, healthy, independent lives and to become informed, active and responsible citizens. Currently 93 per cent. of secondary schools and 75 per cent. of primaries now have a drug education policy compared with 86 per cent. of secondary schools and 61 per cent. of primaries in 1997. The target for 2002 is for all secondary schools and 80 per cent. of primaries to have effective programmes in place.

  The role of Drug Action Teams (DATs) in this process is measured via the Young Peoples Substance Misuse Plans. These plans will help to integrate drug service provision with other existing children's services. The first of these plans will be submitted in March 2002. By 2004, in every DAT area there will be substance misuse education and information for all young people and their families; advice and support targeted at vulnerable groups; early identification of need; and tailored support to all who need it.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the public service agreement target of a reduction of 3 per cent. in the proportion of arrestees testing positive for(a) heroin, (b) cocaine and (c) crack. [17050]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  We are in the process of reviewing progress against all drugs strategy targets.

  The 2002 drugs strategy target, as set out in the United Kingdom Anti-Drugs Co-ordinator's Second National Plan, to achieve a reduction in the proportion of arrestees
  814W
  testing positive for Class A drugs, was taken forward in the Spending Review 2000 Service Delivery Agreement commitment to
  "achieve a reduction of three percentage points in the proportion of arrestees testing positive for heroin and/or cocaine and/or crack from the 1999–2000 half baseline".

  The target is not to achieve separate reductions for individual drugs. It is one of several measures contributing towards delivery of the public service agreement target to reduce levels of repeat offending among drug misusing offenders by 25 per cent. by 2005 and by 50 per cent. by 2008.

  The New English and Welsh Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (NEW-ADAM) research programme provides estimates of the proportion of arrestees testing positive for each of a number of illicit drugs, including opiates/heroin and cocaine/crack. On the basis of data collected in eight sites in 1999–2000, we estimate that, 29 per cent. of arrestees testing positive for these drugs should be reduced to 26 per cent. by 2001–02, when the same eight sites are revisited. Data for 2001–02, are currently being collected. The findings will be available in the autumn of 2002.
  Source:
  Bennett, T, Holloway, K and Williams, T (2001) "Drug Use and Offending: summary results from the first year of the NEW-ADAM Research Programme", Research Findings 148.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on progress towards the public service agreement target for the seizure of class A drugs. [17060]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The targets set to achieve the public service agreement to increase the proportion of class A drugs targeted on the United Kingdom which is seized are 4.5 metric tonnes of heroin and 7.0 metric tonnes of cocaine by March 2002. From April 2000 to the end of September 2001, one tonne of heroin and 2.3 tonnes of cocaine had been seized.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on progress towards the Public Service Agreement target for increasing the amount of assets(a) identified from drug traffickers and (b) secured. [17074]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The public service agreement target was to increase the amount of assets identified from drug traffickers and secured by one third over a three year period. The target is measured in terms of receipts from the enforcement of confiscation orders in drug trafficking cases. The baseline was receipts of £9.5 million during the 1997–98 financial year. The milestone objectives that were set were receipts of £10.4 million in year one (1998–99), £11.5 million in year two (1999–2000) and £12.6 million in year three (2000–01).

  The outcomes for years one and two were £10.5 million in 1998–99 and £9.3 million for 1999–2000. The outcome for 2000–01 is not yet available.

  The Government have set a target of doubling amounts recovered from drug traffickers and other serious criminals by 2004. The baseline for this is receipts from confiscation and cash forfeiture orders of £29.4 million that were secured in 1999–2000. The Government's objective is to increase this to receipts of £60 million in

  815W
  the financial year 2004–05. This is to be achieved through the Asset Recovery Strategy, which I shall be publishing shortly, and the Proceeds of Crime Bill.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on progress towards the public service agreement target for the rate of positive results from mandatory random drug tests. [17066]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The percentage of prisoners testing positive for random mandatory drug testing has reduced year by year from 18.3 per cent. in 1998–99, to reach 12.4 per cent. in 2000–01. The figure for the financial year 2001–02 to date is 11.6 per cent.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will make a statement on progress towards the 2002 target for the number of(a) face-to-face arrest referral schemes and (b) arrestees referred to and entering treatment programmes; [17054]

  (2) if he will make a statement on progress towards the public service agreement target on the operation by police services of face-to-face referral schemes covering all custody suites. [17051]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The 2002 drugs strategy target, as set out in the United Kingdom Anti-Drugs Co-ordinator's First and Second National Plans, that all police services operate face-to-face arrest referral schemes covering all custody suites, was taken forward in the Spending Review 2000 Service Delivery Agreement commitment to make proactive arrest referral schemes available for all custody suites by 31 March 2002. This is one of several measures contributing towards delivery of the public service agreement (PSA) target to reduce levels of repeat offending among drug misusing offenders by 25 per cent. by 2005 and by 50 per cent. by 2008. As at the end of March 2001, 41 police forces were operating arrest referral schemes, with 330 arrest referral workers covering 86 per cent. of custody suites across England and Wales. The recently published Home Office Arrest Referral Statistical Update for the period October 2000 to March 2001 shows that arrest referral workers held 21,329 interviews in that period involving 19,190 individuals, 56 per cent. of whom were referred to a specialist treatment service. Of those referred to drug treatment, preliminary analyses based upon a sample of regions, suggest 15–25 per cent. make a treatment demand. This figure is provisional and subject to further validation.

  We are currently reviewing progress against all the drugs strategy targets as part of the work for the 2002 Spending Review.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the public service agreement target for the number of offenders dealt with for supply offences in respect of Class A drugs. [17049]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The number of persons dealt with in Great Britain for supply offences (possession with intent to supply unlawfully, unlawful supply, and import/export) involving Class A drugs rose from 8,101 in 1998 to 9,517 in 1999. This represents an increase of 17.5 per cent., against a target set of 10 per cent. Data are not yet available for 2000.
  816W
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on progress towards the public service agreement target for increasing ethnic minority representation in the Home Office and its services. [16927]

  Angela Eagle
  In July 1999 the Home Secretary set recruitment targets for the Home Office and its agencies (Police, Prison, Probation and Fire services1). Most of the targets have to be met by 2009. All service areas showed progress from April 2000 to March 2001. The percentage of minority ethnic staff in the core Home Office and Immigration and Nationality Directorate in London and Croydon has risen from 24 per cent. in 2000 to 28.2 per cent. this year, against a target of 25 per cent. set for 2009. The Police, Prison and Fire services are all working towards a target of 7 per cent. minority ethnic staff by 2009. So far they have progressed as follows: (2000 figures in brackets): Police 3.1 per cent. (3 per cent.), Prison 3.7 per cent. (3.2 per cent.), Fire 1.6 per cent. (1.6 per cent.). The Probation Service has increased the percentage of minority ethnic staff in the organisation from 9.3 per cent. to 9.8 per cent. since 2000. Its target for 2009 is 8.3 per cent.

  The Home Office and its services are working to achieve equal retention rates for white and minority ethnic staff. There is still work to be done, however and some key initiatives are being developed, for example exit interviews, support networks for minority ethnic staff and comprehensive diversity awareness training for management and staff.

  The Home Secretary's progression targets are expressed in different ways for the different services. Essentially they require that, by 2009, the percentage of minority ethnic staff in each grade is the same as for white staff. For example, the percentage of Senior Probation Officers who are from minority ethnic groups rose from 5.6 per cent. to 8.0 per cent. last year. The first minority ethnic Chief Officer in the Probation Service was appointed.

  The second annual report on targets was published on 14 November and is available in the Library.
  1 The Fire Service is no longer under the remit of the Home Office following the post General Election machinery of Government changes. Responsibility now rests with the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on progress towards the public service agreement target for the reduction of sexual offences. [16913]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  There is no specific public service agreement to reduce sexual offences, but police figures show that the number of recorded sexual offences fell by 1.3 per cent. to 37,000 in 2000–01.

  The Government have made it clear that they are committed to the reduction of all violent crime, including sexual offences, as a high priority. We have taken action to strengthen legislation for the protection of the vulnerable, in particular children, against sex offenders and to provide better management of sex offenders in the community and better information to the public on this. We have also conducted major reviews of sex offences

  817W
  and the registration requirements in the Sex Offenders Act 1997 with a view to further strengthening of the legislation.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will make a statement on progress towards the public service agreement target for reducing the conviction rate of children and young people; [17070]

  (2) if he will make a statement on progress towards the public service agreement target for reducing offending by juveniles. [17048]

  Mr. Denham
  The relevant public service agreement target is to reduce the rate of reconviction of all young offenders by 5 per cent. against the predicted rate by 2004. The first rates are expected in spring 2002. They will cover juveniles reprimanded, warned or convicted in July 2000, shortly after most of the new youth justice interventions had been brought into operation across England and Wales.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the progress towards the public service agreement target for the support of police trials for drug recognition training and field impairment testing in respect of drug driving. [17052]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  Successful trials of drug recognition techniques and field impairment testing were undertaken in 1999, following which a police training

  Black/Asian officer strength by rank (as at 31 March 2001)

  Number

  ACPO rank

  Superintendents

  Chief Inspectors

  Inspectors

  Sergeants

  Constables

  Police force

  Black

  Asian

  Black

  Asian

  Black

  Asian

  Black

  Asian

  Black

  Asian

  Black

  Asian

  Avon and Somerset

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  1

  16

  6

  Bedfordshire

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  3

  17

  11

  Cambridgeshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  —

  9

  5

  Cheshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  2

  1

  City of London

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  7

  4

  Cleveland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  1

  11

  Cumbria

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Derbyshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  4

  2

  4

  7

  18

  Devon and Cornwall

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4

  2

  Dorset

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  Durham

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4

  5

  Dyfed-Powys

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  3

  Essex

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  1

  2

  1

  8

  3

  Gloucestershire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  6

  Greater Manchester

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5

  7

  7

  56

  51

  Gwent

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  4

  1

  Hampshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  2

  11

  16

  Hertfordshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  2

  2

  1

  5

  10

  Humberside

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  2

  3

  Kent

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  2

  —

  8

  17

  Lancashire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  4

  10

  23

  Leicestershire

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  1

  1

  1

  8

  24

  34

  Lincolnshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  1

  3

  3

  Merseyside

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  35

  9

  Metropolitan police

  —

  —

  2

  —

  2

  —

  7

  6

  46

  23

  382

  186

  Norfolk

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4

  2

  Northamptonshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  1

  2

  16

  4

  Northumbria

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4

  7

  7

  North Wales

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  1

  —

  North Yorkshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  2

  Nottinghamshire

  —

  —

  —

  2

  1

  —

  1

  1

  2

  —

  18

  32

  South Wales

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  1

  16

  8

  South Yorkshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  4

  5

  26

  34

  Staffordshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  1

  15

  6

  Suffolk

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  8

  5

  Surrey

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  2

  11

  9

  Sussex

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  1

  7

  2

  818W
  programme was launched last year. We understand from the Association of Chief Police Officers that 32 forces have now trained officers in these techniques.

  While there is no specific target in respect of drug recognition techniques and field impairment testing, the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions supports developments in this area through continuing research to monitor the use of these techniques.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on progress towards the public service agreement target for reducing the level of disorder. [17053]

  Mr. Denham
  The Government have introduced a range of measures to help tackle the problems of disorder and anti-social behaviour, such as the Anti-Social Behaviour Order, and we are encouraged by the increasing use of these by the police and local authorities. A public service agreement target for the reduction of disorder and anti-social behaviour will be set in April.

  Police Officers (Ethnic Minorities)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many and what percentage of police officers in each authority are(a) black and (b) Asian, broken down by grade. [17207]

  Mr. Denham
  From information obtained from Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary, the tables show the number and percentage of black and Asian police officers by rank and force as at 31 March 2001.
  819W

  Black/Asian officer strength by rank (as at 31 March 2001)

  Number

  ACPO rank

  Superintendents

  Chief Inspectors

  Inspectors

  Sergeants

  Constables

  Police force

  Black

  Asian

  Black

  Asian

  Black

  Asian

  Black

  Asian

  Black

  Asian

  Black

  Asian

  Thames Valley

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  5

  4

  32

  28

  Warwickshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  4

  2

  14

  West Mercia

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  3

  6

  7

  West Midlands

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4

  3

  22

  18

  123

  155

  West Yorkshire

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  4

  5

  9

  47

  61

  Wiltshire

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  3

  3

  Black/Asian officer strength by rank (as at 31 March 2001)

  Percentage

  ACPO rank

  Superintendents

  Chief Inspectors

  Inspectors

  Sergeants

  Constables

  Police force

  Black

  Asian

  Black

  Asian

  Black

  Asian

  Black

  Asian

  Black

  Asian

  Black

  Asian

  Avon and Somerset

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0.7

  0.2

  0.7

  0.3

  Bedfordshire

  —

  —

  7.7

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2.1

  2.1

  2.1

  1.4

  Cambridgeshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1.4

  —

  0.9

  0.5

  Cheshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0.3

  0.1

  0.1

  City of London

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2.1

  —

  —

  1.0

  1.3

  0.8

  Cleveland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1.3

  —

  0.5

  0.1

  1.0

  Cumbria

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2.0

  —

  0.6

  —

  0.1

  Derbyshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4.2

  —

  4.6

  0.7

  1.4

  0.5

  1.3

  Devon and Cornwall

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0.2

  0.1

  Dorset

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0.5

  —

  0.1

  —

  Durham

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0.3

  0.4

  Dyfed-Powys

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0.3

  0.4

  Essex

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2.2

  —

  0.7

  0.7

  0.5

  0.2

  0.4

  0.1

  Gloucestershire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0.3

  0.7

  Greater Manchester

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1.5

  0.7

  0.7

  1.0

  0.9

  Gwent

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0.5

  —

  0.4

  0.1

  Hampshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0.2

  0.4

  0.4

  0.6

  Hertfordshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3.3

  —

  —

  1.9

  0.7

  0.4

  0.3

  0.7

  Humberside

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0.4

  —

  0.1

  0.2

  Kent

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0.7

  0.4

  —

  0.3

  0.6

  Lancashire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0.2

  0.8

  0.4

  0.9

  Leicestershire

  —

  —

  5.9

  —

  5.0

  —

  1.1

  1.1

  0.4

  3.0

  1.5

  2.1

  Lincolnshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1.1

  0.5

  0.3

  0.3

  Merseyside

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0.2

  —

  1.1

  0.3

  Metropolitan police

  —

  —

  1.0

  —

  0.6

  —

  0.6

  0.5

  1.1

  0.6

  2.0

  1.0

  Norfolk

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0.4

  0.2

  Northamptonshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  11.1

  —

  —

  1.9

  0.6

  1.2

  1.7

  0.4

  Northumbria

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0.7

  0.2

  0.2

  North Wales

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0.8

  0.1

  —

  North Yorkshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  7.1

  —

  —

  —

  0.5

  0.1

  0.2

  Nottinghamshire

  —

  —

  —

  10.0

  3.9

  —

  0.8

  0.8

  0.6

  —

  1.0

  1.8

  South Wales

  —

  —

  —

  3.4

  —

  —

  —

  1.2

  —

  0.2

  0.7

  0.3

  South Yorkshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1.2

  —

  0.8

  1.0

  1.1

  1.4

  Staffordshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0.9

  0.3

  0.9

  0.4

  Suffolk

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0.9

  0.6

  Surrey

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0.6

  0.6

  0.7

  0.6

  Sussex

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2.6

  0.6

  —

  0.0

  0.2

  0.3

  0.1

  Thames Valley

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0.5

  0.9

  0.7

  1.1

  1.0

  Warwickshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  11.1

  —

  2.3

  —

  3.2

  0.3

  1.9

  West Mercia

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0.3

  1.0

  0.4

  0.5

  West Midlands

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1.3

  1.0

  2.2

  1.8

  2.1

  2.6

  West Yorkshire

  —

  —

  —

  1.8

  —

  —

  —

  1.7

  0.8

  1.4

  1.2

  1.6

  Wiltshire

  —

  —

  7.1

  —

  —

  —

  1.8

  —

  0.6

  —

  0.4

  0.4

  Regulation of Investigatory Powers
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the cost to public funds of implementing the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 in(a) 2000–01 and 2001–02. [16910]

  Mr. Denham
  There is no central record of the cost to public funds of implementing the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. The bulk of costs, for example training those involved in convert investigative activity to ensure that their activities are compliant with part 2 falls on a variety of budgets in a number of 820W
  authorities. There is nothing to suggest that the overall costs of implementing parts 1 and parts 3 will exceed the estimates provided in the regulatory impact assessments.

  Drugs Services
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the performance of the agencies involved in getting money allocated for drugs services to front-line services, with particular reference to drug action teams. [16833]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  Drug Action Teams (DATs) are key to the local delivery of the National Drugs Strategy. Agencies involved allocating money to front-line drugs
  821W
  services are all represented on the DAT at senior level: education, health, social services, police, prisons and probation.

  As part of their performance assessment, DATs provide annual returns on their work over the previous year and their plans for the forthcoming 12 months. The most significant areas of expenditure fall on young people and treatment services, for which DATs provide strategic direction and take necessary spending decisions.

  Our assessment of young people's drugs services indicate that between two thirds and three quarters of young people identified as needing support currently receive that support, but there is concern that many young people are not identified early enough. We have approved a regional programme of work which will highlight and disseminate good practice in the planning and commissioning of young people's drug services.

  In respect of treatment, our assessment of treatment plans and information on future treatment capacity needs and waiting lists, all indicate that there is wide regional variation between access to services and the quality of treatment.

  DATs are now being asked to deliver detailed plans for treatment services by January 2002. The National Treatment Agency (NTA), with Drugs Prevention Advisory Service and national health service partners, will assess allocations of money; the extent to which decisions are based on sound needs assessments; and the quality of services provided. Details of this process are being developed by the NTA.

  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the budgeted amount is for the pooled drug treatment plan allocation for England in the current financial year. [16832]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The budgeted amount for the pooled drug treatment plan allocation for England in the current financial year is £140 million.

  Blasphemy Law
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if it is his intention to abolish the law against blasphemy. [17030]

  Angela Eagle
  There are no immediate plans to abolish the law against blasphemy.

  Religious Hatred and Blasphemy
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent consultations his Department has had with religious leaders in respect of(a) proposals to outlaw the generation of religious hatred and (b) plans to abolish the law on blasphemy. [17031]

  Angela Eagle
  I have not formally consulted leaders of different faiths in regard to proposals to expand the law on incitement to racial hatred to cover religious hatred.

  Internet Access (Children)
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance he issues on the means by which a child's age may be proven when using the internet. [16861]
  822W
  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The Government have not issued such guidance. Proof of age, like proof of identity, can be achieved by using authentication services, such as certified digital signatures. However, the market in these products is not developing quickly and the Government are committed to identifying and removing barriers to the widespread take-up of authentication services by individuals and businesses users.

  In the meantime the Government encourage parental supervision of children's use of the Internet combined with the use of filtering software to prevent children from being exposed to inappropriate internet content. To emphasise this the Government will launch a public awareness campaign on internet safety next month.

  Sodexho
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the decision to award a contract to Sodexho to run two private female prisons. [16800]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 22 November 2001]: No contracts for private prisons have been awarded to Sodexho. On 5 November, the Prison Service announced that UKDS, which is wholly owned by Sodexho Alliance, had been selected as the preferred bidder for a new prison for 450 females to be built as a Public Private Partnership (PPP) at Ashford, Middlesex and due to open in July 2003. UKDS was also announced as joint preferred bidder, with Premier Custodial Group, for a new prison for 480 males and 360 females to be built as a PPP at Peterborough and due to open in April 2004. A decision on the single preferred bidder for Peterborough is anticipated in early December. The award of preferred bidder is taken on the basis of best value for money.

  Sentencing Advisory Panel
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the cost to public funds in 2001–02 of the Sentencing Advisory Panel. [17321]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The cost to public funds of the Sentencing Advisory Panel from 1 April to 31 October 2001 was £103,624. The budget for the remainder of the financial year is £239,736, making a possible total of £343,000 in 2001–02. We cannot, however, predict at this stage what the actual cost will be.

  Referral Order Panels
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the cost to public funds of the pilots for referral order panels. [17322]

  Mr. Denham
  £1.2 million was spent on the referral order pilots in 2000–01. We expect that a similar amount will be spent in 2001–02.

  Communities Against Drugs
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the allocation of funding for Communities Against Drugs is for each of the three years from 2000–01. [17904]
  823W
  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  [holding answer 26 November 2001]: The Communities Against Drugs programme is a three-year programme which commenced in 2001–02. The funding allocated to the programme up until 2003–04 is given in the table.

  £ million

  2001–02

  50

  2002–03

  70

  2003–04

  100

  Total

  220

  Aggravated Possession (Drugs)
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his policy is towards the creation of a new offence of aggravated possession of prohibited drugs. [18365]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The Government have no plans to create such a new offence. Aggravating factors inform the decision by the police on how to proceed with an offence, and will also properly be considered by the courts when sentencing. Aggravated possession is already recognised to some extent by the separate offence of possession with intent to supply a controlled drug.

  Community Development Foundation
  Mr. McCabe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the outcome is of Stage 1 of the quinquennial review of the Community Development Foundation. [19089]

  Mr. Blunkett
  The first part of the latest review has now finished and I have carefully considered the recommendations in line with the terms of guidance for reviewing non-departmental public bodies (NDPB), included in the Government's Modernising Government White Paper.

  Compass Partnership, a firm of independent consultants, conducted the review and after focusing on the context within which the Community Development Foundation (CDF) works, reviewed its management arrangements, surveyed a sample of its external stakeholders and considered the alternative options for CDF. They also considered whether there was a need for the particular functions carried out by CDF as an NDPB to continue. The consultants have recommended that CDF should remain an NDPB, although with a broader remit which reflects the Government's agenda of community involvement, civil renewal and community development, including a number of reforms as to its way of working.

  I am pleased to announce that I have broadly accepted the conclusions of stage 1 of the review, and I have given approval for the second stage of the review to commence. This stage will offer an opportunity to consider in more detail what changes to CDF's relationship with Government and the voluntary and community sector are necessary to achieve the expected outcomes.

  A copy of the full report of stage 1 of the review will be placed in the Library.
  824W
  The senior official responsible for the review is the Director of the Government's Active Community Unit based in the Home Office.

  Asylum Seekers
  Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how NASS(a) monitors and (b) inspects the accommodation into which they place (i) asylum seekers and (ii) refugees; and if he will place the latest inspection report in the Library. [17716]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 23 November 2001]: The National Asylum Support Service (NASS) provides accommodation for asylum seekers. It is not responsible for providing accommodation to those who have been accepted as refugees. The NASS Housing Management Team conducts random inspections of properties throughout the country on a weekly basis. These inspections assess the quality of accommodation provided and highlight any maintenance issues requiring remedial action. The Contractor is required to take action within specified timescales and follow up inspections are undertaken to ensure that repairs have been completed satisfactorily.

  The NASS Housing Management Team has close liaison with contract managers who undertake similar tasks, as well as ensuring that contractual obligations are met.

  Apart from inspections conducted by its own staff NASS also commissions inspections of accommodation by third party consultants.

  I am unable to provide details of inspection reports as these are commercially confidential.

  Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) asylum seekers and (b) refugees placed by NASS in accommodation outside the Greater London area have returned to the Greater London area within the past 12 months. [17715]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 23 November 2001]: The information requested is not available.

  The National Asylum Support Service only supports asylum seekers. Refugees who require support can apply for support from social services.

  Currently information linking the movements of NASS supported asylum seekers within the United Kingdom is not available.

  Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) asylum seekers and (b) refugees have been placed by the NASS in (a) private sector, (b) local authority and (c) housing association accommodation since April 2000, broken down by region. [17724]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 23 November 2001]: Information is not available in the form requested.

  The National Asylum Support Service (NASS) only supports asylum seekers. Refugees who require support can apply for support from the Benefits Agency.

  As at the end of July 2001, 28,8101 asylum seekers including dependants were being supported in NASS accommodation. The regional breakdown is in the table.
  825W

  Region

  Asylum seekers supported in NASS accommodation as at end July 2001 1

  East of England

  1,630

  East Midlands

  200

  Greater London

  680

  North East

  4,240

  North West

  6,190

  Northern Ireland

  50

  Scotland

  3,890

  South Central

  390

  South West

  540

  Wales

  370

  West Midlands

  4,410

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  6,230

  1 All figures are rounded to the nearest 10 and exclude cases that have had their support ceased

  Information on the type of accommodation in which asylum seekers are housed is currently not available.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Benefits Agency
  Hywel Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what training is given to Benefits Agency staff to deal with aggressive claimants. [11114]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  This is a matter for Alexis Cleveland, the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Alexis Cleveland to Hywel Williams, dated 26 November 2001:
  The Secretary of State for the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking what training is given to Benefits Agency (BA) staff to deal with aggressive claimants.
  The BA has many procedures in place to support staff in their efforts to provide the required levels of service whilst safeguarding their own safety and preserving the security of the benefits systems. Each BA Specific training event within the Customer Service Portfolio delivered by DWP Training Services has been designed to underpin these important principles.
  To deal with aggressive claimants, DWP Training Services deliver an event called, "Interviewing the Public (Including Potentially Violent People)". This event is mandatory for all new and job change staff who have fact to face contact with the public and is designed to provide staff with awareness and skills to handle potentially violent situations in a professional and safe manner.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will explain the delay by the Child Support Agency in dealing with the case of Ms Elaine Lanchbury, a constituent. [12832]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mr. Doug Smith. He will write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Doug Smith to Mr. Huw Edwards, dated 26 November 2001:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions about your constituent Mrs. Elaine Lanchbury and the way the Child Support Agency has handled her case.
  826W
  As individual cases are a confidential matter, I have written to you separately.

  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement about the time taken to award contracts by the Child Support Agency for undertaking bailiff action. [12833]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mr. Doug Smith. He will write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Doug Smith to Mr. Huw Edwards, dated 26 November 2001:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions asking if he will make a statement about the delay in awarding contracts by the Child Support Agency for undertaking bailiff action.
  Our previous contract came to an end on the 1 April 2001.
  I was determined that the new contract would facilitate better support for my staff in seeking to enforce payment of monies legally due. I was therefore anxious that the team responsible visited all the bailiffs that were successful at the tender stage. This led to a slight delay in the award of contracts.
  New contracts were awarded to three Bailiff Companies on the 1 May 2001.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Benefits Agency (Scottish Parliamentary Liaison Unit)
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) how many cases have been referred by Members of the Scottish Parliament to the Scottish Parliamentary Liaison Unit of the Benefits Agency(a) directly and (b) indirectly; [18228]

  (2) how many people are employed by the Scottish Parliamentary Liaison Unit of the UK Benefits Agency; and at what cost; [18229]

  (3) how many Benefits Agency issues received by the Scottish Parliamentary Liaison Unit have been resolved by the Scottish Parliamentary Liaison Unit. [18230]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  This is a matter for Alexis Cleveland, Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Alexis Cleveland to Angus Robertson, dated 26 November 2001:
  The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has asked me to respond to your recent Parliamentary Questions asking how many cases have been referred by Members of the Scottish Parliament to the Scottish Parliamentary Liaison Unit of the Benefits Agency (a) directly and (b) indirectly, how many people are employed by the Scottish parliamentary Liaison Unit of the UK Benefits Agency; and at what cost so far. Also, how many Benefits Agency issues received by the Scottish Parliamentary Liaison Unit have been resolved by the Scottish Parliamentary Liaison Unit.
  The Benefits Agency Scottish Parliamentary Relations Unit (SPRU) deals with all parliamentary correspondence of an operational nature from MPs, MSPs and MEPs relating to constituents in Scotland.
  There are seven members of staff currently employed in SPRU. The unit was set up in August 1999 and has an average annual salary cost of £217,000.
  Information on the number of draft replies to letters from MPs, which were originally referred to the MP by a Member of the Scottish Parliament, is not available and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost. SPRU has drafted 29 replies to letters directly from Members of the Scottish Parliament since 1 October 2000.

  827W
  SPRU received 447 items of correspondence between 1 April 2001 and 31 October 2001. There were 50 items outstanding prior to this. Of the total 497 outstanding, 458 draft replies were completed in this period, and 39 items remained outstanding on 1 November 2001.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will give updated quarterly figures on new claims for incapacity benefit and the total case load. [18539]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Incapacity benefit caseload figures are contained in the Incapacity Benefit Quarterly Summary Statistics (May 2001), a copy of which is in the Library. The Incapacity Benefit Quarterly Summary Statistics (August 2001) will be published on 13 December 2001.

  Note: New claims to Incapacity Benefit may not always result in an award of benefit.

  Source: Central Data Unit 100 per cent. count of all new claims.

  New Deal (Copeland)
  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the impact of the New Deal for Young People in the Borough of Copeland in the year to September, giving the(a) number participating, (b) investment involved and (c) number who moved on to full-time employment. [17984]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The available information is in the table.

  Copeland constituency

  Month

  Number of new deal for young people participants in the borough of Copeland

  August 2000

  313

  September 2000

  295

  October 2000

  288

  November 2000

  275

  December 2000

  261

  January 2001

  257

  February 2001

  263

  March 2001

  268

  April 2001

  266

  May 2001

  266

  June 2001

  264

  July 2001

  259

  August 2001

  233

  Notes:

  Figures are for the end of each month and are the latest available. The figures are not cumulative.

  Estimates of the cost of the programme are not available at constituency level.

  The New Deal for Young People helped 261 people in Copeland move into work in the year up to the end of August 2001.

  Source:

  New Deal Evaluation Database.

  Sickness-Related Benefits
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what percentage of men of working age were claiming sickness-related benefits by constituency in(a) 1996, (b) 1997, (c) 1998, (d) 1990, (e) 2000 and (f) 2001. [17395]
  828W
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  A copy of the available information has been placed in the Library.

  Departmental Advertising
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the final cost of each of his Department's advertising campaigns was in 2000–01, broken down into(a) advertising media and production and (b) other costs. [7899]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [pursuant to the reply, 29 October 2001, c. 525W]: The information is in the table:

  £

  Advertising and media

  Other costs

  Targeting benefit fraud

  5,747,000

  402,252

  National Benefit Fraud Hotline advertising

  425,178

  —

  Minimum Income Guarantee

  3,365,000

  1176,000

  Inherited SERPS

  340,000

  345,000

  Winter Fuel Payments

  616,000

  294,000

  Pensions Education2

  35,232,000

  1,297,000

  Bereavement Benefits

  155,000

  90,000

  New Deal for Young People

  558,201

  951,728

  New Deal 50+

  2,175,367

  63,793

  New Deal Partners

  99,445

  67,310

  Action Teams for Jobs

  58,504

  440

  New Deal for Disabled People

  31,372

  240,387

  New Deal for Lone Parents

  2,292,000

  295,000

  1 This includes £30,985 customer research into a new MIG claim form which straddled two financial years.

  2 In addition to the total of £6,529,062 (which was rounded to £6,530,000) £103,370 was spent on completing our previous pensions education activity (with a Monopoly theme) that preceded the new "Working Dogs" campaign, as well as some developmental work that was undertaken before the new working Dogs Campaign was launched.

  3 The overall Pensions Education marketing budget figure remains unchanged at £6,529,062 (which was rounded to £6,530,000). Within this total, the advertising media and production cost given previously has changed from £5,212,000 to £5,232,000. This takes account of some photography costs that were previously included as part of "other costs", but can be directly attributed to advertising.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, pursuant to his answers of 29 October 2001,Official Report, column 525W, on departmental advertising and 31 October 2001, Official Report, column 749W, on the Disability Discrimination Act, for what reason the 'What Have You Got to Offer?' advertising campaign was not included in the table of departmental advertising campaigns for 2000–01. [15176]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  I refer to the pursuant answer given to the hon. Member today.

  I regret that due to an oversight the information was omitted from the previous answer.

HEALTH

  Written Consultations
  Alistair Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for what reason the consultation period for the discussion document "Involving Patients and the Public in Healthcare", was six weeks; what consideration was given
  829W
  to the Cabinet Office code of conduct on written consultations relating to minimum standard periods; and if he will make a statement. [13666]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 8 November 2001]: Much of the content of "Involving Patients and the Public in Healthcare" had been the subject of full public debate both in the House and more widely for a number of months, not least during the passage of the Health and Social Care Act 2001. The purpose of the listening exercise was to seek the views of a wide range of stakeholders about how structures for patient and public involvement should operate in practice.

  Although the period given for discussion was shortened, the listening exercise for the discussion document met the spirit and principles of the Cabinet Office guidance in every other respect.

  We have received around 1,000 written responses to the listening exercise from members of the public, community health councils, National Health Service bodies, the voluntary sector and local government. In addition we have also commissioned a research company to conduct some research with people from socially excluded groups about their views on the proposed new structures.

  We made our response available on 16 November—a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Poultry Feed
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of poultry feed(a) deliveries and (b) movement in the United Kingdom was traceable in (i) 1998, (ii) 1999, (iii) 2000 and (iv) 2001; and if he will make a statement. [17101]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 23 November 2001]: Figures on the traceability of deliveries and movement of animal feed in the form requested are not recorded. However, various European Commission measures on the labelling and composition of animal feed, implemented in the United Kingdom over the last few years, assist with traceability by requiring extensive labelling and for documentary records to be kept. Additionally, the vast majority of animal feed manufacturers in the United Kingdom operate under assurance schemes which cover manufacture, packaging, storage and supply and require records to be kept to permit traceability.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will provide a substantive answer to PQ No. 11888 on scanners in acute hospitals in the north west region. [18369]

  Jacqui Smith
  A reply was sent to the right hon. Member on 26 November.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Oldest Legislation
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will list the 10 oldest pieces of legislation that are in force. [18367]
  830W
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The 10 oldest pieces of legislation which were either wholly or partly in force as at 31 December 2000 are as listed.

  1226 (10 Hen. 3) Stat. Doc. [English Laws and Customs]1

  1267 (52 Hen. 3) Stat. Marlb. c.1 Distress

  1267 (52 Hen.3) Stat. Marlb. c.4 [Distress]

  1267 (52 Hen.3) Stat. Marlb. c.15 [Distress]

  1267 (52 Hen.3) Stat. Marlb. c.23 [Waste]

  1275 (3 Edw.1) Stat. Westm. prim. c. 5 [Freedom of Election]

  1275 (3 Edw.1) Stat. Westm. prim. c. 50 [Saving for the Crown]

  1285 (13 Edw.1) Stat. Westm.sec. c. 1 [Estates tail]

  1285 (13 Edw.1) Stat. Westm.sec. c. 46 [Commons]

  1290 (18 Edw.1) Stat. d'ni R. de t'ris, &c c. 1 [Restraint of subinfeudation]

  1 Irish Statute

  Gravesend County Court
  Mr. Pond
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many(a) liquidated and (b) unliquidated default summonses were issued by Gravesend county court in (i) 1999, (ii) 2000 and (iii) 2001. [18428]

  Mr. Wills
  Details concerning the identity of the issuer of a default claim are not collected centrally. Such information is held within the individual court records and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Pond
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many default summonses were issued by Gravesend county court(a) between 1 October 1998 and 31 March 1999, (b) between 1 April and 30 September 1999, (c) between 1 October 1999 and 31 March 2000, (d) between 1 April and 30 September 2000, (e) between 1 October 2000 and 31 March 2001, (f) between 1 April and 30 September 2001 and (g) since 1 October 2001. [18427]

  Mr. Wills
  Figures showing the number of default claims issued at Gravesend county court during the periods specified above are set out in the table.

  Default claims issued in Gravesend county court

  Default claims issued

  1 October 1998 to 31 March 1999

  623

  1 April 1999 to 30 September 1999

  452

  1 October 1999 to 31 March 2000

  414

  1 April 2000 to 30 September 2000

  450

  1 October 2000 to 31 March 2001

  409

  1 April 2001 to 30 September 2001

  437

  1—31 October 2001

  98

  Mr. Pond
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many cases were dealt with by Gravesend county court in each six month period beginning from January 1999. [18429]

  Mr. Wills
  Figures indicating how many small claims hearings were held at Gravesend county court during the specified periods are provided in the table.
  831W

  Small claims hearings held at Gravesend county court

  Small claims hearings

  January to June 1999

  46

  July to December 1999

  34

  January to June 2000

  33

  July to December 2000

  35

  January to June 2001

  17

  July to October 2001

  21

  Regulatory Impact Assessments
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what the gross costs were of the Regulatory Impact Assessment for the(a) Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2001, (b) Land Registration Bill and (c) Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill. [17689]

  Mr. Wills
  These costs are shown in the published regulatory impact assessments which are in the House Libraries.

  Civil Claims
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what recent representations she has received on the inability of people to pursue civil claims because of the lack of public funding for the service; and if he will make a statement. [14671]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Neither the Department nor the Legal Services Commission is aware of any case, within the scope of the scheme, where an applicant has passed the statutory tests of means and merits but has been unable to get help because funds are not available.

  Government Information
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department on how many occasions the conclusions of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration on a question of disclosure of information under the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information have not been accepted by the Government in the last 10 years. [16866]

  Mr. Wills
  One.

  Fair Trade
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the value of fairly traded(a) tea and (b) coffee used in his Department in each of the last five years. [17558]

  Mr. Wills
  We do not specify to our catering contractors in contractual terms what supplies must be purchased and contractors are required to provide a service which represents good value for money. We have been able to establish, however, that in the Court Service at least half of the catering contractors supply fairly traded tea and coffee although this is not always branded as such. We are unable to quantify the value.

  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what fairly traded products, other than tea and coffee, have been purchased by his Department in each of the last five years; and what was their value. [17559]
  832W
  Mr. Wills
  It has not been possible to identify the purchase of any fairly traded products, other than tea or coffee, either directly or indirectly through our third party suppliers, in the last five years. However, in accordance with the policy across Government, we will take every opportunity to encourage the use of Fair Trade products through our procurement activities and in particular during the course of the review of the arrangements for contracted catering services in the Court Service that is planned to take place during the next 12 months.

  Jury Service
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many people were(a) called for jury service and (b) served on juries in the most recent year for which figures are available. [17145]

  Mr. Wills
  For the period January to December this year, 579,033 summonses for jury service were issued, to supply around 187,000 potential jurors to the courts. There are no figures available on how many people actually served on juries. However, a recent Home Office research project confirmed that, in a sample of 50,000 people summoned for jury service in June and July 1999, only one-third was available to attend. About one-third of these had their service deferred until a later date. Of the remaining two-thirds, 13 per cent. were ineligible, disqualified or excused as of right, 38 per cent. were excused and 15 per cent. either failed to attend on the day or their summonses were returned as "undelivered".

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (1) what proportion of those named day parliamentary written questions to her 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 parliamentary days, (d) within 15 parliamentary days and (e) over 15 parliamentary days after the holding answer was issued; [13320]

  (2) how many named day parliamentary written questions were tabled to her Department between 15 October and 5 November; and what proportion of these have received holding answers. [13301]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  [holding answer 16 November 2001]: According to departmental records, 24 named day written questions were tabled to the Lord Chancellor's Department during the relevant period. Of these, 12 received holding answers. Of the 12 which received holding answers, six received a substantive answer within three parliamentary days, five received a substantive answer within seven parliamentary days and one received a substantive answer within 10 parliamentary days. None received a substantive answer beyond 10 parliamentary days from the holding answer.

  Lay Magistracy
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will state the(a) cost in

  833W
  2001–02, (b) objectives and (c) components of the national strategy to raise the profile of the lay magistracy and encourage recruitment from all parts of the community. [15031]

  Mr. Wills
  The proposals for the national strategy are being developed. My noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor hopes to be able to announce the details of the strategy early next year and it is not anticipated that there will be any costs incurred during 2001–02.

  The objectives of the strategy will include: to raise the profile of the magistracy; to encourage more people to apply to be magistrates, from as wide a cross-section of the community as possible: and also to make employers understand the benefits to them, in terms of transferable skills, of releasing workers to be magistrates.

  Public Service Agreements
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on the public service agreement target for increasing public confidence in the fairness of the criminal justice system. [17063]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The Government have a comprehensive programme to improve the criminal justice system and thereby promote confidence. It will measure the confidence of the public generally in the following areas: the treatment of victims and witnesses; efficiency; speed and the treatment of defendants. We will also be measuring the confidence of ethnic minorities alone in these areas. Public confidence in the system also depends on the public's understanding of the system. Initiatives are under way to improve understanding and to demystify the system.

  Magistrates (Huntingdon)
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many people applied to become magistrates in Huntingdon in each year from 1996; and how many were women. [17478]

  Mr. Wills
  The information sought is provided in the table.

  Breakdown of applications to the Hungtingdonshire bench

  Number

  Year

  Men

  Women

  Total

  1996

  1

  3

  4

  1997

  15

  18

  33

  1998

  5

  2

  7

  1999

  13

  15

  28

  2000

  9

  5

  14

  2001

  1

  7

  8

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Parliamentary Ombudsman
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his responsibilities in respect of the Parliamentary Ombudsman. [17731]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Parliamentary Commission for Administration is an Officer of the House of Commons, appointed by Her Majesty the Queen, and independent of Government. He reports to Parliament.

  As Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, I have responsibility for taking forward the Government's commitment to reform the Parliamentary Ombudsman and the other existing public sector ombudsmen moving towards a new unified and flexible ombudsman body; and for other general issues relating to the Parliamentary Ombudsman.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  GM Foodstuffs
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what percentage of(a) pigmeat, (b) sheepmeat and (c) beef products consumed in the UK was from animals reared on foodstuffs containing genetically modified ingredients in the last 12 months. [8290]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 18 October 2001]: The Government do not keep statistics on meat and meat products consumed in the UK from animals reared on feed containing GM ingredients.

  Compensation paid for animals culled in foot and mouth epidemic

  Total amount paid (£)

  Total number of payments

  Highest payment (£)

  Lowest payment (£)

  Bedfordshire

  1—

  1

  1—

  1—

  Berkshire

  358,516.80

  5

  339,205.00

  176.80

  Buckinghamshire

  1—

  1

  1—

  1—

  Cleveland

  1,265,180.86

  25

  819,630.00

  59.40

  Cambridgeshire

  1—

  1

  1—

  1—

  Cheshire

  3,479,640.04

  64

  397,811.00

  110.00

  Cornwall

  2,355,459.44

  45

  857,377.80

  25.00

  Cumbria

  413,101,243.16

  4,314

  3,612,788.74

  10.00

  Derbyshire

  1,563,537.55

  40

  481,150.00

  120.80

  Devon

  99,721,600.80

  1,309

  3,271,847.50

  9.00

  Dorset

  0.00

  0

  0.00

  0.00

  Durham

  38,622,864.54

  614

  930,044.00

  16.00

  Essex

  1,164,517.88

  23

  491,380.72

  60.00

  Gloucestershire

  18,621,079.14

  505

  728,090.00

  4.71

  Hampshire

  318,460.98

  4

  189,336.00

  88.13

  Isle of Wight

  1—

  1

  1—

  1—

  Hereford and Worcester

  29,467,357.48

  519

  1,193,186.00

  6.00

  Hertfordshire

  0.00

  0

  0.00

  0.00

  Kent

  1,422,856.36

  17

  347,220.00

  1,882.00

  Lancashire

  44,343,985.76

  343

  1,218,555.00

  10.00

  Leicestershire

  981,986.77

  38

  258,124.80

  8.80

  Lincolnshire

  298,858.50

  2

  1—

  1—

  Merseyside

  0.00

  0

  0.00

  0.00

  Greater London

  265,868.80

  6

  93,550.00

  56.00

  Norfolk

  0.00

  0

  0.00

  0.00

  Northamptonshire

  428,455.70

  12

  197,163.00

  350.00

  Tyne and Wear

  704,300.20

  28

  241,467.00

  180.00

  Northumberland

  45,153,557.05

  529

  1,337,600.00

  35.00

  Nottinghamshire

  312,483.00

  10

  115,095.00

  150.00

  Oxfordshire

  79,651.36

  4

  46,101.50

  135.00

  Avon

  2,309,301.98

  32

  592,670.00

  27.00

  Shropshire

  10,667,962.15

  174

  748,201.60

  11.98

  Somerset

  4,143,804.89

  87

  645,435.00

  31.50

  Stafford

  7,459,392.92

  190

  783,310.00

  35.00

  Suffolk

  207,840.50

  3

  157,574.50

  14,965.00

  Scilly Isles

  0.00

  0

  0.00

  0.00

  Surrey

  156,602.30

  6

  81,038.00

  9.80

  East Sussex

  137,770.00

  3

  64,225.00

  27,570.00

  West Sussex

  1—

  1

  1—

  1—

  Warwickshire

  1,184,781.31

  21

  695,571.00

  81.00

  Greater Manchester

  12,555.50

  2

  1—

  1—

  Wiltshire

  333,946.83

  26

  138,086.47

  56.16

  West Midlands

  234,076.50

  5

  148,445.00

  130.00

  South Yorkshire

  18,124.00

  2

  1—

  1—

  West Yorkshire

  3,754,328.57

  33

  738,685.00

  764.00

  North Yorkshire

  123,412,102.97

  1,053

  2,190,020.00

  23.00

  Humberside

  568,286.00

  3

  235,285.00

  109,901.00

  Powys

  35,819,601.03

  555

  1,329,950.00

  40.00

  West Wales

  380,071.45

  12

  74,258.00

  2,672.00

  North Wales

  7,107,675.17

  302

  645,347.40

  105.00

  South Glamorgan

  253,529.40

  3

  248,268.84

  210.56

  Foot and Mouth
  Paddy Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list by county(a) the total amount, (b) the number of individual payments and (c) the highest and lowest payments made to farmers in respect of foot and mouth disease. [7653]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 15 October 2001]: The figures requested are shown in the table. The information on the counties relates to the address to which compensation has been paid; it may not be the address of the premises where the stock was culled.
  837W

  Compensation paid for animals culled in foot and mouth epidemic

  Total amount paid (£)

  Total number of payments

  Highest payment (£)

  Lowest payment (£)

  Mid Glamorgan

  776,961.50

  31

  221,770.00

  15.00

  West Glamorgan

  963,177.00

  7

  318,739.00

  9,380.00

  Gwent

  10,737,131.53

  178

  705,029.75

  50.00

  Aberdeenshire

  1—

  1

  1—

  1—

  Angus

  0.00

  0

  0.00

  0.00

  Argyll

  1—

  1

  1—

  1—

  Ayrshire

  647,526.36

  19

  234,885.00

  550.00

  Banffshire

  0.00

  0

  0.00

  0.00

  Berkwickshire

  3,895,104.42

  50

  1,045,017.00

  90.00

  Arran/Bute

  0.00

  0

  0.00

  0.00

  Caithness

  2,696.00

  2

  1—

  1—

  Clackmannan

  0.00

  0

  0.00

  0.00

  Dumfries

  94,444,874.28

  1,045

  4,677,100.00

  22.00

  Dunbarton

  0.00

  0

  0.00

  0.00

  East Lothian

  37,158.00

  2

  1—

  1—

  Dundee and Fife

  1,340.40

  2

  1—

  1—

  Inverness

  29,889.00

  3

  17,027.00

  1,946.00

  Kincardineshire

  0.00

  0

  0.00

  0.00

  Kinross

  28,217.00

  2

  1—

  1—

  Galloway

  32,990,979.13

  335

  1,306,280.00

  72.00

  Lanarkshire

  783,007.96

  10

  283,600.00

  1,860.96

  Mid Lothian

  1—

  1

  1—

  1—

  Moray

  5,268.00

  2

  1—

  1—

  Nairn

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Orkney

  0.00

  0

  0.00

  0.00

  Peebles

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Perth

  1—

  1

  1—

  1—

  Renfrewshire

  21,954.00

  2

  1—

  1—

  Western isles

  163,237.00

  4

  133,604.00

  150.00

  Roxburghshire

  15,181,075.21

  130

  3,235,910.00

  75.00

  Selkirkshire

  643,001.65

  8

  229,860.00

  2,115.00

  Shetland

  0.00

  0

  0.00

  0.00

  Stirlingshire

  177,577.00

  3

  96,777.00

  13,730.00

  Sutherland

  570,867.00

  5

  440,590.00

  25.00

  West Lothian

  40,765.69

  3

  26,075.00

  1,685.69

  Wigtownshire

  28,859,555.75

  236

  2,893,270.00

  28.00

  1 Payment details have been omitted where the number of payments is so small that they could lead to the identification of individual payments

  Mr. Roger Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in how many infected premises in Powys in the foot and mouth outbreak samples from animals diagnosed as having foot and mouth disease were taken and tested in a laboratory for foot and mouth disease virus or antibodies; how many of those samples proved positive; and, where samples were not taken, what were the reasons for samples not being collected. [12759]

  Mr. Morley
  There have been 70 foot and mouth (FMD) infected premises recorded in Powys. Of the 63 premises where samples were taken for laboratory testing, 44 were considered positive for FMD. In the early stages of the outbreak laboratory resources were limited. In cases where clear clinical signs of MID were observed and where disease had already been confirmed in the locality, it is possible that samples were not requested.

  Note: A negative laboratory result does not mean that infection was absent. Each case is confirmed on the basis of a clinical diagnosis of FMD by the vet on farm, supported by convincing clinical evidence.

  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many compensation payments in the foot and mouth epidemic were(a) over £1 million, (b) between £500,000 and £1 million, (c) between £250,000 and £500,000 and (d) between £100,000 and £250,000. [15583]
  838W
  Mr. Morley
  As of 20 November, the following payments have been made:

  (a) 41 payments over £1 million;

  (b) 278 payments between £500,000 and £1 million;

  (c) 832 payments between £250,000 and £500,000; and

  (d) 1,633 payments between £100,000 and £250,000.

  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many cases of fraudulent claims have been proven against farmers during the outbreak of foot and mouth disease. [15366]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 16 November 2001]: So far as claims made to the Department are concerned, a number are under investigation but none has so far been proven.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list by county the number of cases of resistance by farmers to culling during the foot and mouth outbreak which led directly to a spread of the virus among livestock. [15036]

  Mr. Morley
  This information is not available. What is clear is that in some cases the disputes led to delays which in turn may have led to further spread of the disease. I refer to the comments made by my right hon.
  839W
  Friend the Secretary of State during the Second Reading debate on the Animal Health Bill on 12 November 2001, Official Report, columns 577–78.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will publish the findings on the source of the outbreak of foot and mouth disease in the United Kingdom. [16717]

  Mr. Morley
  A report by the Chief Veterinary Officer will be published. This will be submitted to the independent inquiry, headed by Dr. Anderson, which is looking into the 'lessons to be learned' aspect of the outbreak. It will then be considered as part of the inquiry's overall work. The recommendations of the inquiry are expected to be published during summer 2002.

  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent progress her Department has made with the disposal of carcases infected with foot and mouth disease. [18021]

  Mr. Morley
  There have been no outbreaks of foot and mouth disease since 30 September so there have been no infected carcases since then for disposal.

  Freedom of Information Act
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs 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. [14771]

  Mr. Morley
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Wills) on 21 November 2001,Official Report, column 366W.

  The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has established a working group to prepare for the implementation of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. So far the group has met three times, on 21 August 2001, 2 October 2001 and 13 November 2001.

  Low Emission Fuels
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she last met representatives of the distribution industry to discuss the use of low emission fuels. [15524]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 16 November 2001]: My colleagues the Secretaries of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and for Trade and Industry, as well as their respective Ministers, are in regular contact with representatives of the oil and motor industries to discuss the production, distribution and promotion of low emission fuels. My Department also has a keen interest in this area, because of the environmental benefits that cleaner fuels can offer. My ministerial colleagues and I are always prepared, in principle, to meet with representatives from relevant industries to discuss ways of reducing harmful emissions.

  Landfill Directive
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on her plans for meeting the requirements of the Landfill Directive; and if she will make a statement [15497]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 16 November 2001]: Consultation on a set of draft regulations to implement the technical and regulatory requirements of the Landfill Directive in England and Wales closed on 26 October 2001. The Government will be laying regulations before Parliament shortly.

  We have also consulted on a tradeable landfill permit scheme to implement the targets in Article 5 of the directive for the diversion of biodegradable municipal waste from landfill and will bring forward primary legislation to introduce such a scheme as soon as parliamentary time allows.

  Belfast City Council
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will meet representatives of Belfast city council to discuss sustainable development and procurement policies. [15527]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 16 November 2001]: Government procurement has considerable potential to support sustainable development goals. A high level cross-Government group is being set up to consider how to generate greater action across Government and make recommendations to Ministers. Progress by Belfast city council, and others in the private and public sector in utilising procurement to support sustainable development goals will no doubt be of interest to this group.

  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of Belfast city council's procurement and recycling policy. [16748]

  Mr. Meacher
  None. This is a devolved matter for the Northern Ireland Assembly.

  Green Ministers
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she has met Green Ministers from other Government Departments since May. [15517]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 16 November 2001]: My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment, in his role as chairman of ENV(G)—the ministerial sub-committee of Green Ministers—has met Green Ministers from other Departments once since May. The first meeting of ENV(G) took place on 25 October 2001. I have not met Ministers from other Departments specifically in their capacity as Green Ministers.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what(a) plans and (b) targets she has agreed with Green Ministers for each of the next three years. [15518]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 16 November 2001]: The Green Ministers' work programme was set out in "Greening Government: the second annual report of

  841W
  the Green Ministers Committee" published in November 2000. This report included a target for all Departments to contribute towards the Government estate target of a 1 per cent. per annum on-going reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from buildings.

  Since publication of the report, Green Ministers have agreed cross-government targets for water usage and renewable energy as follows:

  For offices in metered buildings where the Department is sole occupier or is billed the water services charges; all Departments should achieve a maximum level of water consumption equivalent to 11 cubic metres per person (fulltime equivalent staff) by 31 March 2002, and a further 30 per cent. reduction over the next two years, achieving a level of 7.7 cubic metres by 31 March 2004.

  All Departments will ensure that, by 31 March 2003, at least 5 per cent. of their electricity comes from renewable sources that are exempt from the climate change levy, or from self-generation, provided this does not entail excessive cost. This will rise to at least 10 per cent. supply from such sources by 31 March 2008, but will be reviewed after 31 March 2003 to take account of market conditions following the introduction of the renewables obligation. The review of 2003 will include consideration of increasing or bringing forward the target.

  Further plans for Green Ministers are set out in the third annual report on greening government published today.

  Swine Fever
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what standard operating procedures and contingency plans have been established by her Department based upon the experiences of the outbreak of swine fever in 2000. [15369]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 16 November 2001]: The amendment of operational instructions and contingency plans following the outbreak of swine fever in 2000 was interrupted by the outbreak of FMD in 2001. The action following both outbreaks will now be carried forward in parallel.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will publish her Department's contingency plan for combating future outbreaks of(a) foot and mouth disease and (b) swine fever. [16037]

  Mr. Morley
  The EU agreed foot and mouth contingency plan (updated in July 2000) was placed in the Library of the House in May 2001. It has also been published on the DEFRA website at: http://defraweb/ animalh/diseases/controlkontingency/index.htm.

  A copy of the classical swine fever contingency plan (most recently updated in September 2001) has also been placed in the Library of the House. The swine fever contingency plan has not been published on the website but it is very similar to the foot and mouth disease plan. We will publish it on the newly developed "Disease surveillance and Control" area of the DEFRA website soon.

  British Beef
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent discussions she has had with her French counterpart on the imposition of a ban on the import of British beef into France during November; if she intends to raise the matter at the forthcoming Council of European Ministers meeting; and if she will make a statement. [16033]

  Mr. Morley
  The UK is not directly affected by action taken by the French trade in respect of beef imports from other member states, since France still refuses to accept imports of British beef under the Date Based Export Scheme. The matter is now before the European Court of Justice, which is expected to rule on it shortly. At the meeting of the Agriculture Council on 20 November the European Commission reported that it was examining the compatibility with EU law of the action by the French trade.

  BSE
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what targets she has set to remove the backlog of cattle due for slaughter under the over-30-month-scheme. [16393]

  Mr. Morley
  Waiting times for over-30-month scheme abattoirs vary across the country. Some are shorter than at this time in previous years. Now that the OTMS abattoirs are fully operational again farmers should not have to wait more than two to four weeks. At present no special measures are required. The Rural Payments Agency will continue to monitor waiting times and optimise slaughter capacity.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many incidences of BSE there have been in the last 12 months in(a) the United Kingdom, (b) France and (c) Germany. [16718]

  Mr. Morley
  In the last 12 months there have been 1,138 cases of BSE in the United Kingdom, 145 in France and 129 in Germany. The figures for France and Germany are based on reports by the Commission. All the figures cover the period between 31 October 2000 and 31 October 2001.

  Flood Defences
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has for flood protection in the Newark area. [16259]

  Mr. Morley
  Operational responsibility for flood alleviation measures rests with the local operating authorities, namely the Environment Agency, Internal Drainage Boards and local councils. DEFRA provides grant for flood defence capital works, and associated studies, which meet essential technical, economic and environmental criteria and achieve an appropriate priority score.

  I understand that the Environment Agency is considering the feasibility of capital works in the Brewers Wharf area of Newark, but has yet to make plans for the timing of any such works. The Agency will be developing a strategy for the River Trent within the next 12 to 18 months. The completed strategy will inform the

  843W
  agency's plans for flood management between Stoke on Trent and Newark. A similar strategy will be prepared for the tidal reach of the river in due course.

  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment the Government have made of flood defence preparations for those properties most at risk in the United Kingdom; and if she will make a statement. [17278]

  Mr. Morley
  Flood defence is a fully devolved function and my Department has policy responsibility only for England.

  Defences that were damaged in last year's floods have been repaired and reinstated so that communities are now at least as well defended as, and often better than, they were before the flooding. Work on long-term improvement to flood defences is under way using the increased funding that DEFRA has made available to the flood and coastal defence operating authorities, including provision for accelerating river flood defence works. Tried and tested arrangements remain in place for responding to flooding emergencies. The effectiveness of these arrangements were demonstrated by the response to last year's flooding which were underpinned by emergency exercises carried out in previous months, the requirement for which was contained in this Department's high level targets for flood and coastal defence.

  My Department has commissioned independent research on those assets at risk from flooding and coastal erosion. The outcome was included in a report on "National assessment of assets at risk from Flooding and Coastal Erosion" in September. One output was a set of maps showing current flood defence standards. This report will inform the assessment by operating authorities of local flood risk.

  Another of our high level targets requires operating authorities to carry out inspections of flood and coastal defences; the Environment Agency is required to collect these assessments into a national report which assesses flood risk. I will publish this report when complete.

  My Department, in partnership with the Environment Agency, is establishing a national flood and coastal defence database which will contain information on defences and assets at risk of flooding and coastal erosion. The database will start to become operational in spring 2002 but full operability depends on completion of information gathering, validation and electronic recording for the vast number of flood and coastal defences.

  Energy Efficiency (Government Departments)
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans there are to improve the energy efficiency of Government Departments. [16745]

  Mr. Meacher
  I am replying as the Department has overall responsibility for reporting on the energy efficiency of the Government estate.

  At the end of our 10-year campaign to improve energy consumption by 20 per cent., last year we set a target of reducing our CO2 emissions by 1 per cent. against 1999–2000 levels. We will report on our first year's performance against this next year. We are also developing new realistic but challenging targets for
  844W
  reducing our energy consumption. These will be based on an assessment of the estate's performance against national standards, which will be available next year.

  I expect to make an announcement about the estate's energy efficiency performance over the past decade shortly.

  HFCs (Government Buildings)
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much money has been spent on HFC driven machinery in Government buildings in each of the last three years. [16739]

  Mr. Morley
  No central record is kept of plant and equipment installed in the Department. The Department is, though, well aware that in October 2000 regulations came into force which confirmed the total ban on the use of CFCs (Chloro Fluoro Carbons) and introduced a ban on HCFCs (Hydro Chloro Fluoro Carbons) in new equipment from 1 January 2001. New mediums have been introduced including HFCs (Hydro Fluoro Carbons). We modify our plant to accept this new medium when major maintenance work is undertaken or at other appropriate points in their life cycles. Our facility manager and design consultants are well aware of the regulations and specify new equipment accordingly.

  Combined Heat and Power Strategy
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the consultation on the combined heat and power strategy will be completed; and when the final combined heat and power strategy will be(a) published and (b) implemented; and if she will make a statement. [16790]

  Mr. Meacher
  We will be issuing a draft Government strategy for consultation around the turn of the year. The statutory consultation will run for the full 12-week period with the final CHP strategy document to be published soon after that. A timetable for implementation of the key measures will be set out in the strategy subject to consultation.

  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on Government plans to encourage the use of combined heat and power. [16738]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Department is developing, in close collaboration with DTI and other Departments, a draft CHP strategy, which will set out the measures needed to achieve the CHP target of at least 10,000 mega watts of Good Quality CHP by 2010. We aim to issue the strategy for consultation around the turn of the year.

  Animal Welfare
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many letters she has received in 2001 on animal welfare from residents of the Buckingham constituency. [16907]

  Mr. Morley
  There are no statistics available on the amount of letters received by the Secretary of State from members of the public on a constituency basis. However, this Department has received 26 letters about animal welfare from residents of Buckinghamshire.

  Farm Visits
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to visit the Buckingham constituency to meet farmers. [16901]

  Margaret Beckett
  I have no immediate plans to visit the hon. Member's constituency.

  Meat Imports
  Alistair Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will estimate the amount of illegal meat imports which entered the UK in each of the last three years. [16948]

  Mr. Morley
  We have no reliable estimate of the amount of meat illegally imported into the UK.

  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what her estimate is of the tonnage of meat that was imported into the UK(a) legally and (b) illegally in each of the last three years. [16889]

  Mr. Morley
  The table sets out the tonnage of all meat legally imported into the UK in the last three years for which figures are available. We have no reliable estimate of the amount of meat illegally imported.

  UK imports of meat and meat products (1999–20001)

  Year

  Tonnes

  1999

  1,298,457

  2000

  1,444,371

  20011

  976,771

  1 EU data: January to August, Non-EU data: January to September

  Source:

  HM Customs and Excise

  Agricultural Wages Board
  Hugh Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to reform the agricultural wages board. [16836]

  Mr. Morley
  Following a quinquennial review of the board's operation, the Government announced on 20 September 2000 their intention to keep the Agricultural Wages Board for a further five years. The announcement also confirmed that the Government would be considering detailed changes to modernise aspects of the board's operation.

  Consideration is now being given to the use of a Regulatory Reform Order to streamline and modernise the regulatory framework under which the board operates. An essential part of this process is extensive consultation with interested parties. As a first step my noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Lord Whitty, will be meeting the chairman of the board and the leaders of the two sides.

  Hunting
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs which areas of England and Wales can resume hunting and at what date; what precautions they must take; and what the timetable is for resumption of hunting in all other areas. [R] [16758]
  846W
  Alun Michael
  [holding answer 21 November 2001]: Hunting (except the hunting of deer) will be able to resume in foot and mouth disease free counties of England and Wales from 17 December under a temporary system of permits issued by DEFRA local animal health offices. I published details of the system and the Veterinary Risk Assessment on 15 November and placed copies in the House of Commons Library. The list of foot and mouth disease free counties is updated weekly and can be viewed on the Department's website http://www.defra.gov.uk/. The Veterinary Risk Assessment is that hunting should be permissible in other areas once those areas also achieve foot and mouth disease free status.

  Restrictions on hunting arise from the need to prevent further outbreaks of foot and mouth disease, which remains a central concern of the Government. We also want to enable the countryside to return to normal as quickly as possible. To keep the balance right we are allowing hunting to resume to the extent that is consistent with the Veterinary Risk Assessment and with conditions that reflect the assessment.

  The precautions to be taken when different forms of hunting resume are outlined in proposed permit conditions, which have been placed in the Library of the House and are also available on the DEFRA website. I have invited interested parties to let us have any comments on the proposed permit conditions by 7 December. I have already met representative groups to explain the background and to discuss the arrangements.

  Household Waste (Needles)
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what advice her Department issues to(a) local authorities and (b) other parties on the disposal of household waste including needles used by diabetics in landfill sites; and if she will make a statement. [17461]

  Mr. Meacher
  Where people regularly self-inject at home, used syringes should not be disposed of in the domestic waste. Disposal arrangements should be made with local hospitals, health centres, clinics, local authorities or pharmacists. Syringes disposed of via these routes will be incinerated rather than sent to landfill. Guidance on the safe disposal of clinical waste has been issued by the Health and Safety Commission. The Environment Agency has issued supplementary guidance on managing waste from healthcare activities.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment her Department has made of the potential hazards to refuse collectors posed by the inclusion of needles used by diabetics in household refuse; and if she will make a statement. [17457]

  Mr. Meacher
  My Department has made no such assessment. Where people regularly self-inject at home, used syringes should not be disposed of in the domestic waste. Disposal arrangements for used syringes can be made with local hospitals, health centres, clinics, local authorities or pharmacists. Syringes disposed of via these routes will be incinerated rather than sent to landfill. Under the Control of Substances Hazardous to Human Health Regulations 1999, employers are required to assess
  847W
  and adequately control the risks to employees from clinical waste. Guidance on good practice is contained in the HSE publication "Safe Disposal of Clinical Waste".

  Regulatory Impact Assessment Costs
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the gross costs were (1) of the regulatory impact assessment for(a) the Prohibition of Fishing with Multiple Trawls Order 2001, (b) the Specified Risk Material (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2000, (c) the Pesticides (Maximum Residue Levels in Crops, Food and Feeding Stuffs) (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2000, (d) the Rendering (Fluid Treatment) (England) Order 2001, (e) the BSE Monitoring (England) Regulations 2001, (f) the Medicines (Products for Animal Use-Fees) (Amendment) Regulations 2001 and (g) the Animal By-Products (Amendment) (England) Order 2001; [17694]

  (2) of the regulatory impact assessment for (a) the Air Quality Limits Values Regulations 2001, (b) the Fishing Vessels (Code of Practice for the Safety of Small Fishing Vessels) Regulations 2001, (c) the Climate Change Agreements (Eligible Facilities) Regulations 2001 and (d) the Biocidal Products Regulations 2001; [17692]

  (3) of the regulatory impact assessment for (a) the Pet Travel Scheme (Pilot Arrangements) (England) (Amendment) Order 2001, (b) the Pig Industry Development Scheme 2000 (confirmation) Order 2001, (c) the Sea Fish (Specified Sea Area) (Regulation of Nets and Other Fishing Gear) Order 2001 and (d) the Home-Grown Cereals Authority Levy (Variation) Scheme (Approval) Order 2001. [17693]

  Mr. Morley
  These costs are shown in the published regulatory impact assessments which are in the House Libraries.

  Livestock Markets
  Matthew Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when livestock markets will reopen for the sale of(a) sheep and (b) cattle; and if she will make a statement. [17711]

  Mr. Morley
  Livestock markets in Scotland have reopened subject to strict conditions. The decision to reopen livestock markets for either sheep or cattle in England or Wales will be taken in the light of veterinary and scientific advice on progress towards eradicating the foot and mouth disease. It is hoped that it may be possible to open some markets in the early part of next year.

  Matthew Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many weeks after the last confirmed case of foot and mouth disease will livestock markets be reopened for the sale of(a) sheep and (b) cattle. [17572]

  Mr. Morley
  The decision to reopen livestock markets for sheep or cattle will be made in the light of scientific and veterinary advice on progress with eradication of foot and mouth disease. It is not possible to state a precise period which will need to elapse after the last case.

  Matthew Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what contingency plans she has made for permanently closing livestock markets and compensating their owners. [17571]
  848W
  Mr. Morley
  There are no plans to close livestock markets permanently.

  Matthew Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what notice period will be given for the re-opening of livestock markets for the sale of(a) sheep and (b) cattle. [17573]

  Mr. Morley
  In reaching a decision on the re-opening of livestock markets, account will be taken of the need to give farmers, auctioneers and other interested parties as much notice as possible.

  Matthew Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the restrictions and regulations that will be in force on livestock markets when they re-open which were not in force prior to the outbreak of foot and mouth disease. [17574]

  Mr. Morley
  When livestock markets reopen strict biosecurity provisions will be laid down which individual markets will have to meet before they will be permitted to operate. These matters are under active discussion between the Department and representatives of the interested parties.

  Animal Movements
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what restrictions her Department has kept in force in the movement under licence into Northumberland from Scotland of cattle not intended for slaughter; and what the reason is for these restrictions. [17228]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 22 November 2001]: With effect from 20 November 2001, Northumberland has been reclassified for the purposes of foot and mouth disease controls from 'High Risk' to 'At Risk'. This means that under the Animal Movements Licensing Scheme cattle may move into Northumberland from TMD Free' counties under a licence issued by a local authority subject to prior veterinary inspection. All counties in Scotland are designated as TMD Free'. The licence system is in place to minimise the risk of spreading FMD.

  Farming Sub-tenants
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) if she will take steps for protect security of tenure of farming sub-tenants following the case of Barratt v. Morgan; [16864]

  (2) if she will introduce regulations to protect from eviction farming sub-tenants affected by the action of collective landlords and tenants following the case of Barrett v. Morgan. [16865]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 22 November 2001]: Following the House of Lords judgment in the Barrett v. Morgan case the then Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food consulted on whether the Lord Chancellor should be invited to use the powers available under the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 to make regulations to protect the position of sub-tenants. The general consensus among the organisations consulted was that the Barrett v. Morgan judgment does not significantly further weaken the position of sub-tenants.
  849W
  In the light of the responses received we decided not to ask the Lord Chancellor to make regulations.

  If, following the Barrett v. Morgan ruling, it becomes apparent that collusion between landlords and tenants poses a serious threat to a significant number of sub-tenants we will review the decision not to regulate further.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list those public bodies (1) which are the responsibility of her Department and which are not listed in Public Bodies 2000; [17586]

  (2) to which her Department appoints members and which are not listed in Public Bodies 2000. [17585]

  Mr. Morley
  Public Bodies 2000 sets out information on non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs), certain public corporations (including nationalised industries) and NHS bodies. There are four types of NDPB: executive NDPBs; advisory NDPBs; tribunal NDPBs; and boards of visitors to penal establishments. The next edition will be published around the end of the year. Information about task forces, annual reports and ad hoc advisory groups is set out in an annual report, published by the Cabinet Office and this publication may be accessed via the Cabinet Office's website http://www.official-documents.co.uk/document/caboff/pb00/pb00.htm.

  Copies of the annual report on task forces and similar bodies have also been placed in the Library of the House and the annual report is being made available on the Cabinet Office's website.

  Public bodies now the responsibility of my Department, which are not listed in Public Bodies 2000 are as follows:

  Public Corporations
  British Waterways Board

  Executive NDPBs

  Countryside Agency

  English Nature

  Environment Agency

  Joint Nature Conservation Committee

  National Forest Company

  Advisory NDPBs

  Advisory Committee on Business and the Environment

  Advisory Committee on Consumer Products and the Environment

  Advisory Committee on Hazardous Substances

  Advisory Committee on Packaging

  Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment

  Airborne Particles Expert Group

  Committee on Products and Processes for Use in Public Water Supply

  Darwin Advisory Committee

  Expert Group on Cryptosporidium in Water Supplies

  Expert Panel on Air Quality Standards

  Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB

  Inland Waterways Amenity Advisory Council

  National Expert Group on Transboundary Air Pollution

  Pesticide Residues Committee

  Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee

  850W

  Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution

  Sustainable Development Commission

  Sustainable Development Education Panel

  Veterinary Residues Committee

  Water Regulations Advisory Committee

  Zoos Forum

  Tribunal NDPBs

  Commons Commissioners.

  Local Bodies
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list those local bodies which were set up under legislation which is the responsibility of her Department and its predecessors since May 1997. [17587]

  Mr. Morley
  No such local bodies have been set up since May 1997 tinder legislation which is the responsibility of my Department or its predecessors.

  Veterinary Medicines
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the Veterinary Medicines Directorate intends to publish the minutes of the Advisory Group on Veterinary Residues (1995 to 2000). [16695]

  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will take steps to ensure that the minutes of the Veterinary Medicines Directorate's Advisory Group on Veterinary Medicines will be available under the Freedom of Information Act 2000; and if she will make a statement. [17099]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 23 November 2001]: The Veterinary Medicines Directorate has received representations about publishing the minutes of the Advisory Group on Veterinary Residues. Some of the deliberations of the Advisory Group involved consideration of confidential matters. The Veterinary Medicines Directorate is considering how the minutes might be released while maintaining confidentiality.

  Devonport Royal Dockyard Ltd.
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she expects to make a decision on the application from Devonport Royal Dockyard Ltd. to increase the level of radioactive waste the company is permitted to discharge. [17336]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 23 November 2001]: Under the Radioactive Substances Act 1993, in England and Wales, the Environment Agency has the responsibility for considering applications to dispose of radioactive waste. The Secretaries of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and for Health have certain powers under the Act to decide applications themselves or to give directions to the agency. The Secretaries of State have received requests to use their statutory powers in relation to the application by Devonport Royal Dockyard Ltd. These requests are currently under consideration and a decision will be reached as soon as possible.
  851W
  The Environment Agency has published its proposed decision on the application. This will not, however, be implemented before the Secretaries of State have decided whether to intervene.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will reply to WPQ numbers(a) 12430 and (b) 12431. [17828]

  Mr. Meacher
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers given to him on 19 November 2001,Official Report, columns 66–67W.

  Bovine TB
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the action the Government are taking on bovine TB with special reference to the dairy herds in Herefordshire. [18080]

  Mr. Morley
  TB testing has resumed in those counties in England that have foot and mouth disease free status and where resource can be released from foot and mouth disease work. It has restarted in Herefordshire and is being prioritised based on veterinary risk assessment. Extra staff have been allocated to the work but it will take time to clear the backlog and get back to normal patterns of TB testing.

  So far testing has not revealed any unusual incidence in the number of TB breakdowns in dairy herds in Herefordshire. However it must be borne in mind that during the last nine months reactors have only been revealed where tests have been carried out as a result of slaughterhouse cases or where LVI practices have managed to do some of the backlog of high priority testing.

  Pesticide Residues
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many 250 g samples of withdrawal diet were obtained from the feeding system for poultry by category in the United Kingdom in (i) 1998, (ii) 1999, (iii) 2000 and (v) 2001; and what proportion was contaminated. [17100]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 23 November 2001]: Poultry feed is sampled as part of the Veterinary Medicines Directorate's (VMD's) Statutory National Surveillance Scheme, in accordance with the requirements of EU Directive 96/23. Samples of feed are tested for banned hormones β agonists and Annexe IV substances, which includes dimetridazole. Sampling is not restricted to withdrawal diet.

  The results show that in 1998, 11.3 per cent.; in 1999, 0.4 per cent. and 2000, 2.6 per cent. of poultry feed samples contained residues of dimetridazole. Sampling so far in 2001 has found no residues of dimetridazole.

  The results for 1998–2000 were fully reported in the relevant Annual Report on Surveillance for Veterinary Medicine Residues. Results for 2001 are reported in the VMD's MAVIS publication, which is regularly updated on the VMD website.
  852W
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) of 29 October 2001,Official Report, columns 543–44W, if she will list the level and type of pesticides that tested above levels deemed safe for human consumption in (a) 1998, (b) 1999, (c) 2000 and (d) 2001 to date. [17301]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 23 November 2001]: Full details of all the samples containing residues above the Maximum Residue Level (MRL) and those where a consumer risk assessment indicated that intakes for certain consumer groups could exceed acceptable intakes are contained in the following reports:

  1998: Working Party on Pesticide Residues (WPPR) Annual Report: PB 4546A and B.

  1999: Working Party on Pesticide Residues (WPPR) Annual Report: PB 5181 A and B.

  2000: Pesticide Residues Committee (PRC) Annual Report.

  2001: the results for the first quarter were published in August this year. They are available on the PRC website, at www.pesticides.gov.uk/committees/PRC/prc.htm. The WPPR and PRC reports are also available on this website and copies are being placed in the Library of the House.

  An MRL is not a consumer safety level as such. It is based on residue levels which result from the approved use of a pesticide (i.e. Good Agricultural Practice; GAP) and are set at a level which is as low as possible while accommodating the GAP. However, MRLs are always set on the basis of consumer risk assessments. MRLs are never higher and are generally much lower than the maximum residue concentration considered to be acceptable.

  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) of 29 October 2001,Official Report, columns 543–44W, what proportion of (a) vegetables, (b) fruit, (c) cereal products and (d) meat products available for consumption in the United Kingdom was sampled for pesticide residues in (i) 1998, (ii) 1999, (iii) 2000 and (iv) 2001 to date. [17300]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 23 November 2001]: Details of the samples analysed under the Pesticide Residues Committee surveillance programme are contained in the following reports:
  1998: Working Party on Pesticide Residues (WPPR) Annual Report: PB 4546A and B.
  1999: Working Party on Pesticide Residues (WPPR) Annual Report: PB 5181 A and B.
  2000 Pesticide Residues Committee (PRC) Annual Report.
  2001: the results for the first quarter were published in August this year.

  They are available on the PRC website, at www.pesticides.gov.uk/committees/PRC/prc.htm. The WPPR and PRC reports are also available on this website and copies are being placed in the Library of the House. It is not possible to relate the samples collected to the proportion of UK foodstuffs consumed since the size of the consignment to which the test result relates is not recorded.
  853W
  The safety of any pesticide residue in a foodstuff depends not only on its concentration in that foodstuff but also on the consumption of that food by different groups of consumers. Potential intakes of the same residues from other foodstuffs also have to be taken into account. Consumer risk assessments are conducted in relation to all samples tested where a residue is found exceeding the relevant MRL.

  Full details of all samples containing residues above the MRL and those where a consumer risk assessment indicated that intakes for certain consumer groups could exceed acceptable levels are contained in the annual report of the Pesticide Residues Committee (PRC) for 2000, copies of which are available in the Library of the House, and in the first PRC quarterly report for the year 2001. Copies of these reports are available on the PRC website at www.pesticides.gov.uk/cornmittees/PRC/prc.htm.

  It is not possible to express these findings as a proportion of UK foodstuffs consumed since the size of the consignment to which the test samples relate is not recorded.

  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth), on 29 October 2001,Official Report, columns 543–44W, what proportion of (a) vegetables, (b) fruit, (c) cereal product and (d) meat products available for consumption in the United Kingdom were found to contain pesticide residues above a level deemed safe for human consumption in the last 12 months. [17229]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 23 November 2001]: Controls on pesticide residues in food are based on a system of statutory maximum residue levels (MRLs). MRLs are set for particular pesticide active ingredients on particular foodstuffs. MRLs are not safety levels but are established on the basis of the approved use of the active substance. They are generally set at levels lower than is necessary for safety purposes to ensure that only the minimum necessary pesticide dose is applied.

  The safety of any pesticide residue in a foodstuff depends not only on its concentration in that foodstuff but also on the consumption of that food by different groups of consumers. Potential intakes of the same residues from other foodstuffs also have to be taken into account. Consumer risk assessments are conducted in relation to all samples tested where a residue is found exceeding the relevant MRL.

  Full details of all samples containing residues above the MRL and those where a consumer risk assessment indicated that intakes for certain consumer groups could exceed acceptable levels are contained in the annual report of the Pesticide Residues Committee (PRC) for 2000, copies of which are available in the Library of the House, and in the first PRC quarterly report for the year 2001. Copies of these reports are available on the PRC website at www.pesticides.gov.uk/committees/PRC/prc.htm.
  854W
  It is not possible to express these findings as a proportion of UK foodstuffs consumed since the size of the consignment to which the test samples relate is not recorded.

  Poultry (Medicinal Residues)
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what proportion of poultry in the United Kingdom were slaughtered before the end of the medication withdrawal period for(a) nicarbazin, (b) lasalocid and (c) dimetridazole in (i) 1998, (ii) 1999, (iii) 2000, (iv) 2001 and (v) November and December of (i), (ii) and (iii). [16972]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 23 November 2001]: DEFRA do not collect these statistics.

  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what the permitted concentrations of(a) nicarbazin, (b) lasalocid and (c) dimetridazole residues in poultry are which were deemed safe for human consumption in the United Kingdom (i) 1998, (ii) 1999, (iii) 2000 and (iv) 2001; [16973]

  (2) how many poultry samples by category were and what proportion of slaughtered poultry was found to contain residues of (a) nicarbazin, (b) lasalocid and (c) dimetridazole above the level deemed suitable for human consumption in the United Kingdom in (i) 1998, (i) 1999, (iii) 2000 and (iv) 2001. [16974]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 23 November 2001]: The Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) has set an Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) for nicarbazin of 0–400. µg/kg of body weight—24,000 µg for a person weighing 60 kg. This represents the amount of nicarbazin that could be consumed every day over a lifetime without harm to human health. A single exposure over this amount would be unlikely to be harmful.

  Lasalocid has an ADI of 10 µg/kg of body weight, 600 µg for a person weighing 60 kg. Again, a single exposure over this amount would be unlikely to be harmful.

  Dimetridazole is not permitted for use in food producing animals. The advice of toxicologists is that it is not possible to identify a "safe" residue concentration.

  Poultry are sampled as part of the Veterinary Medicines Directorate's (VMD's) Statutory National Surveillance Scheme, in accordance with the requirements of EC Directive 96/23. The sample numbers tested for nicarbazin, lasalocid and dimetridazole over the period are given in the table.

  No samples of poultry have been found to contain residues of dimetridazole in the period. Residues of nicarbazin and lasalocid have been found in samples of UK poultry, but toxicologists' advice has confirmed that none posed a risk to consumer safety. The presence of nicarbazin in poultry products is a food contaminant issue, rather than a food safety issue.

  The results for 1998–2000 were fully reported in the relevant Annual Report on Surveillance for Veterinary Medicine Residues.
  855W

  Number of samples of different types of poultry tested for residues of veterinary medicines

  Residue/poultry sampled

  1998

  1999

  2000

  20011

  Nicarbazin

  Broiler liver

  229

  192

  186

  210

  Hen liver

  23

  23

  19

  20

  Turkey liver

  59

  55

  55

  40

  Duck liver

  11

  11

  11

  5

  Lasalocid

  Broiler liver

  236

  176

  197

  210

  Hen liver

  26

  24

  21

  20

  Turkey liver

  58

  52

  50

  40

  Duck liver

  13

  13

  12

  5

  Dimetridazole

  Broiler liver

  706

  1,315

  1,082

  1,233

  Hen liver

  39

  70

  50

  56

  Turkey liver

  155

  265

  205

  234

  Duck liver

  16

  32

  26

  55

  1 The 2001 figures are the number of samples that are planned to have been collected by the end of the year's programme

  Poultry (Finisher Feed)
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what proportion of poultry was slaughtered in the United Kingdom before the withdrawal period for finisher feed was completed in November and December of(a) 1998, (b) 1999 and (c) 2000. [17103]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 23 November 2001]: DEFRA do not collect these statistics.

  Ovine TSE
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) how much funding was set aside to test for transmissible spongiform encephalopathies in sheep in(a) 1999–2000, (b) 2000–01 and (c) 2001–02; [16970]

  (2) what proportion of funding for testing for transmissible spongiform encephalopathy in sheep for (i) 1999–2000, (ii) 2000–01 and (iii) 2001–02 related to scrapie. [16971]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answers 23 November 2001]: The cost of surveillance of TSEs, including scrapie, in sheep is as follows: (i) 1999–2000 £442,000; (ii) 2000–01 £205,000; and (iii) 2001–02 £212,000. Costs for 2001–02 are estimates only.

  In the new year the Department will be launching an abattoir survey to test for TSEs, including scrapie, some 23,000 sheep aged over 18 months. This part of an EU-wide programme designed to give information on the incidence of scrapie and other TSEs in the European Union. The total cost will be around £5 million.

  Ovine BSE
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to her answer of 16 November 2001,Official Report, column 972W, what was (a) the number of scrapie-resistant sheep that were infected with BSE over the last 12 months, (b) the proportion of sheep deemed necessary for infectivity
  856W
  of BSE in sheep to be confirmed and (c) the proportion of sheep that have tested positive for TSEs in the last 12 months. [17303]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 23 November 2001]: The information is as follows:

  (a) Because of the long incubation period of TSEs, experiments in progress pan more than one year. There are four experiments in progress in which sheep of genotypes fully resistant to scrapie (ARR/ARR) have been challenged with BSE. 60 sheep of this genotype are being used in these experiments, along with sheep of different genotypes which are partially or fully susceptible to scrapie.

  (b) As the true prevalence of scrapie in sheep in the UK is unknown, various assumptions have been made to calculate how many sheep would need to be tested to determine whether BSE was present. On the assumption that the true number of scrapie cases per year is 5,000 and that 0.1 per cent. of the scrapie suspects might be BSE, the SEAC subgroup which examined surveillance requirements, and whose report was published in April 1999, estimated that 2,253 scrapie suspects would need to be tested to be certain of detecting at least one case of BSE.

  (c) Between November 2000 and end of September 2001, 465 sheep scrapie suspects have bene tested at VLA. 284 were found to be positive for scrapie.

  Correspondence Unit
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many members of staff work in the correspondence unit of her Department; and if she will make a statement. [17723]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 23 November 2001]: The Department's correspondence section is currently comprised of nine permanent staff and 10 temporary staff. The size of the section has increased substantially in recent months to deal with the sheer volume of letters received during the foot and mouth disease outbreak and since the creation of DEFRA.

  Scrapie
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to her answer of 16 November 2001,Official Report, column 972W, how many representations she has received (a) from stakeholders on the Animal Health Bill between its publication and 20 November and (b) on the Government's National Scrapie Plan between July 2000 and 20 November 2001. [17302]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 23 November 2001]: The Department had received approximately 10 written representations relating to the Animal Health Bill from stakeholders as at 20 November. This figure includes correspondence from both private individuals and organisations, and correspondence from MPs.

  In addition I have held a number of meetings with stakeholders to discuss the Bill.

  One hundred submissions were received from stakeholders in response to the original proposals on the National Scrapie Plan (NSP) published for consultation between 28 July and 31 October 2000. Thirty-one submissions were received in response to proposals to extend the NSP (and on issues relating to scrapie reporting) published for consultation between 9 October and 1 November 2001.

  Agricultural Regulatory Licensing System
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to bring forward legislation(a) introducing a regulatory system of licensing for farmers wishing to grow crops or raise animals and (b) making it compulsory for farmers to purchase insurance against agricultural disaster such as disease; and if she will make a statement. [18206]

  Mr. Morley
  I have no such plans at this point but both these ideas are among the many options which the Government and the Policy Commission will need to consider to help build a sustainable, modern farming industry. No decisions will be taken before we have received the recommendations of the Policy Commission or without full consultation with all interested parties.

  Contaminated Land
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent measures she has taken to clean up contaminated land sites in England and Wales; if she will take steps to recover costs from companies responsible for contaminating land; and if she will make a statement. [16975]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 26 November 2001]: In April 2000 the new contaminated land regime (under Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990) came into force in England. It places a duty on local authorities to inspect their areas for contaminated land. The enforcing authority will then establish the appropriate person(s) to bear the costs of remediation, decide on the remediation required, and ensure that it takes place, whether through agreement, or by serving a remediation notice on the appropriate person(s), or by doing the work and then recovering the costs.

  In most cases the appropriate persons will be those who caused or knowingly permitted the contamination, but if they cannot be found liability passes to the current owner or occupier unless the problem is solely one of water pollution. There is provision for waiving or reducing liability in certain circumstances, including cases of hardship. In this way, the regime reflects the "polluter pays" principle. It is described in detail in DETR. Circular 02/2000, "Contaminated Land".

  The Department's Contaminated Land Supplementary Credit Approval programme provides assistance to local authorities for capital works such as site investigations, and remediation where they are themselves the appropriate person or are unable to recover costs from others.

  In addition, there are various other powers to deal with contamination arising from a breach of a current licence or permit. These also follow the polluter pays principle.

  Farmers (Scotland)
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list by region the amounts paid to farmers in Scotland for each of the(a) CAP and (b) UK schemes for which she is responsible, for the last five years. [18031]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 26 November 2001]: The Rural Payments Agency implements one scheme on behalf of Scottish Ministers with direct payments to
  858W
  farmers. This is the Slaughter Premium Scheme in respect of over-30-month animals only. The amounts paid, which are not available by region, were as follows:

  Scheme

  £

  2000 Scheme Year Payments

  1,371,756

  2001 Scheme Year Payments1

  283,426

  1 To date

  Other schemes involving payment direct to Scottish farmers are the responsibility of, and are implemented by Scottish Ministers.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the Government's policy is on the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy; how these reforms will be beneficial to agriculture in(a) Northern Ireland, (b) Scotland and (c) Wales; whether the policy was agreed with the devolved Administrations; and how the United Kingdom's policy on reform of the CAP has changed since devolution. [17240]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 26 November 2001]: Successive United Kingdom Governments have long been committed to radical reform of the CAP in order to bring benefits to UK consumers, taxpayers and farmers. Next summer we expect the EU Commission to initiate the mid-term review of the CAP following the Agenda 2000 reforms.

  The United Kingdom Government have not yet finalised their position on the mid-term review but have signalled their view that the Community should seize the opportunity for a radical reform covering: a switch from market distorting subsidies (pillar 1) to support for rural development and environmental schemes (pillar 2); abolition of milk quotas and compulsory set aside; and decoupling of livestock payments. We believe that these changes are necessary to deliver the type of modern, market-driven, environmentally sensitive agriculture which will benefit society as a whole and is in the long-term best interests of the agricultural industry itself. They will also help achieve the EU's wider objectives as regards the WTO negotiations and enlargement.

  The Government are discussing their position on the mid-term review and their objectives for longer-term CAP reform with the devolved Administrations in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. They will also take account of developments both in the industry and more widely. The United Kingdom's policy on the reform of the CAP has not, however, materially altered since devolution.

  Animal Health Act
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the Government's use of the Animal Health Act 1981 to act against the importation of animal diseases. [18361]

  Mr. Morley
  Imports of live animals and the majority of animal products such as meat, fish, dairy products etc. are subject to EU rules implemented by national regulations made under the European Communities Act 1972. Some live animals and products requiring
  859W
  special authorisation before import, for example animal pathogens for research purposes, trade samples, and some live animals and products not subject to EU rules may only be imported in accordance with licences issued under the Animal Health Act 1981. The import conditions in these licences are designed to prevent the hazard of importing and spreading animal diseases.

  Rural White Paper
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what progress has been made in implementing the Rural White Paper. [19267]

  Alun Michael
  Since publishing the Rural White Paper on 28 November 2000, we have taken decisive steps in delivering the plans we set out to develop and maintain a living, working, protected and vibrant countryside:We have provided substantial extra funding to boost basic local services, such as rural schools, policing, local post offices, child care and rural transport;
  To help local services we have extended mandatory 50 per cent. rate relief to include sole village public houses, petrol stations and village food shops;
  We are helping to rejuvenate over 100 market towns by funding projects to stimulate thriving rural economies;
  Earlier this month we published plans to improve the quality and effectiveness of town and parish councils as part of our commitment to give rural communities a stronger voice; and
  We have just published the first draft maps for the new rights of access for walkers.

  Although alleviating the devastating effects of foot and mouth disease dominated our work for many months, a great deal has been accomplished. But there is still a lot more to be done. The creation of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is bringing a new focus and drive to the Government's policies for rural England. Together with partners, we are working to deliver a better future for all those who live, work in and visit the countryside. We will be publishing a full progress report in December. Our key achievements include:
  increased funding for rural schools, including the £80 million per year (2001–02 to 2003–04) Small Schools Fund to help resource sharing, administrative support and adoption of new technology;
  an additional £15 million in 2000–01 and £30 million in 2001–02 and 2002–03 to tackle the extra cost of policing in rural areas; also the launch on the on-line Rural Crime Toolkit, drawing on examples of good practice in rural policing;
  a new £2 million fund, now open to applications, to support community-driven projects to refurbish and improve rural sub-post offices—one part of the Government's commitment to maintain a national post office network;
  help to establish 8,728 new child care places in the rural counties of Cornwall, Devon, Durham and Lincolnshire in 2000–01;
  increased investment in wider health and social services which is expected to be of particular benefit to people in rural areas—for example, the programme to establish 100 new primary care one-stop or mobile units, as well as 5,000 intermediate care beds,
  860W
  many in local facilities such as cottage hospitals by 2004. The NHS Direct service, now running throughout England, also offers a major benefit to people living in more remote and rural areas;
  £62 million to improve rural bus services in 2001–02, with a total of £239 million allocated over the next three years for new and improved rural travel services;
  the Housing Corporation exceeded their target of approving 800 affordable homes in rural settlements last year by more than 200 (1,003 approvals), and have increased their target for this year to 1,100 rising to 1,600 by 2003–04;
  new Countryside Agency grant schemes in operation: £15 million Community Service Grants fund to help safeguard or re-establish basic village facilities; £15 million Parish Transport Fund for small-scale, locally generated transport solutions; and £5 million Parish Plans Fund to help around 1,000 communities prepare their own village or town plans;
  new legislation, in force from August, extending 50 per cent. mandatory rate relief to village food shops and new small-scale, non-agricultural enterprises on farms. This is additional to extending 50 per cent. relief to sole village pubs and petrol stations in April;
  selection of over 100 towns to benefit from a £100 million market towns regeneration programme to which the Government have allocated £37 million. Changes have also been made to planning policy guidance on transport (PPG13) to emphasis the role of market towns as hubs for jobs and services;
  changes made to planning policy guidance on the countryside (PPG7) giving stronger support to farm diversification and clarifying guidance on best and most versatile (BMV) land;
  publication of a consultation paper on Quality Parish and Town Councils, seeking views on plans to give councils an enhanced role for their communities; and
  publication of the Countryside Agency's 'Policy Maker's Checklist' in April, to assist Government and their agencies "rural-proof' policies, now part of the Cabinet Office's rapid policy makers' checklist.

  Livestock (Compensation)
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to increase the compensation payable to farmers for livestock they have been unable to move in the over-30-months scheme due to movement restrictions; and if she will make a statement. [12353]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 5 November 2001]: 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 conclude 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.

  Cleansing Services Group
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will make a decision on the holding of a public inquiry into the explosion at Cleansing Services Group Ltd. at Sandhurst, Gloucestershire; and if she will make a statement. [8209]
  861W
  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 18 November 2001]: The Government fully understand the deep concerns of local residents about the incidents at the site and the calls for a public inquiry. We are considering this issue in the light of the latest progress report into the Environment Agency's and the Health and Safety Executive's joint investigation of the incidents and an announcement will be made as soon as possible.

  Rural Housing
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what percentage of the population in local authorities defined as rural were assessed as being in priority need for housing in(a) 1996, (b) 1997, (c) 1998, (d) 1999, (e) 2000 and (f) 2001. [16539]

  Ms Keeble
  Summary information on activity under the statutory homelessness provisions of the Housing Act 1996 is reported to the Department by local authorities in England. This includes the number of households accepted as being eligible for assistance, unintentionally homeless and in priority need.

  Local authorities also report the total number of households on their housing register/waiting lists (excluding existing tenants awaiting a transfer) as at 1 April on their annual Housing Investment Programme returns, and separately distinguish those deemed to be "in need".

  These households, expressed as a percentage of all households in authorities categorised as either "mixed rural" or "deep rural", are as follows:

  Households accepted as unintentionally homeless and in priority need as a percentage of the total number of households: rural authorities in England. Financial year totals

  Year

  Percentage

  1996–97

  0.35

  1997–98

  0.33

  1998–99

  0.32

  1999–2000

  0.32

  2000–01

  0.37

  All households on local authority housing registers and classified as "in need" as a percentage of the total number of households: rural authorities in England as at 1 April

  Year

  Percentage

  1996

  3.1

  1997

  2.9

  1998

  2.9

  1999

  3.0

  2000

  3.0

  2001

  3.8

  Note:

  Mid-year household population estimates for 2000 and 2001 are not yet available; the estimate of 1999 has been applied in these years.

  Source:

  DTLR P1(E) housing activity and HIP returns.

  ONS mid-year estimates of household population

  Local authorities have different practices for compiling and managing their housing register/waiting lists which
  862W
  mean that comparisons between authorities can be misleading. Authorities' policies and practices may change, which can also affect comparisons over time.

TREASURY

  Folkestone and Hythe
  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people aged 18 to 24 years were unemployed for more than six months in each year since May 1992 in the constituency of Folkestone and Hythe. [17734]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Michael Howard, dated 27 November 2001:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your parliamentary question on the number of people aged 18 to 24 years who were unemployed for more than six months for each year since May 1992 in the constituency of Folkestone and Hythe. (17734)
  The Office for National Statistics (ONS) compiles statistics for unemployment from surveys following the internationally standard International Labour Organisation definition. However, for the Folkestone and Hythe parliamentary constituency the survey sample size is too small to provide estimates. ONS also compiles statistics of claimants of unemployment-related benefits. the claimant count consists of all people claiming Jobseeker's Allowance or National Insurance credits at Employment Service local offices. They must declare that they are out of work, capable of, available for and actively seeking work during the week in which the claim is made.
  Prior to January 1996 comparable figures for earlier years are not available on the same geographical basis. Information on computerised claims by age and duration for parliamentary constituencies from January 1996 were based on the ward boundaries of the 1991 census while figures before are based on the ward boundaries of the 1981 census and are available from June 1985 to January 1996.
  The information requested is given in the attached table.

  Claimants aged 18 to 24 claiming for six months or more in the Folkestone and Hythe parliamentary constituency for each May 1992 to May 20011

  Year

  Age 18–24

  May 1992

  444

  May 1993

  617

  May 1994

  640

  May 1995

  595

  May 1996

  520

  May 1997

  314

  May 1998

  215

  May 1999

  73

  May 2000

  54

  May 2001

  33

  1 computerised claims only

  Tax Credits and Benefits
  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people received(a) tax credits and (b) means-tested benefits in the constituency of Folkestone and Hythe for each year since April 1997. [17738]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The available information for Folkestone and Hythe is in the following table.
  863W

  Recipients of (a) tax credits and (b) certain income related benefits in the Folkestone and Hythe constituency

  May

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Working Families Tax Credit (WFTC)/ Family Credit (FC)

  1,100

  1,300

  1,000

  1,800

  2,200

  Disabled Person's Tax Credit (DPTC)/Disability Working Allowance (DWA)

  12

  18

  35

  37

  45

  Income Support (IS)

  6,900

  6,800

  6,900

  7,100

  7,200

  Jobseeker's Allowance (income based) (JSA)

  2,600

  2,000

  1,800

  1,500

  1,100

  Total

  10,600

  10,100

  9,800

  10,400

  10,600

  Notes:

  1. Apart from DPTC and DWA, the figures are based on a 5 per cent. sample. They are subject to sampling error and therefore shown to the nearest 100.

  2. Recipients of WFTC/FC or DPTC/DWA who also receive IS or JSA are included only in the first two columns. This eliminates double counting in the total.

  3. WFTC and DPTC replaced FC and DWA from October 1999.

  4. DPTC and DWA figures are for April.

  Sources:

  Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiries May 1997-May 2000

  Jobseeker's Allowance Quarterly Statistical Enquiries May 1997-May 2001

  Working Families Tax Credit/Family Credit Quarterly Statistical Enquiries May 1997-May 2001.

  Disabled Person's Tax Credit/Disability Working Allowance Quarterly Statistical Enquiries April 1997-April 2001.

  Housing benefit and council tax benefit figures are not available for the Folkestone and Hythe constituency but are available for the Shepway local authority.

  Recipients of housing benefit and council tax benefit in Shepway

  Housing benefit

  Council tax benefit

  May 1997

  7,900

  9,640

  May 1998

  7,630

  9,290

  May 1999

  7,460

  9,030

  May 2000

  6,640

  8,150

  May 2001

  6,260

  7,740

  Notes:

  1. The data refer to benefit units, which can be single persons or couples.

  2. The figures have been rounded to the nearest 10.

  Source:

  Housing Benefit and Council Tax Management Information System Quarterly 100 per cent. caseload stock.

  National Insurance Contributions
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Inland Revenue National Insurance Contributions Office will respond to the request made by Mr. Welch of Burton, Christchurch to be able to make self-employed national insurance contributions. [18653]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The National Insurance Contributions Office wrote to Mr. Welch on 21 November, and I am writing to the hon. Member about his constituent's concerns.

  Barbara Follett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has completed his review of national insurance contributions for 2002–03. [18972]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I have completed the annual review under section 141 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992. I propose the following changes to take effect from 6 April 2002. These rates and limits will also apply to Northern Ireland National Insurance Contributions.

  Employers and Employees

  In line with the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992, the Lower Earnings Limit for primary Class 1 contributions is to be raised to £75 a week. It is
  864W
  set at the level of the basic Retirement Pension for a single person from April 2002 and rounded down to the nearest pound.

  The Primary and Secondary Thresholds for Class 1 contributions will continue to be aligned with the weekly amounts of the income tax personal allowance at £89 a week. This means that no tax or Class 1 contributions will actually be paid on earnings below this level. The Upper Earnings Limit for primary Class 1 contributions will be raised to £585.

  The rate of secondary Class 1 contributions payable by all employers is to be reduced by 0.1 per cent. from 11.9 per cent. to 11.8 per cent. This is to ensure that the overall effect on industry from the introduction of the Aggregates Levy will be revenue neutral.

  The self-employed

  The rate of Class 2 contributions will remain at £2 a week.

  Self-employed people with earnings below the annual Small Earnings Exception can apply to be exempted from paying Class 2 contributions. This limit will be raised by £70 to £4,025.

  The annual lower and upper profits limits for liability to Class 4 contributions will be raised respectively by £80 to £4,615 (in line with the income tax personal allowance) and by £520 to £30,420, to maintain the link with employees' earnings liable to Class 1 contributions.

  Class 3

  The rate of Class 3 voluntary contributions will be increased by 10 pence to £6.85 a week.

  The special rate of Class 2 contributions for share fishermen, which allows them to build entitlement to contributory Jobseeker's Allowance in addition to the other contributory benefits available to the self-employed, will continue to be £2.65 a week.

  Volunteer Development Workers

  The special rate of Class 2 contributions for volunteer development workers, which entitles them to the full range of contributory benefits, will be increased by 15 pence to £3.75 in line with the statutory formula of 5 per cent. of the primary Class 1 Lower Earnings Limit.
  865W
  Treasury Grant

  I need to ensure that the Fund can maintain a prudent working balance throughout the coming year. In accordance with section 2(2) of the Social Security Act 1993, I propose to do so by prescribing that the maximum Treasury Grant which may be made available to the fund in 2002–03 shall not exceed 2 per cent. of the estimated benefit expenditure for that year. Similar provision will be made in respect of the Northern Ireland National Insurance Fund.

  National insurance contributions, proposed re-rating, April 2002

  Item

  2002–03

  Lower Earnings Limit, primary Class 1

  £75

  Upper Earnings Limit, primary Class 1

  £585

  Primary Threshold

  £89

  Secondary Threshold

  £89

  Employees' primary Class 1 rate

  10 per cent. from £89.01 to £585

  Employees' contracted-out rebate

  1.6 per cent.

  Married women's reduced rate

  3.85 per cent.

  Employers' secondary Class 1 rate

  11.8 per cent. on earnings above £89

  Employers' contracted-out rebate, salary-related schemes

  3.5 per cent.

  Employers' contracted-out rebate, money-purchase schemes

  1.0 per cent.

  Class 2 rate

  £2

  Class 2 Small Earnings Exception

  £4,025

  Special Class 2 rate for share fishermen

  £2.65

  Special Class 2 rate for volunteer development workers

  £3.75

  Class 3 rate

  £6.85

  Class 4 rate

  7 per cent.

  Class 4 Lower Profits Limit

  £4,615

  Class 4 Upper Profits Limit

  £30,420

  Aggregates
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has further to encourage the recycling of aggregates(a) by means of the aggregates levy and (b) by other means. [18425]

  Ruth Kelly
  The aggregates levy will provide an incentive to use recycled aggregate and alternative materials, as these will be exempted. Levy revenues will also fund a £35 million sustainability fund one of whose objectives will be to encourage recycling objectives of the levy.

  Landfill tax on inactive waste also offers an incentive for the recycling of aggregate rather than its disposal in waste sites.

  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what research his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on the environmental (i) costs and (ii) benefits of the supply of aggregates from coastal super quarries compared to that from other types of quarry. [18426]

  Ruth Kelly
  The independent research which underpins the aggregates levy considered all aspects of the environmental impacts of aggregate extraction. The levy will be introduced at a single rate in order to keep it simple and send a clear signal to encourage purchasers of primary aggregate to use alternative materials where possible.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what assessment he has made of the direct environmental(a) costs and (b) benefits arising from the introduction of the aggregates levy; [17924]
  866W
  I shall be laying a draft re-rating order before Parliament in due course. This will accompany a report by the Government Actuary to myself and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions which we shall jointly present to Parliament.

  The table sets out the rates, earnings limits and thresholds for National Insurance Contributions proposed for 2002–03.

  (2) what assessment he has made of the impact of the aggregates levy on the environmental aspects of quarrying which are not dealt with by existing regulatory controls. [17923]

  Ruth Kelly
  Independent research shows there are significant environmental costs associated with aggregates extraction that are not already covered by regulation including noise, dust, visual intrusion, loss of amenity and damage to biodiversity.

  The aggregates levy will encourage the efficient use of natural aggregates and the greater use of alternative materials, such as recycled aggregate and certain waste materials, thereby reducing the environmental costs of aggregates extraction.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has had with representatives of the aggregates industry regarding the proposal for a green discount on the introduction of the aggregates tax. [18354]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government have been exploring with interested parties, including the aggregates industry, the options for a differential rate of the aggregates levy for quarries with better environmental performance.

  Development Assistance
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent discussions he has had with his US counterparts regarding an increase in their development assistance budget in relation to their gross national product. [18188]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has had a number of discussions with Paul O'Neill the US Treasury Secretary on their shared interest of increasing
  867W
  overseas development assistance. The Chancellor of the Exchequer looks forward to more constructive meetings with the US Treasury on this topic in the coming months.

  VAT (Church Repairs)
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on churches' liability to pay VAT on repair work when situated within a designated conservation area. [18035]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Repair work to churches is liable to VAT at the standard rate. There are no special VAT rules for churches in designated conservation areas. However, the Government have introduced a UK-wide grant scheme, the effect of which will be to reduce the VAT cost to 5 per cent., for works of repair, maintenance and improvements to listed places of worship undertaken from 1 April 2001.

  Child Credit
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if it is his policy that recipients of the proposed integrated child credit will be required to have their payments paid into a bank account. [18086]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 26 November 2001]: Payment direct to bank accounts is the most efficient, secure and flexible way of delivering direct payments. The consultation document 'New Tax Credits—Supporting families, making work pay and tackling poverty' made clear that it is proposed to make all direct payments of tax credits to claimants' bank accounts.

  The Government are currently spearheading a drive to tackle financial exclusion. Work to ensure that those without bank accounts will be able to open a suitable account into which tax credits can be paid is being taken forward together with the Post Office and major banks.

  Smuggling
  Mrs. Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his latest estimates are of the levels of smuggling and fraud affecting tobacco duty and other indirect taxes. [19268]

  Mr. Boateng
  These estimates and the supporting methodologies are set out in documents published today by HM Customs and Excise entitled 'Tackling Indirect Tax Fraud and Measuring Indirect Tax Fraud'. Copies of both papers have been placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Tax Documents
  Barbara Follett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he plans to publish the next Tax Ready Reckoner and Tax Reliefs document; and if he will make a statement. [18973]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Treasury will today be publishing a document containing the estimates of the effects of various illustrative tax changes on tax receipts in 2002–03 and 2003–04 (plus 2004–05 for indirect taxes)868W
  and estimates of the costs of the main tax reliefs in 2000–01 and 2001–02. Copies will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Customs and Excise (Consultation)
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what consultations with businesses were carried out by his Department with regard to the(a) Excise Duty Points Regulations 2001 and (b) HM Customs' revised financial security policy. [17455]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Customs consulted extensively on these issues with businesses involved in the production, warehousing and distribution of excise goods from as early as 1998. This included discussions with key trade associations at Customs' long-standing Joint Alcohol and Tobacco Consultation Group.

  Child Poverty
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate how many children have been lifted out of poverty in each region of England since 1997; and what this represents as a percentage of children in each region. [17770]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Personal tax and benefit measures introduced since 1997 have lifted 1.2 million children in the UK as a whole out of poverty, defined as 60 per cent. of median income after allowing for housing costs. Because of the margins of error, it is not possible to model the precise effects in individual counties or regions.

  It is possible to provide figures for the numbers of families in different regions benefiting from the key measures introduced during the last Parliament to tackle child poverty. The table shows, by region, the number of families benefiting from the Working Families Tax Credit, the number of lone parents on Income Support benefiting from the real terms increases in child credits, and the number of families with children benefiting from the real terms increases in child benefit.

  Thousand

  WFTC recipients1

  Lone parents receiving income support1

  Families receiving child benefit2

  North East

  72

  48

  320

  North West

  179

  123

  863

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  137

  79

  618

  East Midlands

  101

  54

  512

  West Midlands

  127

  81

  660

  East of England

  87

  64

  639

  London

  95

  168

  871

  South East

  118

  86

  945

  South West

  103

  56

  565

  England

  1,109

  758

  5,994

  1 May 2001

  2 27 April 2001

  European Union
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what Community money was(a) available and (b) distributed to both sides in the Irish referendum on Nice. [17620]

  Ruth Kelly
  This is a matter for the Irish Government and the European Commission.
  869W
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the Declaration of the Heads of State and Government Review of the Economic Situation (SN 4298/2/01, 19 October 2001), with reference to spending projects by the EIB to be encouraged by the European Council. [17621]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government support the European Council's encouragement of the European Investment Bank (EIB) for its lending to infrastructure projects, to support the knowledge-based economy and to help foster long-term investment. The Government are working to ensure that the EIB builds on its historic strengths in these areas and provides the maximum value added to the 870W
  market, levering in private finance where there would otherwise be gaps and furthering the Lisbon economic reform agenda.

  Compliance Costs
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has received a final copy of the study by Professor Anne Hansford into the compliance costs to business of the UK tax system; and when he will publish the study. [17213]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Studies into compliance costs for Corporation Tax and VAT were commissioned as the first stage of a four year research programme into the compliance costs to businesses of the UK tax system.

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

Armed Forces: Preventive Health Measures
Lord Bramall Lord Bramall asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have learned any lessons from the preventive health measures taken to protect troops deployed in the Gulf War which can now be applied to military personnel currently on standby for active service.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach): My Lords, following the Gulf conflict, the Government have put into effect a range of improvements to preventive measures. Those include improvements in arrangements for the administration of service standard immunisations and immunisations against biological weapons, making information available to troops on health matters and improved maintenance of medical records to aid the management of any subsequent health problems.
Lord Bramall: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that helpful Answer, which covered a wide range of issues. Can he confirm what he implies; namely, that if inoculations are being given somewhat differently from the way in which that was done at the time of the Gulf conflict, it is because the Ministry of Defence is now convinced that, despite its very tardy formal investigation—it was revealed during the debate involving the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, that that has still not been completed—the original cocktail of inoculations may have been harmful to the health of those who received it?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot give the noble and gallant Lord that confirmation. No scientific medical evidence points convincingly to the causes of the ill health that was reported by Gulf veterans. In the vaccines interactions work that is going on at Porton Down, we are devoting considerable efforts to researching possible causes. Noble Lords would expect us to introduce improved practices and to do so in a way that reflects our experience and, where we can, people's concerns. The House would not expect the Government to wait until those concerns were conclusively resolved.
Lord Vivian: My Lords, can the Minister say whether reservists are now inoculated and what action is being taken to prepare for the treatment of large-scale troop casualties, should they occur as a result of
132
any operational deployment? Can he also confirm that a sufficient number of beds is readily available in this country to deal with significant numbers of casualties?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I can certainly confirm the latter part of the noble Lord's question. So far as reservists are concerned, a call-out order has, as he knows, been made under the Reserve Forces Act 1996 to allow reservists to be called up for service in support of current operations. The main requirement is currently for reservists to augment HQ organisations. Should it prove necessary to deploy reservists, we shall take into account the lessons that we learned from the Gulf conflict and ensure that they receive appropriate medical protection. I take particular note of the noble Lord's concerns. In so doing, we should take account of the possibility of adverse interactions.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, have any trials been conducted on the adverse effects of taking NAPS tablets as a prophylactic? That happened before the Gulf War. Will their use be considered again?
Lord Bach: My Lords, before I reply to the noble Lord, I welcome him to his new position on the Front Bench. I know that the House will be delighted with what may perhaps be a promotion.
The noble Lord may know that the nerve agent pretreatment sets, known as NAPS, are being studied at Porton Down in the vaccines interactions research programme, to which I have already referred. We are looking at that extremely carefully. NAPS on their own or in combination with other medical counter-measures that were taken to protect troops in the Gulf have been suggested as a cause of ill health among some Gulf veterans. That is why the noble Lord asked his question. I am afraid that we shall have to wait for the research to be completed before we get a conclusive answer. As the research comes out bit by bit we are publishing it. Some of it has already been published this year, although I do not think that it was about NAPS.
Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the particular interest among Gulf veterans in Porton Down's study of whether combining NAPS tablets with up to 14 inoculations, including anthrax, had adverse effects? Since the study's outcome will not now be known until 2003—by when the jury will have been out for 13 years on this question—what further help is intended for Gulf veterans whose immune systems, in the view of distinguished medical consultants, were gravely damaged by that combination?
Lord Bach: My Lords, the Government remain committed to finding out why some veterans of the Gulf conflict are ill; they have not been forgotten. We have implemented many of the lessons that were learned from that conflict and from subsequent deployments, and we shall continue to do so. As my noble friend knows, the programme of work at Porton Down involves a very complex study, which aims to

133
assess the effects of combinations of vaccines and NAPS over a period of time. Only in that way can we assess the long-term effects on humans. Preparation for and conduct of the trial means that the programme will necessarily take several years. We do not want to prolong the programme more than is absolutely necessary but we must have confidence in the results, and an inescapable minimum period is necessary. As my noble friend Lord Grocott told the House 15 days ago—on 12th November—we shall publish interim results when they are available. He reminded the House that we have already published some findings relating to earlier phases of the programme in the Journal of Toxicology on 21st January this year. I shall of course make that available to noble Lords if they require it.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, can the Minister tell us whether, if the reservists were to go to war again, they would receive the same injury and compensation treatment as regulars in the same situation? Can he also tell us whether the subsuming of the War Pensions Agency into the veterans unit, which I understand to have taken place, has produced any immediate and helpful results for those who are still waiting all these years on?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I understand that reservists will be treated in the same way as regulars. If I am wrong about that I shall write at once to the noble Baroness, so she need not have any concern on that front. I turn to the second part of her question. As regards the transfer of the War Pensions Agency to the concern of the Ministry of Defence, it is still early days. I do not want to give her a false answer. However, as I stated in an earlier reply, we are concerned to ensure that those who have served their country well in the Gulf War and other disputes do not have to wait longer than necessary.

Murder: Mandatory Life Sentence
2.43 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke Lord Ashley of Stoke asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will reconsider the statutory requirement that a life sentence is mandatory for murder.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Rooker): My Lords, the Government have no plans to reconsider the mandatory life sentence for murder. The sentence provides important safeguards. The public must have confidence in the penalty to be imposed on those who take another person's life. The public rightly regard the offence of murder as a particularly abhorrent crime and believe that it should carry the most severe penalties. Murder is never a matter that can or should be taken lightly, whatever the circumstances.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. However, is it not time for some fresh government thinking on this longstanding problem? Is it not wrong that a man who kills his beloved wife at her repeated request because she finds that she is so appallingly disabled that life is unbearable and agonising, or a woman so brutalised by a violent husband that she is driven beyond the pale and the point of endurance and kills him, should be given the same mandatory life sentence as a vicious mass murderer?
What is the justification for the bizarre arrangement whereby a politician, the Home Secretary, decides how long such people stay in prison rather than the judge who listens to all the evidence, sees all the witnesses and is able to assess the fine nuances, subtleties and "vibes" of a trial? Surely, it is wrong for a politician to make such a decision.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, there is always an argument on what is the view of the public on this matter. When the death penalty was abolished in 1965 I understand that the acceptance among the public was that for those who had been found guilty of committing the crime of murder, whatever the circumstances, the penalty should be a mandatory life sentence. However, this House debated the matter as recently as late 1997 and most of those who spoke then were against the law. But I would say to my noble friend that the operation of the mandatory life sentence is flexible. It allows those responsible for the least serious cases of the offence—that is, the so-called mercy killers—to the most serious—the serial murderers or child killers—to be adequately punished. Where the circumstances warrant, a mandatory life sentence prisoner can be released on licence having served only a short period of time in prison. On the other hand, under the system, those responsible for the worst crimes can be detained for the rest of their lives. Therefore, while there is a mandatory life sentence for those found guilty of the offence, they are all treated, in so far as they can be, according to the circumstances of the crime. I believe that that is right.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, the Minister no doubt accepts that categories of murder have been tried by statute and failed. We now have an offence which covers the mercy killer right up to the terrorist. Does the noble Lord accept that the insistence on an automatic sentence has devalued the life sentence? Why can it not be discretionary so that from the outset the court can indicate what is the appropriate punishment?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, even under the mandatory system it is possible for the trial judge to offer a view. In the most recent 12-month period for which figures are available, only five trial judges in more than 200 cases gave a view. Given that they are able to express a view and chose not to do so, I find that surprising. They chose to leave the matter to the present system. With all its difficulties over definitions—there cannot be good murders and bad murders—taking a person's

135
life is murder. Therefore, it is right to consider the circumstances in the way I set out in my first supplementary answer.
Lord Windlesham: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the mandatory requirement for a court to pass a sentence of life imprisonment on conviction for murder is genuinely misleading the public? Despite what he has just said, life does not mean the natural life of the offender; it means release after the expiry of a tariff date, the tariff period having been set by the Home Secretary, supported by a favourable assessment of risk by the Parole Board. In asking this question I declare an interest as having been chairman of the Parole Board for England and Wales for a number of years in the past.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I pay tribute to the work of the noble Lord. But the fact remains that there are people who will be in prison for the rest of their natural lives as a result of the crime of murder. So it is not fair and true to say to the public that every one is let out. There is a degree of flexibility. The proof of the pudding is that there are people in prison for the rest of their natural lives who will clearly not be let out.
Lord Morris of Aberavon: My Lords, if the Minister is arguing for flexibility, does he recall the report produced under the chairmanship of a former Lord Chief Justice, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lane? He suggested that there should be a law of homicide instead of murder and manslaughter and that discretion should be left to the judiciary who actually tried the case so that everyone would know where they stood.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I must say to my noble and learned friend that I do not recall the report, although I probably saw the headline. But it clearly was not accepted.
Lord Elton: My Lords, on the threshold of the Second Reading debate, will the noble Lord take note of the deep suspicion that many of us have of entrusting the decision of whether or not to let someone out of prison solely to the hands of the political executive?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I note the distrust.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, does the Minister recognise that when the House of Lords Select Committee on Medical Ethics, which I had the privilege to chair, reported, it stated that in 1993 it had had reported 28 cases where a family member had brought about, or was alleged to have brought about, the death of a loved one who was suffering from terminal illness? In all of those cases but one an original charge of murder was levelled. But the prosecution in all but one case changed the charge to
136
one of either manslaughter or attempted murder because it knew that no jury would convict. Does that not bring the law into disrepute?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, it may appear like that, but there is a degree of flexibility. I do not think that there is a widespread view among the public that the system is not working. As I said in my first Answer, we have no plans to reconsider the issue. Clearly, cases will arise from time to time where judgments have to be made. In those cases if the judgment was made by the prosecuting authorities that convictions could not be secured, they were right to change the charge to something else. That is an acceptable way forward. It shows flexibility in the system.

Climate Change Levy: Engineering Industry
2.52 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their response to the prediction that the climate change levy will raise the costs of the engineering industry by a total of about £90 million a year at a time when the industry's contraction is predicted to reach double figures in percentage terms.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the climate change levy is integral to the UK's Climate Change Programme. The levy package is broadly revenue neutral for manufacturing and services. But the impact on individual firms will depend on actions taken to improve energy efficiency, including measures qualifying for levy-funded enhanced capital allowances. Firms can also gain benefit by switching to renewable energy or locally produced combined heat and power which are levy free. The Engineering Employers' Federation ignores these factors and bases its findings on a self-selecting sample of less than 10 per cent of its members who responded to a postal survey.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I thank the Minister for what I consider to be a not very satisfactory Answer. I am sure that he will not be disappointed that I do not agree with him.
However, will he agree that the climate change levy falls heavily on the engineering industry, which only shares 8 per cent of the market and yet pays 17 per cent of the climate change levy? That of course is just another tax. As the engineering employment forecast suggests that next year at least 70,000 jobs will he lost—that is a 3.7 per cent swing—perhaps he will tell the House what the Government intend to do about it, rather than simply saying that he does not agree with the EEF report.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the climate change levy is not a tax. It is revenue neutral. Everything that is gained from the climate change levy

137
is returned to the manufacturing and service industries in the form of a rebate on employers' contributions. If it were neutral for every single firm, there would be no point in having it. The idea is quite specifically to push heavy energy users towards forms of energy efficiency. That applies to the engineering industry as well as to any other industry.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, the Minister has emphasised the revenue neutrality of the climate change levy. Would it not be better if that neutrality were achieved by recycling the whole of the proceeds from the levy for energy-saving purposes? If that were done, the objective of the levy would be much more effectively achieved.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, considerable sums have been put aside for improving energy efficiency out of the proceeds of the levy. If there is any evidence that industry is capable of using more—in other words, more could be given for that purpose rather than in the form of employers' contribution rebate—I am sure that the Government would listen sympathetically to that argument.
Lord Jones: My Lords, does my noble friend recollect the Government's very positive response to the pleas of the steel company, Corus? That positive response saved that great steel company nearly £200 million.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I do indeed, my Lords. The complementary point to that made by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, is that for very heavy energy users there are indeed 80 per cent discounts because it is recognised that some very heavy energy users would go out of business unless they were given a discount. Of course that is in return for serious efforts to achieve energy efficiency, which is the object of the exercise.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, will the Minister agree that many of the solutions to excess use of energy are engineering solutions? That in itself can actually make a contribution to employment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that is a very constructive point. It is certainly true that there are opportunities for the engineering industry in manufacturing goods—engines, valves and so on—which contribute to energy efficiency. Indeed, a substantial sum of money from the energy levy—something like £30 million—is set aside to encourage work in that area.
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, does not the climate change levy show why the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, was right the other day to raise again the question of the exclusion of your Lordships' House from scrutiny of money Bills? I do not know whether the Minister has had a look at the 83 pages of Schedule 6 of the Finance Act which enacted this particular levy. Perhaps he can help me with its language. Further,
138
does he not think that the expertise in this House may have been able to improve it? This is a provision related to electricity rebates. It states:
"[They] are to be calculated by treatment of supply as a reduced rate supply to the extent, if any, that the exempt renewable supplies made by the supplier in the averaging period would have been reduced rate supplies if they had not been made on the basis that they were exempt".
I defy anyone to say what that means. Is it not pure gobbledegook?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, will find that that is entirely comprehensible to tax lawyers, to which group neither he nor I have the privilege of belonging.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, will the Minister not accept that even those of us who are sympathetic to the objectives of the Government with regard to the climate change levy regard it as being in many cases bureaucratic, unworkable and unfair? Further, will he not accept that it would be better to impose taxation on carbon emissions rather than this rather unworkable levy?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: No, my Lords. The Government commissioned the noble Lord, Lord Marshall, to carry out a review of the options. They also considered the possibility of taxation of carbon emissions, the scope for trading emissions and many other solutions. The noble Lord came to the conclusion, with which the Government agreed—I thought that the Liberal Democratic Party at the time agreed—that this was the right way to deal with emissions in manufacturing industry. After all, we are talking about 5 million carbon tonnes per annum.

Supporters Direct: Rugby League
2.59 p.m.
Lord Hoyle Lord Hoyle asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will extend the Supporters Direct Scheme to sports other than Association Football, particularly Rugby League.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am delighted to give my noble friend a positive reply. The Government agree in principle that Supporters Direct's activities could usefully be extended to Rugby League. My right honourable friend the Minister for Sport is discussing how best to achieve this with Supporters Direct.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, I must declare an interest as the chairman of Warrington Wolves Rugby League Club. The Answer of my noble friend the Minister will bring joy to all Rugby League supporters. They are extremely responsible and it is only right that they should receive help to form trusts. I look forward to many of them entering the board of Rugby League clubs.

139
Knowing the Minister's expertise in both codes, when any future schemes are discussed, will he remember that there are other professional sports as well as Association Football?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I shall have difficulty forgetting that there are other sports while my noble friend is vocal in this House.
Supporters Direct was first established by football money and has properly directed its activities towards football trusts. My noble friend and others have made the case for such activities to be developed for Rugby League.
Lord Addington: My Lords, will the Minister give us an undertaking that the money currently used by Association Football will not be stretched further and made thinner and less effective by trying to spread it across Rugby League and other sports, but that new money will be found?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the money received at present is football money. It is limited and there is a significant task to be performed for football. The agreement in principle to extend the scheme to Rugby League will involve substantial consultations on the nature of any additional resources that may be necessary. I take on board the noble Lord's point that there is still an extensive job to be done for football clubs.
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, I should like to declare an interest as chairman of the Stockport County Football Trust, which is supported by Supporters Direct.
Will my noble friend confirm that what led to the establishment of Supporters Direct was the fact that many Association Football club boards were taking decisions with complete disregard for supporters, many of which received headline publicity? Is there any evidence that similar circumstances exist with other sports, especially rugby?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I should prefer to put a positive cast on that development. It is less a question of a weakness in the way that boards have previously acted—although we could probably find one or two examples of that if we cudgelled our brains—than that it has been recognised that fans have a proper stake in the sport that they support, the matches that they attend and the clubs to which they give such great loyalty. Their right to have some stake in the club and representation on the board is readily recognised.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, will my noble friend be kind enough to acknowledge that, with more than 40 trusts set up last year, Supporters Direct is one of the most positive and constructive outcomes of the deliberations of the Football Task Force, on which I had the honour to serve as vice-chairman? Does he agree with Supporters Direct that the industrial and provident society model that it has
140
adopted provides the best hope for a democratic, not-for-profit model being adopted in club boardrooms—which could, as my noble friend Lord Hoyle said, usefully be applied to other sports?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, as ever, my noble friend's question helps to elucidate the matter for the House. I would obviously emphasise that although, as he says, we can take pride in the fact that Supporters Direct has begun its activities in 42 clubs, that is still a minority of football clubs. There is a long way still to travel, but I take on board the positive sentiments that my noble friend expresses about the work of Supporters Direct.
Baroness Billingham: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is an accolade for Supporters Direct that other sports want to take on board its excellent ideals, the ways it promotes anti-racism, and so on? I also declare an interest. I am not in my No. 7 strip today, but I am a patron of Supporters Direct.
The Minister intimated that the money for the scheme came from football, but the Government provided some start-up money. Will he assure the House that such start-up funding will be continued, because such excellent work deserves to continue?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, that was the burden of the positive Answer that I gave to the original Question asked by my noble friend Lord Hoyle: namely, that the work that has been done has been sufficiently impressive for discussions to take place with a view to extending it to Rugby League. Whether other sports come within that framework, we shall have to see.
As my noble friend Lady Billingham said, public money is involved, because the money comes from the football pools companies, but is top-sliced from the reduction in pool betting duty income passed to the Football Foundation. So there is a public interest in the matter, which is why my honourable friend the Minister for Sport is taking a keen interest in extending the work of Supporters Direct.

Business
3.6 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m., my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement which is being made in another place on the Pre-Budget Report. The Statement is likely to be taken after the speech of the noble Lord, Lord McNally, in the Second Reading debate.

Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. We propose

141
a more convenient order in which to take the Bill through Committee, subject to the Bill receiving a Second Reading from your Lordships' House.
Moved, That, in the event of the Bill being read a second time and committed to a Committee of the Whole House, it be an instruction to the Committee that they consider the Bill in the following order:

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,

Clauses 37 to 43,

Clauses 21 to 36,

Clauses 110 to 120,

Clauses 44 to 59,

Schedule 5,

Clauses 60 to 71,

Schedule 6,

Clauses 72 to 101,

Schedule 7,

Clauses 102 to 109,

Clauses 121 and 122,

Schedule 8,

Clauses 123 to 126.—(Lord Rooker.)

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, will the Minister explain to the House why the Government have so quickly become disenchanted with the order of clauses that they themselves laid down only a week ago? I shall give only two examples; there are more. Clauses 37 and six others are proposed to be taken after Clause 20; Clause 110 and 10 others are proposed to be taken after Clause 36.
Also—there may be a simple answer to this—the Motion refers to Clause 126. No such clause occurs in my copy of the Bill.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, it is not unusual for a Bill to be taken in a different order in Committee. The Bill available in the Public Bill Office—I was going to say the Vote Office—this morning, which is the Bill we will debate in this House, contains 126 clauses, as listed in the contents. It is true that Clause 126 appears on its own on the page listing the schedules; it is the Short Title. The Bill grew slightly in the other place because of the addition of the sunset clause.
I know that this may get up the nose of a few of your Lordships—although it is not intended to do so—but it is not unusual to consider a Bill in a different order from that in which it is printed, and the order has been agreed by both Front Benches and the usual channels. I am happy to read out an English translation of the Motion that I moved, giving the subject areas of the Bill in the order in which we will take them, if that is required.
142
The main reason for the order is to allow for the convenience of all parties, including the Opposition. It is the Government's Bill, and we will defend it. Nevertheless, there are key issues that various quarters of the House wish to debate, and it is important that they have as much time as possible and as is needed to do so. Sometimes, to do that, it is better to take the Bill in a slightly different order from that in which it is printed.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, perhaps before the noble Lord sits down he could take two points. First, the rearrangement does not make navigation through a complicated Bill any easier for newcomers. Secondly—and I hesitate to put the point too clearly—not everyone who does not sit on Front Benches is necessarily enchanted by decisions reached through the usual channels.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I have been where the noble Lord is now and I know exactly how he feels. I am still learning the procedures of the House and getting used to speakers' lists takes quite a while. If it is convenient to the House, I will arrange for an explanation by the broad subject to be placed in the office. The subject headings are terrorist property; freezing orders; disclosure of information; race and religion; immigration and asylum, which is detention; miscellaneous, which is a JHA matter and is most important; Terrorism Act 2000; weapons of mass destruction; security of pathogens and toxins, which is the laboratories; security of the nuclear industry; aviation security; police powers; retention of communications data; and bribery and corruption.
I shall arrange for that list to be split so that people can see which subjects are intended to be taken on each of the four days in Committee.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Christmas Day (Trading) Bill [H.L.]
3.11 p.m.
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Unless, therefore, any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Lord Davies of Coity.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill
3.12 p.m.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The Bill is needed because of what happened in the United States on 11th September. Thousands of people were murdered in cold blood: office workers;

143
airline crews and passengers; fire and police officers; men, women and children; and people from many nationalities, ethnic backgrounds and creeds. It is generally accepted that as we consider the Bill through its stages we should remember the terrible events of that day which gave rise to it.
Since those atrocities, the Government have considered whether our legal framework and security against acts of terrorism are sufficient. We have concluded that wholesale revision of our laws is not necessary. That is also the view of the law enforcement agencies. But because of what happened on 11th September, we need to protect ourselves in new ways. As I have said previously in this House, on that day the terrorists rewrote their rule book. We therefore need to do the same.
That means enhancing our existing anti-terrorism legislation. It means ensuring that security—for example, at airports—reflects the new threats that we face. It means recognising that international terrorists are well financed and willing to use weapons of mass destruction. It also means tackling the effects of what has happened in our own communities; the attacks, the threats and the hatred that has been shown.
The Bill is a proportionate, measured and moderate response to the events of 11th September. Many people will offer criticisms of the Bill and as a team we will do our best to defend its contents. However, the fact remains that it is a moderate response to the events of 11th September. Noble Lords will offer many suggestions about what else could have been included in the Bill but we have not sought to go the whole way. What is more, we have not rushed it. I accept that its passage through this House and the other place is quick, but 11th September is now some time ago and we took care before we published the legislation.
The Bill contains specific and targeted measures and it strikes a balance between respecting our fundamental liberties and ensuring that they are not exploited. The problem is that in a tolerant liberal society, if we are not guarded we will find that those who do not seek to be part of that society will use our tolerance and liberalism to destroy that society. That is a reality.
I intend to describe in general terms each part of the Bill, not each of the clauses. That would take far too long and we can discuss the detail in Committee. I want to put on record the thanks of the Government and of both Houses to all the members of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, the members of the Home Affairs Select Committee and, finally but by no means least, your Lordships' Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform. They have made considerable efforts to examine the Bill in a very short time and have produced extremely valuable reports. I am conscious of the efforts made by the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform. I have examined the report and its four recommendations. We will do our best to meet the spirit and, where we can, the letter of those recommendations. They are reasonable and where we
144
cannot meet them we must have a good reason for not doing so. It will be a matter for your Lordships as to the way in which we progress.
I shall now deal with the parts of the Bill in the order in which they are printed. I hope that that will not cause too much confusion. Parts 1 and 2 relate to terrorist property and freezing orders. They contain new measures to combat terrorist financing and aid law enforcement agencies in their investigations. They complement those measures in the Proceeds of Crime Bill, but they are specific to terrorism.
There will be new powers for the police to monitor the bank accounts of terrorist suspects for up to 90 days. The police will be able to freeze assets from the start of an investigation, rather than from the start of criminal proceedings. Police and Customs officers will be able to seize cash anywhere within the United Kingdom. It will be an offence for those working in a regulated financial sector not to report where there are "reasonable grounds" to suspect that accounts finance terrorism.
Part 2 deals with the power to freeze assets wherever there is an overseas threat to the UK economy or to the lives of UK citizens and residents. It modernises an existing power and allows us to counter the risk of assets being used to finance terrorism.
Part 3 deals with the disclosure of information. It widens the existing powers for the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise to pass confidential information to law enforcement and intelligence agencies. At present, only information regarding murder or treason can be disclosed. That hampers the exchange of information in the fight against terrorism.
Therefore, the Bill, in Part 3, allows for information to be disclosed for the purposes of a criminal investigation; for criminal proceedings; and where it would help decide whether an investigation or proceedings should start or finish. I fully accept that that is a highly sensitive part of the Bill with various government agencies exchanging information. It has been done in other legislation, most recently in last year's Social Security Fraud Bill. There must be good and compelling reasons for such disclosure and we believe that there are good and compelling reasons for the extension in this case.
Part 4 deals with immigration and asylum matters and offers proposals to combat abuse of immigration and asylum processes by international terrorists. The Government will maintain the respect for human rights which characterises our society—our commitment through our domestic law plus our international undertakings such as the European Convention on Human Rights and the Geneva Convention on Refugees 1951.
The Bill allows indefinite detention of people whose suspected involvement in international terrorism makes them a threat to national security. It applies where removal from the United Kingdom is the desirable aim but is not currently possible. As I said in the debate last week, our first choice would be to

145
prosecute and remove if we could. If not, the choice would be to allow people to roam free or to detain them.
There are circumstances in which we cannot remove people for reasons that have been stated many times in your Lordships' House. We shall abide by our commitment to Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights as interpreted by the Court at Strasbourg. There can be no derogation from Article 3; either it applies or it does not. We are not prepared to dismiss that provision and, therefore, we are unable to remove people to certain countries.
There are full safeguards. In particular, the power must be renewed by both Houses of Parliament, initially after 15 months and thereafter every year. The Bill has been amended so that the power is reviewed independently by the reviewer of the Terrorism Act 2000, the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. Those amendments were inserted into the Bill in the other place in the past few days. The Bill has also been amended to provide a five-year sunset clause. Under Clause 29 the power ceases after five years. There will be no affirmative or negative order; it will cease. If any government want to reintroduce the measure they must do so by primary legislation. That part of the Bill is subject to an absolute sunset clause after five years.
The new power of detention will be available for use only after the Home Secretary has certified that the person is a threat to national security. The decision to issue that certificate will be subject to appeal to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission. That is a fairly new body. Its work is not widely known and it has not dealt with many cases. The commission was set up in 1997 by legislation which was approved by both Houses without dissent. The commission is chaired by a High Court judge. There will always be two judges and a lay person present. I understand that eight individuals—four judges and four lay people—can be called upon. This body is not an employment tribunal. The establishment of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission in the first place was a major constitutional step.
SIAC will be able to weigh all the evidence, including sensitive intelligence. The appellant's interests will be fully represented throughout the process and every six months SIAC will carry out a review of the certification. I do not want to mislead the House because I am using shorthand. The appellant will have his own lawyer or representative. However, before SIAC the appellant's lawyer who represents his case will be appointed from a list approved by the Attorney-General. For obvious reasons, there are restrictions on the information that the lawyer can share with his or her client.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I am much obliged to my noble friend for giving way. Will the appellant have as much information before him and his representative as the person who represents the
146
Secretary of State and the court? I believe that that will not be so. However, I am prepared to consider what my noble friend has to say.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, no, the person will not. He will not have the intelligence evidence or the intercepts. He will not have the evidence that makes it necessary for the matter to be considered in a closed court. If we could prosecute on the basis of the available evidence in open court, we would do so. There are circumstances in which we simply cannot do that because we do not use intercept evidence in our courts. We believe that we have the best instrument that we can fashion. It was set up with the approval of this House—it was fully debated both here and in the other place—for this very purpose.
For many years the Home Secretary has had power to remove people under the Immigration Act 1971. The ability of the three wise men to look over his or her shoulder was not thought to be wholly satisfactory and SIAC was set up for that very purpose. This is an unusual set of circumstances but we live in unusual times. This is the best that we believe we can do to maintain a civilised approach to the arrangements without letting the country be taken to the bank, if you like, by international terrorists. We must have a weapon. SIAC will he a part of that.
The person detained will be free to leave the UK at any time he chooses, unless he is subject to other proceedings which require his presence in this country. If he can find a third country to accept him—there will be no secret deliveries to such states—he is free to leave at any time. It is probable that that will not occur many times, but to that extent we do not equate this measure with the former method of internment where there was no possibility of anyone leaving of his own choice. These powers would require derogation from Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which is allowed under Article 15. This House and the other place have debated the derogation order.
There are three important changes in Part 4 in relation to asylum and immigration. There is a restriction on judicial review of the actions and decisions by SIAC in respect of the new powers of certification and detention. In our view, which we believe is shared by some noble Lords, SIAC is a fully competent appeal mechanism. There is a route of appeal on a point of law from SIAC to the Court of Appeal and, if necessary, to the House of Lords.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister. I tabled a Question for Written Answer on 18th October. I asked what previous attempts had been made by Parliament to restrict judicial review and what the consequences had been. May I hope for an answer to that question before we reach Committee stage?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I certainly hope so. I do not know whether the Question was directed to me. Perhaps the Question was directed to another

147
Minister. We are doing our best to answer these points as quickly as possible. I accept that outstanding matters of that kind should be answered by Committee stage; otherwise, noble Lords cannot have an informed debate.
I turn to the second change in the area of immigration and asylum which relates to the Geneva Convention of 1951. That convention recognises that terrorists are undeserving of protection under it. Not all of us read the whole convention; most people know the first few words. But we need to take account of the fact that terrorists cannot claim protection under the 1951 convention. Even if notorious terrorists apply for asylum we must weigh the risk of persecution against their exclusion from protection. Therefore, the Bill provides that where the Secretary of State certifies that a person is excluded from the protection of the convention and his removal would be conducive to the public good, an appeal on the substance of any asylum claim will not need to be examined. The person has taken himself outside the protection of the convention. There are proper safeguards. There is an appeal to SIAC against the certificate.
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, perhaps I may press my noble friend on SIAC which has been the subject of debate among many colleagues. Are the current arrangements for the construction of SIAC absolutely set in stone or may there be some reform in that area in future?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I know of no plans in that regard. The commission does not meet in open session and the names of those who sit are not on a published list. I believe that it has dealt with only three cases, so it does not have a massive amount of experience. We are asking SIAC to take on a slightly new role here. I have no doubt that the point which underlies my noble friend's question will be taken into account. If there are further cases of an unusual character which require changes to working practices and other arrangements, they will he considered. But the commission is set up under statute and that possibility always exists. I would never say "never" to anything in that regard because so far the commission has considered only a few cases.
The third change is that the Bill amends the Asylum and Immigration Act 1999 to allow for the retention for up to 10 years of certain fingerprints taken in immigration and asylum cases. This may appear stark, but fingerprints have been taken in asylum cases since 1993 and all asylum seekers have been fingerprinted. In more recent times, fingerprints have been digitalised and stored on computer, so there is now direct access into mobile fingerprint checkers around the country while people are going about their work. It is normal that where a person succeeds in making a claim for asylum—that is, where they are granted indefinite leave to remain—their fingerprints are destroyed. The only fingerprints retained are of those whose applications fail.
However, it is not unknown for people who have made successful claims for asylum and have been granted indefinite leave to remain, to leave this
148
country and to make another claim for asylum—or., as the case may be, to make another claim for asylum from within this country—using totally different identities in order to set up another character, another passport, another bank account, another set of benefit cards and so on. Their fingerprints are our defence against that.
I can assure noble Lords that we do not do this lightly. We want to stop those people who are seeking to establish multiple identities in case they are involved in perpetuating terrorism.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but can he tell the House how many people have been involved in this kind of activity? It sounds very much like an urban rumour.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I can assure the noble Earl that it is not. When we debate the clause in question, I shall give whatever figures we have available. When I was first appointed a Home Office Minister, I visited our immigration and nationality department at Croydon. On the day or my visit there was an example of someone who had previously made a successful claim. I was gobsmacked. It had never crossed my mind that that would happen. But it has happened.
Not many people will be involved—I am not arguing that there will be hundreds of cases—but people do it. Last Friday. when I was at a passport office, I saw a photograph of someone who has made nine applications for British passports. All we have is his photograph, which covers nine different names and personalities. Those are the nine applications that we have stopped; we do not know whether there are any more. This kind of abuse does happen and the Bill is a modest addition to our armoury.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, have not the Government announced that it is their intention to issue all asylum seekers with cards containing biometric data as from January 2002, and to complete the process of issuing such cards to all existing asylum seekers by the end of the year? Would not that cope with the difficulty described by the noble Lord?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, the noble Lard has missed the point. It is not asylum seekers but refugees who have come into this country over the past few years whose fingerprints are still on file. They will not be issued with cards because they are not asylum seekers. They are citizens going about their business, getting a new career, getting a new life together. Their fingerprints are held on file and we will keep them for 10 years. They are not involved in our plans for the issue of biometric cards. The cards are for asylum seekers. If you are a refugee, you cease to be an asylum seeker.

149
Part 5 of the Bill deals with race and religion. People have used the current international situation to abuse, assault—
Lord Ackner: My Lords, before the Minister leaves Part 4, can he help me on what looks like a rather important point in regard to Clause 27, which is on page 14 of my copy of the statute? Subsection (9) states:
"Cancellation by the Commission of a certificate issued under section 21 shall not prevent the Secretary of State from issuing another certificate, whether on the grounds of a change of circumstance or otherwise".
That sounds as though the Minister can cock an entire snook at the decisions made by this body because, when it cancels a certificate, the Secretary of State can then issue another one, not on the ground of change of circumstance but because he thinks the tribunal has acted wrongly. What is the point of the words "or otherwise"?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I shall do my best to answer the noble and learned Lord. The Joint Committee on Human Rights stated that one of the reasons for the words "or otherwise" is to deal with a case where SIAC cancels a certificate on appeal, but the Secretary of State appeals that cancellation in a court of law and wins that appeal in a court of appeal. In that type of case he might wish to issue a fresh certificate. That is why subsection (9) is present in the Bill.
I have several parts of the Bill to deal with and I am conscious of the time.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that "or otherwise" should be properly defined and not left in this wholly unparticularised way?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, at this point, on Second Reading, no, I do not. I shall be happy to debate the matter with the noble and learned Lord during the Committee stage.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, is it not the case that the Home Secretary gave an undertaking in the other place that the words "or otherwise" would be amended so as to narrow their application? Will that happen?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I am trying to deal with the Second Reading at the moment. While there have been changes to the Bill, we are also committed to making other changes, one of them being to Clause 21(2)(c) which deals with the issue of links. We have made a firm commitment to that. We are still looking at other aspects of the Bill which have been raised by the Select Committee. It would not be right for me to muse about those at Second Reading when we will deal with them at the Committee stage. I do not think that I have any further changes to announce during the rest of my speech.
As to race and religion, the current international situation has been used to abuse people and we believe that it is right to extend the laws to protect our citizens
150
from hatred based on religious belief. We have therefore brought forward four proposals, which, I understand, will be debated at length.
The first proposal is to extend the racially aggravated offences contained in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 to include religiously aggravated offences. There were nearly 4,000 prosecutions in the magistrates' courts for racially aggravated offences in 1999–2000. It also deals with the anomaly whereby some religious groups have been protected by the existing race laws because of a distinct racial identity when others have not. That issue has been raised many times, both in this House and the other place.
The second proposal is to replace the offence of incitement to racial hatred in the Public Order Act 1986 with a new combined offence of incitement to racial or religious hatred. It deals with threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour which is intended or likely to stir up racial or religious hatred. It will continue to have a high criminal threshold and the Attorney-General will continue to give consent to prosecutions. It is not about suppressing free speech, fair comment or even jokes. Our target is not behaviour which provokes mirth but behaviour which provokes hatred and violence.
The Bill defines religious hatred by reference to people's religious beliefs or, indeed, lack of religious beliefs. So such people are also protected. We shall not define in the Bill what is "religion"; it is the "hatred" on which we need to concentrate.
The third proposal is that the Bill should amend the restriction in the Public Order Act 1986 of racial hatred to a racial group in Great Britain. So the coverage of the new combined offence will extend to hatred against a racial or religious group outside Great Britain.
The fourth proposal is that the maximum penalty for incitement to racial and religious hatred should be raised from two years to seven years.
Part 6 deals with weapons of mass destruction. The events of 11th September prove that terrorists want to cause mass casualties and maximum destruction. If they could use chemical, nuclear and biological weapons, they would. We have seen evidence that some people may have been thinking about that and therefore we need to strengthen our existing legislation on offences by individuals involving weapons of mass destruction. The aim is to prevent both terrorism and proliferation that can assist terrorism.
Part 6 makes it an offence for anyone in the UK or a UK person abroad to assist in the overseas development of chemical, nuclear or biological weapons.
Part 7 deals with the security of pathogens and toxins. This might be termed the laboratories part of the Bill. There are many laboratories in the country where dangerous substances such as disease cultures are held. Terrorists capable of killing thousands of innocent people in one fell swoop are capable of stealing and misusing these substances. So security at laboratories and other places where such substances are held is paramount.

151
Part 7 provides a regime whereby laboratory managers would be under a duty to report their holdings of dangerous substances to the Health and Safety Executive or to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. The police will have access to the laboratories. Laboratory managers will be required to implement any reasonable security instructions issued by the police. People with access to such laboratories must be subject to police checks, and unsuitable persons must be barred.
Part 8 deals with security in the nuclear industry. It reinforces the regulatory regime for security in the UK's civil nuclear industry. It provides vital protection against the risks that the nuclear industry faces from terrorists and proliferators. The proposals contain three elements.
First, the Bill proposes to extend the powers of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority Constabulary. The constabulary will have full police powers on all civil licensed nuclear sites and up to five kilometres from their boundaries. I understand that at present it operates on only two sites. The new powers will enable the constabulary to protect nuclear sites and nuclear material even more effectively than at present—that is, during transit.
Secondly, there are powers to bring in new regulations to reinforce and modernise the security regulatory regime for the UK civil nuclear industry.
Thirdly, the Bill strengthens the sanctions against those who make damaging disclosures of sensitive information on the security of nuclear sites and nuclear material.
Part 9 deals with aviation security. In some ways it is one of the most surprising parts of the Bill, given the loopholes in our existing law. It will improve the ability of the Government and the police to enforce the aviation security regime in the UK. We already have a comprehensive national aviation security programme. The Government's proposals provide further support. They strengthen the power of the police to deal with potential terrorist attacks at our airports—for example, giving the authorities the power to remove unauthorised persons from airport restricted zones and aircraft. It is already an offence to be present in those zones, but for some unknown reason there is no power to remove unauthorised persons. Furthermore, the proposals strengthen the powers of the Government's Aviation Security Inspectorate in its work to enforce the security regime. We do not know what form another terrorist attack might take. So our aviation security programme needs to be robust and flexible and provide the best protection possible.
Part 10 deals with police powers. It will strengthen the identification powers available to the police; for example, in those instances where people detained by the police do not co-operate with reasonable requests to remove hand and face coverings or help with fingerprinting. The Bill gives the police powers to take fingerprints. It requires suspects to submit to physical examination for identifying marks. It gives the police the power to take photographs of those in police detention. It extends the powers to order the removal
152
of face coverings—for example, masks, gloves or even face paint used to hide a person's identity. The provisions will require amendments to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.
Part 10 also allows for an expansion of the role and jurisdiction of the British Transport Police and the Ministry of Defence Police. It allows both forces to act beyond their present jurisdictional boundaries—that is, outside the fence or perimeter of the normal area that they will be guarding and policing. The provision will apply only when a constable of the local police force asks them to act, or when constables of other specialist forces request assistance. This will be done only when the police act in an emergency. They will not, as was suggested in the other place, have the power to stop motorists or fine people for parking offences or that kind of thing. We are not into that game. This is a specific extension of powers for a specific reason. It will allow police officers from those forces to act with full legal certainty when we and the general public would expect them to act.
Part 11 relates to the retention of communications data. Communications data have been central to the investigation into the terrorist attacks of 11th September. This data has been available because of the excellent co-operation shown by communications service providers. But currently, the data should normally be erased once it is no longer needed for business purposes—that is, once the bill has been sent out.
Effectively, all we are asking for is the retention of the billing detail that any noble Lord would see on a telephone bill; namely, the date a call was made, the number to which it was made, and the time and duration of the call. There is no conversational content in the billing details—indicating that we are not seeking that. We are seeking the billing information. It is possible to tell the locations of the mobile phones from which calls are made. That is extremely useful information. They may be mobile, but they are not so mobile as some of the terrorists might think. This is not an issue of eavesdropping on people's personal correspondence or phone calls, whether they be e-mails or telephone conversations. Effectively we seek only the retention of the billing data.
The plan is that this will work on a voluntary basis. We believe that we can work well with the industry; so far, co-operation has been good. All the powers used will be fully in line with the European Convention on Human Rights and the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act. There will be no generalised expeditions; they will all be related to specific inquiries and will conform to the terms of the legislation. We shall work with the industry on a voluntary code of practice to support this work. There is a reserve power, in case the voluntary system does not work, to bring in a statutory power.
Part 12 relates to bribery and corruption. Corruption engenders the conditions that cause terrorism and allow it to flourish. The Government will bring forward proposals for a general reform of

153
the law on corruption later. But there are two important changes that we need to make to tackle international corruption, which can and should be made now.
First, the Bill will ensure that the law on corruption covers the bribery of foreign public officials, foreign Ministers, foreign MPs and foreign judges. Secondly, it will ensure that the UK has jurisdiction over acts committed by UK nationals and UK companies abroad. I believe that there will be a widespread welcome for that proposal.
Part 13, under the heading "Miscellaneous", relates to the third pillar of the European Union. I realise that this is highly contentious among many of your Lordships and it figures largely in the report of our Select Committee.
The events of 11th September have led to a new determination to co-operate at European and international level. Terrorists do not respect national boundaries. For all practical purposes, most international terrorists are virtually stateless in the technical sense. The country from which they come does not want them back—the government there are probably hunting for them—and they are living under aliases in other countries. So the old way of working, where you knew where the enemy was, does not quite work with today's international terrorism. We need to modify our rules to meet that.
Therefore, in line with the European-wide endeavour. Part 13 includes an enabling power to allow the implementation of measures from the Justice and Home Affairs Council of the European Union. Implementation will be by affirmative order, so Parliament will have an opportunity to debate every proposal put forward under this enabling power.
The measures will reinforce police and judicial cooperation against terrorism and serious crime. As I said in the brief debate that we had last week, we shall not be including the European arrest warrant proposals in this legislation or using the orders. They will he included in an extradition Bill that will come before the House early in the new year.
So how will the powers be used? If we are granted the authority, the Government will come back to the House and will implement primarily the 1995 and 1996 Conventions on Extradition, to which we signed up under the previous government as an international obligation but which have not yet been put in to UK law, and the 2000 Mutual Legal Assistance Convention. This follows closely the implementing provisions set out in the European Communities Act 1972—for example, excluding the powers to raise taxes, legislate retrospectively, or create further legislative powers. So there is a history of doing it this way. We believe that there is a precedent, and that it is important enough to take the powers in the Bill.
Part 13 also relates to the use of dangerous substances and to hoaxing. It contains the new offence of hoaxing, which will be effective from the time the Bill becomes law. There will be a higher prison sentence. Some people have already found out that
154
hoaxes can carry a severe penalty since the events of 11th September. We have had some idiotic and evil hoaxing which frightens people. It certainly wastes a great deal of police time and public money. It has demonstrated how important this power will be. There will be a couple of small but important changes relating to the Intelligence Services Act 1994 and the Terrorism Act 2000. It is not necessary now to go into the details. I have spoken for far too long.
We believe that the Bill is justified. Since the events of 11th September, the United States and Canada have reviewed their anti-terrorist legislation. I accept that those two countries are not subject to the ECHR. Our EU partners are. They are all reviewing their anti-terrorist legislation. Half of them do not have anti-terrorist legislation and are actively considering bringing in new laws. We have antiterrorist legislation for good reasons. As we have said, we are also a prime target on anyone's list given our support for the United States and our international efforts. Nevertheless, we start from a strong base in terms of a civilised legal framework. I genuinely believe that this is a moderate and precautionary response to which the public in general give wholehearted support. We cannot forecast when the next act of mass terrorism will be. No one claims that the Bill solves all the problems and will stop all terrorism. However, it is a measured response seeking to put hurdles in the way of those who seek to commit international terrorism. I therefore commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Rooker.)
3.51 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I thank the Minister, the Government, Members of another place, the Bill staff in the Home Office and civil servants who have been kind enough, on occasions even before the Bill was published in another place, to meet with us to explain what it was all about. I admit to the House that I have had to climb a learning curve which felt more akin to a cliff face.
The Minister spoke of the origin of the Bill. We should always—I repeat, always—remember the attack on 11th September with the dreadful loss of life. It is true to say that that is responsible for a new perception of the dangers from which modern society in all major urban communities—I do not refer only to the developed world—suffers. All major urban communities today could be susceptible to this kind of attack.
What we have not heard about after the World Trade Centre disaster is the long-term effect. A remarkable number of people were very fortunate and came out of those towers before they collapsed. The vast majority no longer have any employment. There is major disruption to electronic communications in particular in that part of New York. If one considers terrorists who are daring enough to carry out an attack of that nature, it is not difficult to conceive of a group which, without perhaps causing that scale of death,

155
could none the less cause those secondary effects and damage the economy of a major urban society such as that of London without difficulty and risk to themselves. That is the reality which the Government seek to prevent. To that extent, we support the Government.
However, the Bill has had a remarkably short gestation period. It must have been an enormously difficult job for those responsible for its drafting. It has achieved three days' discussion, pretty nearly on the trot, in another place. That is not sufficient time to consider a measure of this significance.
We have agreed that there should be emergency procedures in this House to facilitate the Bill. Eight out of 10 working days will be devoted exclusively to discussion on the Bill. But the Bill is in the position of a premature baby: dragged far too soon kicking and screaming into the world when it would have been better to have gone full term. Like such babies, I consider the Bill to be in need of some intensive care.
I begin with the Title of the Bill because it seems to me somewhat less than fortunate. It is the Antiterrorism, Crime and Security Bill. It is an emergency Bill. That is why we have agreed special procedures to facilitate and help the Government. But crime is always with us. It is certainly not an emergency matter. I believe that the inclusion of that one little word in the Title has led to a certain laxity of focus and intention in the drafting of the Bill. Throughout the Bill, perfectly proper powers in relation to anti-terrorism and security are extended to deal with the generality of crime. I suggest that a more appropriate and tighter focus would have been more suitable given the treatment that we are obliged to give the Bill.
Like the Minister, I intend to run through the Bill in the order in which it is printed. The House will be relieved to hear that, unlike the noble Lord, I do not intend to go into the detail of every part of the Bill. We support in general Parts 1 and 2 of the Bill. The issues of terrorist property and freezing orders seem essential if we are to get under control such organisations as A1'Qaeda. This is not a matter simply for this country. We can play only a part in the much wider international co-operative scheme to try to prevent that kind of organisation becoming a danger to society.
However, in Part 3, Schedule 2 increases enormously not only the powers of disclosure of information between government departments but also the requirement for disclosure by regulated enterprises. It largely refers to financial houses, and so on, in the City of London. Those commercial bodies are given significant responsibilities. The offence of non-disclosure is created. That needs careful consideration. In its business capacity the City of London represents an enormously important part of the economy of our country. In putting into law such regulations, we need to ensure that we do not make the City's situation so impossible that it starts to lose business to other parts of the world where the law is perhaps kinder——although I do not say more lax. That consideration is one of which we should not lose sight.
156
Part 4 presents different problems and I gravely doubt that it will do anything to improve the security of the British community at large. Part 4 gives the Government—in effect, the Home Secretary—power to intern without time limit. If the Government no longer had that power, presumably persons interned would be released. What might be the reaction of a terrorist group such as A1'Qaeda if the UK interned a reasonable number of its active members? Those individuals would be kept in considerable comfort at the taxpayers' expense but I have nasty suspicion that A1'Qaeda might think it perfectly reasonable to kidnap people and take them hostage, with a view to exchanging them for interned persons that A1'Qaeda wants released. If my nasty suspicion were ever proved correct, we will not have done this country a favour.
The Government have not gone as far as they might in relation to internment. The European Convention on Human Rights provides us with the opportunity to withdraw from it, then enter a reservation that would allow the UK the power to deport and re-enter six months later. That way, the UK would he able to deport rather than intern, which would be a better situation.
I wonder what the Home Secretary thinks about the ECHR. When this House was giving the Human Rights Bill its Second Reading on 3rd November 1997, the Lord Chancellor said:
"I am convinced that incorporation of the European Convention into our domestic law will deliver a modern reconciliation of the inevitable tension between the democratic right of the majority to exercise political power and the democratic need of individuals and minorities to have their human rights secured".—[Official Report, 3/11/97, col. 1234.]
That may still be so. The noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, speaking to the Motion that the Bill do now pass on 5th February 1998 said:
"The Bill is brilliantly conceived and exquisitely well executed".—[Official Report, 5/2/1998; cols. 834–835.]
I suspect that the Home Secretary takes a different view. En passant, it is worth noting that parts of the media have made much of why other European countries have not had the difficulties experienced in the United Kingdom, requiring us to derogate from the ECHR. The answer is simple. Most other countries had the good sense to enter reservations before they signed up. It is a matter of regret that the UK did not.
Part 4 introduces a further complication. Clause 21 seeks to make a distinction between international terrorism and home terrorism, which conflicts with the words of the Prime Minister:
"The legislation that we propose will apply to terrorism wherever it occurs, whether inside the United Kingdom or outside, or whether it is international or domestic".—[Official Report, 4/10/2001; col 684.]
I am not convinced that the Bill is in keeping with the right honourable Gentleman's statement. We shall deal with that issue, and with others that I have mentioned, by amendments.

157
Part 5 deals with the difficulties of religious incitement and its incorporation into the law of the land through the Public Order Act 1986. Last Wednesday, I spent 13 minutes speaking to the Unstarred Question on the subject tabled by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway. The House will be immensely relieved to hear that I do not intend to repeat the arguments that I put on record on that occasion. Suffice it to say that Part 5 contains an enormous potential conflict between the right of freedom of speech and the potential for religious incitement.
Let there be no doubt, I am clear that there is a case for this legislation—but I return to my remarks about the Title. I have the greatest difficulty making any connection between the necessary argument and debate about religious prejudice and anti-terrorism or crime or security. It is wholly inappropriate to see a matter of this nature dealt with this way in this Bill. It does not give the House the proper opportunity to consider in full detail the implications of what we are supposed to be about.
Part 10 deals with the extension of police powers and suffers from the flaw that I have already mentioned. Those powers are applied generally across the whole field of criminality, not to the emergency terrorist aspects that should be the Bill's sole concern. I accept that that is a matter of judgment and we shall introduce amendments to remove that possible flaw.
Part 12 is interesting because legislating on bribery and corruption seems to have become completely non-controversial, with general agreement that it is a good thing. Of course it is in principle a good thing—like apple pie and cream—but this is the one part of the Bill that no one has suggested including in any sunset legislation. If Part 12 stands, how are we to deal with a situation that could parallel that of the United States Government, which feels it necessary to offer a $25 million reward for information about Osama bin Laden. Is that not a bribe?
How are our security services to work? There may be other powers and exclusions of which I am not aware. If so, I shall be happy to be informed that that is the case. However, if that is not the case, we are creating a rod to beat our own backs with.
Worse than that, are we talking about private or public corruption? It may seem invidious to make a distinction, but this country is, above all else, an international trading organisation. It may be a matter of regret that there are parts of the world where backhanders are the norm in business, but we have to trade in those countries just as we have to trade in countries that operate similar standards to those that we expect here. Do we wish to handicap our business enterprises internationally? I accept the general agreement on Part 10, but I do not absolutely support its contents. We need to be careful.
Part 13 deals with the third pillar of the EU. That is a fundamental issue, because it allows what is in effect primary legislation to be introduced, unsupervised by the democratic process, as secondary legislation in this
158
House. Such matters will not be considered by the European Parliament and we shall receive them only as orders that we can accept or refuse. I cannot do better than refer your Lordships to the seventh report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee this year. After three pages of discussion and argument, beginning on page 4, it finishes with the following recommendation:
"For these reasons the Committee is of the view that the powers to implement by secondary legislation proposals under the Third Pillar should not be granted except to allow the implementation of a measure that the Government can demonstrate is a key element in its emergency proposals and yet not of such importance as to warrant primary legislation".
There is nothing more to be said.
Our view is that the Bill consists of the good, the bad and the not relevant. The process that we are going through means that there has not been adequate consideration in another place. We have a clear duty to do better. There will be much detailed examination in Committee. Provided that we maintain the core purposes of the Bill without damaging it, the other place will have no right to complain if the Bill goes back to them, as I very much hope that it will, in a considerably modified form.
4.14 p.m.
Lord McNally: My Lords, I echo the thanks of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, for the courtesy of the Minister and his staff in providing back-up and briefing to the Opposition Front Benches as we have tried to prepare for the Bill. The Minister said at the conclusion of his 40-minute opening speech that he had spoken for too long. I disagree. The problem is that the Bill is too long, not the speech.
When I spoke in the debate on the Human Rights Act derogation order, I reminded the House of Gladstone's dictum that it is the Government's duty to govern, but it is also Parliament's responsibility,
"to call to account those who do govern".
That responsibility is particularly onerous when the Government are seeking to fast-track normal parliamentary procedures on the grounds of emergency. I suspect that we shall be reminded many times during the debate that Parliament has a less than perfect record when we legislate in haste.
In addition, there is the worrisome habit of Whitehall to do a little shelf-clearing at the time of emergency powers Bills, slipping in measures that have failed before or that would fail if given thorough parliamentary scrutiny. I am afraid that we take an old-fashioned approach to an emergency powers Bill. It should address the emergency at hand and certainly should be of limited time and duration.
As the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, said, the title of the Bill gives a clue to the Government's approach. It is not a Terrorism (Emergency Powers) Bill—tight, narrowly focused and immediate. It is the Antiterrorism, Crime and Security Bill—the work of no fewer than six government departments. As a result, as well as proposals that are intended to respond to the

159
immediate and perceived emergency, there are also, as the Daily Telegraph pointed out in a good analysis on 23rd November,
"many new laws that might otherwise have required Bills of their own and months of parliamentary scrutiny are being steamrollered through Parliament without the levels of debate that they might otherwise have attracted".
In such circumstances, Parliament has a special responsibility to heed the strictures of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which said that Members of both Houses,
"should satisfy themselves that there are adequate safeguards to protect the rights of the individual citizen against abuse of those powers".
In addition to shelf-sweeping and a willingness to put in non-emergency legislation, there is also a tendency among Ministers and their supporters to adopt the "man in Whitehall knows best" approach. One of the least endearing aspects of this Government is their firm belief that they invented politics in 1997. The result is a certain impatience in dealing with external advice. That is accompanied by the "If only you knew what I know" syndrome.
The great value of this House, particularly at such a time, is its collective wisdom and experience. We shall hear contributions today from some of the most distinguished lawyers in the land and from people who have held some of the highest offices of state. I look forward to the contribution of my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Hillhead. We also have contributors who know a thing or two about security briefings. Some of them may have written one or two.
Our basic approach should be fourfold. First, we should make use of the formidable array of experience and expertise in this House to examine, advise on and revise the Bill, paying particular attention to getting the balance right between an adequate but proportionate response to the immediate terrorist threat and retaining a due regard for the defence of civil liberties and human rights. The Government must make their case. This House in particular will not sign a blank cheque on these measures.
Secondly, where the Government clearly make their case for emergency powers, we should grant them with due dispatch. We should do likewise where there are loopholes in our law that are being exploited or are capable of exploitation by terrorists and their allies. Thirdly, where measures have merit but are not emergency measures, we should suggest deferment for normal parliamentary scrutiny. Finally, where the powers sought are unjustified or lack proportionality, particularly as they affect the judicial process, civil liberties or human rights, we will oppose them.
The Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, have filleted the Bill nicely for us. I shall not follow them by doing the same. In any event, I shall be followed by an array of talent from these Benches who will point out our specific concerns on the Bill.
In Committee, and in the light of this debate, we will probe and question the Government's intentions and justification for the powers they seek. We shall certainly take into account the report of the Delegated
160
Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee which we have only just received and which, as the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, said, has some very interesting things to say about European legislation. At Report and Third Reading we shall seek to test the opinion of the House on issues where we oppose granting the powers requested or where we want to suggest improvements to the Bill.
A great deal of debate has been generated by the powers sought in Part 4 of the Bill. As a non-lawyer, but a strong supporter, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, of the Human Rights Act, I would have preferred to widen offences and create new laws rather than grant Ministers arbitrary powers and derogate from the Act.
The Minister outlined a number of concessions including a five-year "sunset" clause. We shall wish to look at that. There remains concern about the powers requested and I shall listen carefully to the arguments deployed, not least by noble and learned Lords, about this aspect of the Bill.
As regards the funding of terrorism and corruption, we offer basic support. Many of the provisions, as the Minister indicated, are really fast-forwarding items that would have been in the Proceeds of Crime Bill. The corruption areas bring forward a much needed endorsement of the OECD convention in this area.
I take on board the reservations of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, about the possible damage to the City and the possible hampering of business abroad, but I do not follow him along that road. What is clear—it was clear even before 11th September—is that we need a new approach, both nationally and internationally, to the way in which the financial services, businesses and their associated professions see their responsibilities in relation to both terrorism and crime. It is simply not good enough to say, "I am not a private detective" or "If we didn't do it somebody else would". There is both a corporate and an individual responsibility to help authorities. Democratic societies prosper in a world of social justice, stability and shared prosperity. We cannot impose those values on others but we can, at an individual level, at the level of the company and of the professions, and through our national and international laws, insist on zero tolerance of practices which give comfort to our enemies, fuel and fund their operations, and in so doing pose a threat to the security of us all.
A headline in the Guardian recently described the City of London as "the laundry of choice for criminals". There is no long term benefit for Britain having that reputation. In any event, at a personal level, the drug which destroys your daughter's or son's life, the terrorist bomb which kills your best friend and the world crisis which sends your pension fund into free fall might all have been aided and abetted, if unwittingly, by that respectable accountant you play golf with or the lawyer you see every morning on the 7.45 to Cannon Street. We have to overcome the idea that corruption and money laundering can be tolerated. As I say, I call for zero tolerance.

161
It would be unfair to the long list of speakers to follow if I were to try to cover in detail what the Daily Telegraph in its analysis has identified as 11 separate pieces of legislation. I have already indicated our basic attitude to Part 4 of the Bill and towards money laundering and related crime.
As regards the parts of the Bill relating to communications service providers, I believe that some of us will recognise old friends and old arguments from the debate on the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act. In a brief provided by the CBI on this section of the Bill, a point was made which I believe is a common theme and criticism. It states:
"The CBI believes that a wholly greater set of demands is being made—and one of much greater cost to business freedom and practices—if the Bill introduces new powers for the investigation of minor crimes or crimes which do not relate to terrorist activity".
That is a perfect example of sweeping up and shelf clearing to grab new powers. Elsewhere, in terms of so-called gateway provisions for Customs and Excise and Inland Revenue or the expanded role of transport, MoD and atomic energy police, there is a suspicion that new powers and new offences are being slipped through under the cover of emergency. If Ministers find such suspicions unworthy, I can only say that they are based on the fact that they and previous governments have done it before. I know that many of my colleagues, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, will have more to say on the RIP matters.
I have not gone into detail on this portmanteau Bill out of respect for speakers who are to follow and my desire to hear expert opinions, and in the knowledge that a number of my noble friends will be covering areas to which I have not referred. For example, my noble friend Lord Dholakia who will be covering immigration, asylum and religious incitement to hatred. And my noble friend Lord Maclennan, in his maiden speech, will be bringing his long experience of constitutional and human rights issues to bear.
No one on these Benches underestimates the threat to our society posed by international terrorism. Charles Kennedy and other spokesmen for our party have given full and constructive support to the Government during this period. The Minister rightly reminded us of the events of 11th September and of the new rule book which terrorists wrote on that day. We recognise the reality of that warning and of that by Richard Holbrook, the former State Department trouble shooter, now head of a Washington task force on terrorism, who, in two chilling predictions, said,
"The issue is nuclear. There is no question that the next generation of terrorists, rather than going for small, little dramas will go for the big one. They now understand that the way to get the world's attention is not strapping the bomb to themselves in a pizza parlour, but to do something so horrific it gets you into the Guinness Book of Records for terrorism. That takes years to plan—and it will be nuclear",
adding that he believed that we in the West were "completely unprepared" for biological and chemical attack.
162
Given what the American security services call "a clear and present danger", it would be totally irresponsible for the Government not to tighten our defences. They have our full support in so doing. But they need proportionality. As Charter 88 has said,
"The Government has enjoyed wide and public support for its strategy post 11th September. It will be crucial to foster open democratic debate for the Government to retain that confidence and not to damage that which it seeks to protect".
What this House lacks in democracy we make up for in experience and expertise. So I believe that there is no better place qualified for such an open debate than this Chamber. The Government would do well to listen to its collective wisdom in the hours and days to come.

Pre-Budget Report
4.28 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat the Pre-Budget Statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Statement is as follows:
"The task of this Pre-Budget Report is to rise to the global economic challenge facing our country and to set out how, upon a foundation of stability and growth, we can, and will, build a stronger, fairer Britain even in an uncertain world.
"So I start with the state of the world economy. America is in recession, as is Japan, as are other Asian economies like Singapore, Taiwan and Hong Kong. The Euro area is slowing rapidly and world trade growth has slowed dramatically from its 12 per cent growth last year to only one per cent this year.
"Growth among the main G7 economies is expected to slow from 3.5 per cent last year to just one per cent this year. Indeed, for the first time for three decades each region of the world has slowed at one and the same time and more sharply than before, and independent forecasters expect the world downturn to be deeper and longer with economic growth in 2002 of just 1.5 per cent in the euro area, 0.7 per cent in the USA, and minus 0.6 per cent in Japan.
"No one country can insulate its economy from such a synchronised slowdown—and in addition no one can yet judge the full and final impact of the traumatic and tragic events of September 11th.
"These testing times demand decisive action. So in Britain interest rates have been cut seven times in nine months, and Britain's interest rates are now the lowest for nearly 40 years. And with public spending and public investment rising this year, our fiscal policy is—at the right time of the economic cycle—complementing and reinforcing monetary policy and thus stability and growth.
"In the past, when the main economies of the industrialised world have gone into a downturn, Britain has invariably come off worst. Indeed, in the past, in every major global slowdown since 1945, Britain has entered weaker, suffered longer,

163
experienced higher inflation and endured higher unemployment. So it is at a time like this that our new monetary and fiscal regime—Bank of England independence, the symmetrical inflation target, our new fiscal rules and the tough decisions we have taken to reduce debt—is being tested.
"When the world turned down in 1998, decisive action by the newly independent Bank of England ensured the British economy sustained its growth. Throughout 2001 Britain has continued to grow. Monetary policy has played its full part. First, the Bank of England has been able to take pre-emptive action because British inflation has been at or near our target of 2.5 per cent for four years, in contrast to inflation rising to 10 per cent when the world economy slowed in 1990.
"Over the past two years, Britain has had the lowest annual inflation since 1963. Indeed, our average inflation has been lower than any other comparable country in Europe. Secondly, the symmetrical inflation target set in 1997 at 2.5 per cent means that inflation below that figure is as undesirable as inflation above it. Deflation is as unacceptable as inflation.
"So it is because in 1997 we put in place a symmetrical target—one that is pro-growth as well as anti-inflation—that, while at every other time since 1945 when the world faced a slowdown Britain was unable to act decisively or acted too late, this time the Bank of England has been able to adjust policy at the right time and in the right way to safeguard both economic stability and growth. That is why during this world slowdown our interest rates are now 4 per cent in contrast to British interest rates of 10 per cent—and for one whole year 15 per cent—during the boom and bust of a decade ago.
"I come to the forecasts for growth in an uncertain world economy. At the time of last year's Pre-Budget Report, independent forecasters said US growth in 2001 would be 3.4 per cent—they now expect it to be just 1 per cent. For Germany they expected growth of 3 per cent—now actual growth is expected to be 0.7 per cent. For Japan they expected growth of 2 per cent—now actual growth is expected to be minus 0.5 per cent.
"Last year we forecast British growth in 2001 would come in at a range from 2.25 to 2.75 per cent. And we based our public finance projections on 2.25 per cent. I can tell the House that our expected growth figure is exactly that; 2.25 per cent. So while some pre-Budget representations claimed Britain was worst placed of any country to withstand the global slowdown, the OECD and IMF have both forecast that Britain this year will have the highest growth of any of the G7 countries.
"In the period ahead there are of course real risks for both Britain and the world. But it is because of the decisive action we have taken on monetary and fiscal policy that I remain cautiously optimistic about the prospects for the British economy. While next year independent forecasts expect the United States to grow by just 0.7 per cent, the euro area to
164
grow by 1.5 per cent and Japan to contract by 0.6 per cent, we now forecast British growth of from 2 to 2.5 per cent—and then rising in 2003 to 2.75 per cent and to 3.25 per cent as the economy returns to trend in 2004.
"While the British economy has been stable, it can and must be stronger. All countries are having to respond to unique economic circumstances: an overshoot and then collapse in US information technology investment and then IT production (both down 12 per cent); a downturn that contributed to failing industrial production as a whole (now down 4.3 per cent across the G7) and then to a dramatic slowdown in world trade in industrial goods (from 13 per cent growth last year down to almost zero now) along with a large increase in business uncertainty since September 11th.
"With manufacturing output having fallen across the world—by an estimated 5 per cent in the G7 countries—British manufacturing output has fallen over the same period by 2 per cent after rising by 2 per cent in 2000—and there have been consequent effects for both exports and imports and for business investment whose share of national income nonetheless continues near an all-time high. The challenge for Britain—for manufacturing and across the economy—is both to maintain our hard-won stability and to accelerate tile productivity improvements that will increase output, jobs and wealth.
"The global risks which demand continuing vigilance are both cyclical and structural in nature: downside risks if America takes longer to recover or if there is a long-term change in oil prices or a longer-term change in company or consumer behaviour after September 11th which would lead to a much more uncertain world economy in which Britain would have to work even harder to make productivity gains; and, further out, there are upside risks of inflationary pressures if, as a result of lower interest rates, consumer spending grows too quickly. But there is also an upside opportunity for growth if world recovery is accompanied by productivity improvements here in Britain.
"So, far from deferring our enterprise agenda, this is exactly the time to press ahead with supply-side reforms to encourage new investment and higher productivity and it is now right that we take forward the measures on enterprise on which we have been consulting. Further statements on manufacturing will be made in the days ahead by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, and on the reform of our planning laws by the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions with proposals to improve the flexibility, speed and responsiveness of the land use system.
"Today I can tell the House that we will proceed with four tax cuts for enterprise and the abolition of one further tax in its entirety. To help British business, and particularly manufacturers, to invest in the technologies of the future, I have decided

165
(following our consultation) that in next year's Finance Bill we will legislate for a new research and development tax credit for large companies—a tax cut to boost innovation. To increase investment and reward entrepreneurship we will, from next April, make a second tax cut—a cut in capital gains tax to 20 per cent for business assets held for more than one year and 10 per cent for business assets held for two. Three-quarters of taxpayers with business assets will pay only a 10p rate; overall a capital gains tax regime more favourable to enterprise than that of the United States.
"To reward managers taking risks in new business ventures I now propose to double the reach of our share option scheme to all businesses with assets of up to £30 million—a tax incentive that I will introduce immediately. Because for small businesses I want to cut tax bills and red tape, I can confirm that the Budget will extend the 10p corporation tax band, cutting taxes for small companies, and that from April a new flat rate and simplified scheme for payment of VAT will cut form-filling and also save a typical small business up to £1,000 a year. There is a strong case for cash help for small firms to bring their payroll and tax systems on-line and I am publishing today and consulting on the Carter review.
"In each year since 1997 I have abolished at least one tax, most recently abolishing betting duty. For 54 years, since the 1947 Budget, tax has been levied on the football pools. I have agreed that the tax on pools companies will be 15 per cent of their gross profits and, after an agreement with the industry that guarantees the continuation of their funding of the Football Foundation and the Foundation for Sport and the Arts, I am abolishing football pools tax altogether. That change will take place from 1st April.
"So just as people no longer have to pay tax when they bet, they will no longer have to pay tax when they do the pools. Each charity or local sports club which runs pools-based competitions will see this tax liability abolished. The details of our consultation on the tax status of amateur sports clubs will be announced by the Financial Secretary and the Minister for Sport on Friday.
"I turn to jobs. Today, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and I are publishing our joint report on regional economic policy and the work of regional development agencies—set up by the Deputy Prime Minister—in tackling regional inequalities and achieving balanced economic growth across the United Kingdom. The key focus is on local innovation, indigenous investment and improved infrastructure and skills. And to complement the locally based venture capital funds that we are forming in every region of the country, we are today publishing our prospectus for a new £50 million fund to help small firms in every region access the risk capital they need—capital that is often not available from banks.
166
"New investment, new businesses and new jobs are the key to regenerating our high unemployment communities. A new community investment tax credit, on which I am publishing details today, will match every £100 million of private investment with £25 million of additional public investment. As a special measure to help the slowest growing and highest unemployment areas of Britain we shall in 2000 wards in constituencies throughout the country and for all property transactions for homes and business properties worth up to £150,000, abolish stamp duty from Friday. In the Budget I propose to legislate so we can take more business property transactions in these areas out of stamp duty.
"The Government will do all we can to fight unemployment in normal times and in times like these. I can report that Britain's unemployment this year is the lowest since the 1970s. For the first time in a century unemployment in Britain is lower than in Japan and lower than in America. Compared with Britain, the unemployment rate in the euro area is 50 per cent higher—the equivalent of I million more British people in work. Because we shall not retreat from our commitment to full employment, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions will tomorrow announce new measures to help the newly redundant and expand the New Deal to help the long-term unemployed back to work.
"Because a third of the existing workforce lacks basic or Level 2 qualifications and because the old voluntaristic approach has not worked, we have been investigating the joint CBI and TUC proposals for a tax credit for in-work training. Following today's report from the Performance and Innovation Unit we shall, from September next year, pilot a new approach combining direct financial support for business, especially small business, with time off for training, under which employees, employers and government each accept their responsibilities.
"Because the skills of the future start in the schools of today, the Secretary of State for Education will be announcing further projects, funded from the Capital Modernisation Fund, as we meet our commitment to raise the share of national income spent on education. This is also a testing time for our fiscal regime.
"I now turn to the public finances. While in past downturns interest rates have come down too late, too little or, because of high inflation, not at all, so too excessive levels of debt or deficit can make it difficult for fiscal policy to play its proper role. When we came to power debt was too high and debt interest payments ran at 3.6 per cent of national income. So we maintained spending limits, took the necessary tax decisions and cut debt. We also set tough long-term fiscal rules—not for a year or even two but across the economic cycle: rules that demand fiscal discipline by a tighter approach in the best of times and allow the automatic stabilisers to work fully at a time like this, in both cases fiscal policy supporting monetary policy. And because

167
from 1997 we tightened fiscal policy by 4 per cent of national income, we have been able to reduce net debt below 40 per cent, not just in one year but across the economic cycle.
"I said in the Budget of 2000–01 that we would repay £34 billion pounds of the national debt. In fact, we were able by cautious budgeting to repay in the last year not £34 billion but a total of £37 billion. In total, since we came to power, we have now repaid £51 billion of the national debt. In 1996–97, debt was 44 per cent of the British national income. Two years ago we brought it down to 36 per cent. This year it has been brought down to 31 per cent. That is in contrast to nearly 40 per cent in the USA; 40 per cent in Germany; 41 per cent in France; 53 per cent in the euro area as a whole; 57 per cent in Japan and 95 per cent in Italy. Britain's debt is now the lowest share of national income in the G7 and the lowest of all our major European competitors.
"We had a choice last year: to use the mobile phone proceeds from the Spectrum option for current spending. In fact, by using the £22 billion for reducing our debt burden, we achieve a permanent saving of £1 billion a year in debt interest payments. That is £1 billion available not on a one-off basis but each year and every year.
"Let me give the House the full figures. Debt interest payments were running at £29 billion a year when we came to power—more was paid out in debt interest than all the money spent on all our schools. I can report that debt interest, which fell to £26 billion last year, will fall again to £22 billion this year and we expect it to fall next year to £21 billion—just two per cent of our national income.
"Just as last year we paid off more debt in one year than previous governments paid off in all of the previous half century, so this year debt interest payments will consume less of our national income than at any time in nearly a century since the time of the First World War. The Government's determination to keep a steady hand on the public finances and the economy is for a purpose. With debt and debt interest payments down it has been possible, even as corporate and other revenues have declined, to maintain our three-year spending plans for hospitals, schools and public services; to respond to the emergencies that have arisen and now to borrow at the right time for the economy to make essential investments in the national interest while still meeting the fiscal rules that we set over the economic cycle, even on cautious assumptions and even on the cautious case.
"Our cautious assumptions include deliberately cautious forecasts for equity prices, oil prices, interest rates and economic growth. I can report to the House that even while we project significantly lower tax revenues this year and next, we are still well within our first rule this year and every year—the golden rule that we balance the current budget over the economic cycle. The current budget is projected this year to be in surplus by £10 billion and in future years by £3 billion, £4 billion, £7 billion and
168
£8 billion. Net public borrowing is projected to be £2.5 billion and in future years £12 billion, £15 billion, £13 billion and £13 billion. We are well within our sustainable investment rule: that debt be at or below 40 per cent of national income, with debt projected to be 31 per cent in every one of the next five years. Taken together, the monetary and fiscal figures I am publishing today show we are also well within the Maastricht criteria. Consistent with our policy on the euro, we are undertaking the preliminary and technical work necessary to allow our assessment of the five economic tests.
"Let me turn now to decisions on spending that have resulted from the terrible events of September 11th. I can report that for new equipment and immediate operational requirements, an additional £100 million has been made available to the Ministry of Defence. To cut off the supply of finance to terrorists and to fund other anti-terrorism measures, we have set aside extra resources of £20 million for this year alone.
"To fund the need for additional policing since September 11th, a further £30 million has been made available to the Met and other police forces. To fund humanitarian assistance to Afghanistan and elsewhere and to meet new international development obligations, Britain is contributing an extra £100 million. In addition to the extra responsibilities we have assumed since September 11th, we now expect tackling foot and mouth disease and supporting the recovery of rural areas to cost £2.7 billion.
"In this pre-Budget report we also prepare for the Budget and the coming spending round. As the Prime Minister has said, meeting our international development responsibilities is not an option but a duty. Out of the tragedy of September 11th a new sense of our obligations to each other has been born and a recognition that if globalisation is to work for all the people of the world, including the poor, then, as the Secretary of State for International Development is urging, a new deal for prosperity must be forged between the richest developed countries and the poorest developing countries.
"The UK Government will propose to the. Financing for Development Conference of the United Nations that to meet the world's agreed 2015 development goals—every child in primary school; a two-thirds reduction in child mortality; a halving of world poverty—the international community now establish a new international fund leveraged up to £50 billion a year to help achieve for the developing countries after 2001 what was achieved for Europe with the Marshall Plan after 1945. I can confirm that in the next spending round we shall not only raise significantly the amounts of our own overseas development aid but also raise its share in national income, a measure for which I hope there will be broad, all party support right across the House.

169
"The challenge of giving must be met by government on behalf of the people. But people too, encouraged by government, should he empowered to give more of themselves.
"For the first time, Gift Aid provides a 28 per cent addition to every donation by taxpayers to recognised charities, and this is now being widely used. Special end-of-year appeals to contribute foreign coins to charity can receive the 28 per cent addition. I have also asked the Inland Revenue to consult charities on an innovation that could take Gift Aid to a new level and allow taxpayers to donate directly to their designated charities on the annual tax form and to gain tax relief for doing so.
"The cause of the environment also reminds us how closely our lives are bound up by what happens elsewhere in the world. In the 21st century the global environment is the local environment. To stem the tide of global warming, the Deputy Prime Minister is leading the pressure for new international agreements.
"And because these issues are central to our Budget and Spending Review, we are consulting from today on a total of 10 environmental measures. They include additional tax relief for businesses investing in environmentally friendly technologies, and new tax incentives to encourage the fuels and the vehicles of the future. All of these measures reflect Britain's commitment to energy efficiency, innovation and conservation and to playing our part in safeguarding the environment.
"We are investing £180 billion over 10 years in transport. And so that foreign lorries pay some of the environmental and other costs of using British roads, we are also publishing today our consultation document on introducing a charging system under which non-British companies and lorries pay their fair share.
"I turn to the pre-Budget consultation on measures for families and pensioners. The old welfare state which we inherited too often paid out benefits without regard to individual circumstances or personal responsibility. Today, the working families' tax credit is making work pay for nearly 1.3 million families-400,000 more than family credit—with around 150,000 families getting help with childcare. Since 1997, lone parent employment has risen by 20 per cent and today 200,000 more lone parents in work are receiving the working families' tax credit.
"Building on that, later this week we shall introduce legislation for the next step: extending the principle of the working families' tax credit to make work pay for those without children as well. And the children's tax credit—the first recognition of children in the tax system in a generation—provides up to £520 extra a year for 5 million families. Later this week, we shall publish new legislation for our next step. On top of universal child benefit, we shall
170
integrate into one payment all income-related support for children as we advance towards our goal of abolishing child poverty.
"For the first time, all support for children will now be paid to the main carer—usually the mother—as the best way to strengthen families.
"So our approach in modernising welfare is not to seek narrowly targeted benefits just for those at the bottom but the right help at the right time when it is needed for work and children for hard-working families, with over 5 million—85 per cent—now eligible for the working families' or children's tax credits.
"For the first time, through tax credits, the tax system is paying money to families rather than taking it, with tax rates now ranging from 40 per cent at the top to as low as minus 200 per cent for low-paid families. Tax credits are modernising the welfare state, encouraging work and helping families without stigmatising them.
"Today, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and I are announcing new measures to apply the same approach to pensions—more help to every pensioner in Britain with most to those who need it most. The guarantees that we propose not only tackle the poverty faced by the poorest, weakest and frailest but also reward rather than penalise the modest savings and occupational pensions of the majority. And they are backed up by a tax policy that is fair to those who have provided well for their own retirement.
"Upon the foundation of the basic state pension, we have already announced our first guarantee. No pensioner will have an income below £98 a week in April 2002 and £100 a week in April 2003, with no couples receiving less than £154 a week—at least £1,000 a year more than in 1997. That is a 24 per cent real-terms increase in the minimum income guarantee. Pensioner poverty is a reproach to us all. And the minimum income guarantee that is already benefiting 1.8 million households will rise in line with earnings for the whole of this Parliament.
"Today we are also setting aside new funds—£2 billion—to provide a second guarantee from 2003 for all pensioners in communities around the country whose hard work has secured a small occupational pension or modest savings but who have, in the past, been penalised for their thrift and savings. I can confirm that any pensioner whose income in retirement is below £135 a week, and any pensioner couple with income below £200, will see their hard-earned savings and occupational pensions rewarded with extra money, not penalised, as in the past, by losing all their benefits.
"For a single pensioner on the basic state pension with £1,000 a year in occupational pension, the pension credit will mean an additional £600 a year. For a pensioner couple with the basic state pension and an occupational pension of £1,500 a year, the pension credit will mean an extra £900 a year. Together, the minimum income guarantee and the pension credit will be available to half of all

171
pensioner households—5.4 million pensioners in total. The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions will spell out the full details tomorrow.
"For those pensioners who pay tax, we offer a third guarantee. When the new system is introduced in 2003, we shall raise the pensioner's tax allowance at least in line with earnings for the rest of this Parliament.
"And for all Britain's 11 million pensioners I can announce a fourth guarantee. The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and I have decided that the basic state pension will always rise by at least £100 a year for single pensioners and £160 for couples. In future, the state pension will rise by at least 2.5 per cent, or more if inflation is higher—at least £100 more every year. I can also confirm that I have set aside sufficient money so that the winter fuel allowance will be paid at £200 for each year of this entire Parliament.
"So these are our guarantees: for every pensioner, an increase of at least £100 a year every year in the basic state pension; for 5.4 million starting on the pension credit in 2003, up to an additional £100,000 per household; free TV licences for all pensioners over 75; for the poorest pensioners, a minimum income guarantee of £100 a week; and for every pensioner household, a £200 winter fuel allowance in each and every year of this Parliament. Every pensioner in Britain will be better off. We shall meet our obligations to those who, in peace and war, fought for, worked for, served and built their country all their lives.
"I turn now to the long-term funding of the National Health Service and the decisions we have to make for the 2002 Spending Review. Building the 20th century health service was among the greatest achievements of an earlier generation. Renewing the health service for the 21st century is among the great challenges for our generation.
"For decades, NHS funding was decided on a year-to-year basis with no certainty for professionals or patients. Having put the public finances in order and released extra resources in 1997, 1998 and 1999, the 2000 Spending Review provided an average real-terms increase of around 6 per cent a year for the NHS to 2004—significantly above the historic average of 3.3 per cent.
"And because we knew that money had to be matched with modernisation, the Ten Year NHS Plan is also implementing significant reforms: devolving 75 per cent of the NHS budget to primary care trusts; setting national service frameworks for the main diseases and conditions; reforming contracts for family doctors, consultants and nurses; and changing working practices with greater diversity of provision and patient choice.
"Within the framework of the Ten Year Plan, reporting to the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Health, further work is being done on management, accountability and incentives in a
172
reformed NHS. Today we can support further NHS reform. Because of our prudence, debt is lower and debt interest payments are lower.
"I am able to announce that, even in these testing times, while meeting all our fiscal rules and even on cautious assumptions, we arc releasing for next year an extra £1 billion for the NHS. UK health spending in the corning year will now rise by £6 billion—9.6 per cent in cash terms; 7 per cent in real terms. The Secretary of State for Health and his Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland counterparts will announce how that extra money will be spent.
"Our resolve is to tackle the immediate, medium-term and long-term needs of our NHS. The pressures on the NHS, the vital place that it has in the fabric of Britain and the critical role that it plays for British people means that we must plan not just one to three years ahead but five, 10 and even 20 years ahead. So, in the Budget for March 2000–18 months ago—I said that to prepare for the next spending round an independent review should examine long-term NHS funding needs over the next 20 years. In the half-century history of the NHS, no such review has ever been carried out. Taking the long-term view means honestly facing the scale of the challenges ahead. The review is being conducted by Mr Derek Wanless, formerly of NatWest. Today he is publishing his interim report, a 220-page detailed examination of future trends in healthcare and future funding issues on which he will consult widely.
"But the first question he said he had to ask is whether a publicly funded tax-based health service could itself be a significant pressure on costs and whether a tax-funded NHS remained the best way forward. He has looked at other European and international methods of funding and finds all health systems face rising pressures. In systems that rely on private medical insurance, he concludes that, compared to the NHS, there is less cost control, more uneven coverage and many left out. And in systems that rely predominantly on social insurance. he found excessive administrative overheads, insufficient incentives for cost control and—for example, in France—large costs for employers and employees who pay charges for every GP and hospital visit, even after their social insurance premiums.
"Mr Wanless's interim report states:
'my conclusion is that there is no evidence that any alternative financing method to the UK's would deliver a given quality of healthcare at a lower cost to the economy. Indeed other systems seem likely to prove more costly. Nor do alternative balances of funding appear to offer scope to increase equity'.
"So having examined whether a publicly funded NHS is itself a pressure on costs and thus whether it is sustainable, Mr Wanless's view is that the principle of an NHS publicly funded through taxation, available on the basis of clinical need and not ability to pay, remains both the fairest and most efficient system for this country.

173
"Mr Wanless has also examined in detail the cost pressures facing the service for the future. He concludes there will be significant pressure both from technological innovation and from rising public expectations but less pressure on the NHS than is commonly thought from an ageing population. He also highlights the potential long-term gains, building on the reforms of the NHS Plan, from a better use of workforce time and of resources generally, including the gains to be had from investment in information technology.
"Mr Wanless emphasises in particular a problem that goes back to the foundation of the NHS over decades: a history of under-investment over 50 years and a long-term lack of capacity. Comparing Britain to other European countries, such as France and Germany, his figures show a decisive difference in the area of finance despite some significant closing of the gap in the past couple of years and that these countries have, over decades, committed significantly more public resources as a share of national income to healthcare.
"The Wanless report is highlighting the difference it will make for patients if the NHS is put on a sustainable long-term footing and if we secure the best use of resources. Building on the 100 new hospitals, the 40 per cent increase in doctors, and the booked appointments of the Ten Year Plan—a majority of new beds in single rooms, swift access to the best drugs and treatment and greater patient choice—the goal is a world class health service that meets the needs of all people in Britain and puts patients first.
"Mr Wanless will publish his final conclusions next year in time to inform the 2002 Spending Review and will consult in the next few months with experts, patient groups, all interested members of the public and the doctors, nurses and all staff who work so hard and give so much of themselves to the NHS every day.
"The Spending Review will be the time for final decisions. What can be done will of course depend upon the economy and the public finances—and indeed over the past four years, through savings on debt interest, reallocating resources and economic growth, we have been able to do more for the NHS.
"I believe that as we plan to make our Budget and spending decisions next year and to fulfil all our commitments to economic prosperity and social justice, it will be right to devote a significantly higher share of national income to the National Health Service.
"The decisions we will be making are for a decade and more. And the way we make these decisions—whether we can forge a new consensus across parties and across Britain—will determine not only the long-term future of the health service but the character of our country.
"I believe out of this debate an enduring national consensus can he built around the two central conclusions at the heart of Mr Wanless's first report:
174
that a publicly funded National Health Service is best for Britain, and a modernised National Health Service will need significantly greater capacity and significantly more long-term investment. With economic stability the foundation, and with a steady and prudent approach to the public finances, I believe that we will have the strength to take the right decisions and to build a stronger, fairer Britain. I commend this Statement to the House".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
5.5 p.m.
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Chancellor's Statement. Speaking for myself, we should all be better off if the Minister was the Chancellor and the right honourable gentleman in another place was repeating the Minister's words.
Momentous events have occurred in the world. We have heard several times that the world is a different place since September 11th. However, the Chancellor carries on as if nothing has happened. When they call this the green Budget, they mean that one turns green at the sight of it. The Chancellor's previous pre-Budget report was twice as long as his first, and this one is even longer. It runs to 410 pages from the Treasury, and that excludes details of the tax and benefit changes that were announced in the Statement and any social security matters that will be announced tomorrow.
The Chancellor has today added even more to the mass of more than 250 complex tax allowances, reliefs, exemptions, credits, indexations, tapers, disregards and so on that taxpayers already have to navigate. The result is that about half of the increase to the Government's administrative costs over the next three years—on their own figures, that is about £1.8 billion—has been allocated to tax collection and benefit distribution.
Why does the Chancellor do it? Why this incessant, impenetrable tinkering of the sort that we have just heard about? That does not seem to help the very people whom the Chancellor's complex schemes are meant to help. For example, in the Statement the Chancellor offered new minimum income guarantees to pensioners and a new pension credit. However, for a pensioner to claim the Chancellor's previous version of the minimum income guarantee required the completion of a 40-page application form. Age Concern described it as,
"a massively complex system and endless form filling for pensioners".
Of 500,000 eligible pensioners, only 82,000 attempted the feat of making a claim.
Might it be that such complication is the whole point of the Chancellor's approach? The charm of complexity, from the Chancellor's point of view, is that in 1998–99, between £2 billion and £4 billion of income-related benefits went unclaimed. Following the introduction of the children's tax credit and the pensions credit, it is estimated that a further £2.6 billion of budgeted expenditure will go unclaimed this year. For example, in a parliamentary Written

175
Answer on 7th February, the Treasury confirmed that 2.1 million eligible families have not applied for the children's tax credit.
Perhaps noble Lords think that I am being too mean or too partisan. I think not. The editor of the Financial Times has commented on the Chancellor's pre-Budget report and the whole budgetary process. He said:
"Mr Brown has reduced budget transparency to a new low. Important tax changes have been omitted from the speech: statistics have rarely been quoted on a consistent basis. The budget documentation has been filled with political point-scoring rather than factual analysis. And there has been a continued tendency to classify the collection of revenue as anything other than taxation".
No citizen, however intelligent, can match the massed ranks of No. 10, No. 11, the Treasury and Millbank—one man against the legions of Rome. Moreover, the people who are least able to defend themselves are the poorest in the country.
The Chancellor likes to wear his heart on his sleeve—he did so in his Statement today—with regard to caring for,
"the poorest, weakest and frailest".
But, incredibly, the net effect of four years of his backbreaking efforts on behalf of the poorest is that they are paying the most in total tax. The top rate of 63 per cent relating to their income is up from 47 per cent, which applied when the Chancellor took over. The result of all of his "numerous little schemes"—I quote the OECD—is a mad world with the poor paying higher taxes than the rich.
Perhaps the Chancellor's revolutionary idea of soaking the poor is all in a good cause. Perhaps the poor with their tax payments are helping the Government to fulfil their duty to provide them with adequate public services, such as education, not mentioned in the Statement; health care; retirement provision and so forth. But what if the services are not being provided? Then, the government would not be fulfilling their duty. That seems to be what is happening.
While the Chancellor was penning his Statement on football pools tax, a hospital apologised to the family of a 79 year-old woman who had to wait 14 hours with a broken neck on a trolley in an accident and emergency department. While the Chancellor was devising his new research and development tax credit, Gladys Thomas from Stoke Bishop, Bristol, was taken to Southmead Hospital at 8.15 a.m. on 1st November. By mid-morning an X-ray showed that she had broken her neck.
While the Chancellor was thinking about the community investment tax credit, Mrs Thomas waited on a hospital trolley all day until just before 11 p.m. when she was admitted to a ward. North Bristol NHS Trust said that it apologised to Mrs Thomas and her family for what it called "the inconvenience". Behind his caring facade the Chancellor is supervising a grotesque and unjust system in which poor people who pay the most in tax receive in return the least in public services. That would be a shame and a disgrace for any government but most certainly for one which rose to power on the slogan, "24 hours to save the NHS".
176
Is the Chancellor aware that under his leadership there is a sharp rich/poor divide for the four main cancer killers in Britain? Is he aware that cancer sufferers in poorer areas are four times more likely than those in richer areas to be alive five years after their treatment? Is he also aware that the poorest areas are in the North and the healthiest cancer survival rates are in the South, including East Surrey, Kensington, Chelsea and here in Westminster? Poor patients in poor areas are missing out on early diagnosis and access to the latest drugs. They suffer a shortage of specialist cancer doctors and surgeons. They suffer delays in getting a diagnosis and further delays in getting treatment.
When people hear today from the Chancellor how upset he is about the state of the NHS and how he will spend more to bring us up to Euro levels, what do they think? I say, what a sham. In the Statement there is an extra £1 billion of health spending, yet Mr Wanless talked about the decisive difference between our health service and health services in other countries. He is right. Noble Lords will forgive me for taking, them through the figures, which are telling. Our health spending as a percentage of GDP is 6.7 per cent. France and Germany are at 10 per cent. The difference is 3 per cent of GDP. Taking UK GDP at around £1,000 billion—that is what it is—£30 billion more is needed each year to bring us up to those standards, not the trivial extra £1 billion mentioned in the Statement.
A poll conducted by MORI provides ample evidence that the public see through the self-satisfied hypocrisy of the Statement which pretends that the state will always provide. Fifty-six per cent of people think that most people or nearly everyone will soon pay for private health care. Fifty-nine per cent think that most people or nearly everyone will pay for private welfare insurance. Sixty-six per cent think that most people or nearly everyone will pay for private pensions.
Perhaps all that is still worth while. Perhaps it is a price worth paying for what was called the Chancellor's "steady hand on the public finances". keeping us on the straight and narrow in the black; but no. In what I believe was the most interesting part of the Statement, the Chancellor admitted that he is presiding over a 100 per cent turnaround in the UK public finances. In the Statement he expressed pride at his ability to repay debt and to lower debt interest payments.
However, I remind noble Lords that later in the Statement, disconnected from that pride, he told us that after the repayment of £51 billion, he now intends to borrow £2 billion; £12 billion; £15 billion; £13 billion and £13 billion over the next five years. That is a total of £55 billion. It is not prudent to repay £51 billion one day and borrow it again the next. Someone borrowing money at that rate needs to find some savings. That is why we were all touched in your Lordships' House to hear that the Chancellor planned to sell £100,000 worth of Treasury silver and to give the money to the health service. We thought, "What a man. He lays down his possessions for his NHS".

177
That sale did not go through, but not to worry. Here is another item which he could give up for the NHS. It is not worth £100,000 but £500 million. He will find it on page 202 of his own budget forecast. It is the increase in administration costs over the next four years of—noble Lords have guessed—the Chancellor's own departments.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Newby: My Lords, this is a complacent Statement from a complacent Chancellor. It is overoptimistic in its view of what is happening to the economy. The projections for growth used by the Chancellor for next year and the following year are at the top end of any projections elsewhere. For example, the projections by the European Commission for the next year suggested a growth rate of 1.75 per cent; not up to 2.5 per cent.
The Statement is certainly complacent about what is happening to investment. His own department, the Office for National Statistics, published figures within the past week which show that investment in the manufacturing sector has fallen to a seven-year low. Manufacturing investment was 13 per cent lower in real terms than in the second quarter. Investment in services fell by 3.9 per cent. The latest official figures show that manufacturing margins are at their lowest since 1992.
The Statement is complacent on performance to date. The endless lists of hospitals to be built, expenditure here and expenditure there, remind me of nothing so much as the Soviet five-year plan in which there were endless statistics about the numbers of tractors and combine harvesters. Yet people said, "If that is the case, why are we still so poor? Why is there still no food in the shops?". Their equivalent today are the poor patients referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, who are left for hours in accident and emergency departments with no benefit from the alleged additional expenditure.
The Treasury and the Government have not even been successful in spending the money allocated to them in the past year. In the past financial year they underspent by £7 billion, which includes substantial amounts for health and education. Can the Minister tell us whether that money will he carried forward to this year and whether we can have a guarantee that it will be spent?
As regards health expenditure, the Chancellor quoted at length from the Wanless report, which clearly poses the big questions about how expenditure on a publicly-funded national health service can be brought up to standards which we consider acceptable. When will the Government give us the answer to the key questions that the Prime Minister posed a couple of years ago? When will we know that we shall reach the EU average expenditure? When will they admit that the only way that we shall be able to afford anything like the £30 billion extra per year mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, is by paying more taxes to fund the National Health Service? The
178
Government or the Chancellor suggest that perhaps by the middle of next year we shall have a clue, but today's Statement completely ducks the issue.
The Chancellor is complacent about the exchange rate. We know that there is a two-tier economy, with manufacturing suffering greatly. There is nothing in the Statement to acknowledge the principle widely accepted by economists that the Government can play a part in lowering the value of the pound towards a more sustainable level by making clear their intentions in terms of membership of the euro. When they did so over a short period earlier in the summer the pound fell. The Prime Minister panicked and said, "No, we are not committing ourselves either to going in or to a timetable". The pound went up again. By committing themselves to a timetable and talking about the target levels for the pound the Government could today affect sterling in a direction which will be beneficial to manufacturing industry.
The Chancellor is amazingly complacent about the complications and complexity of the tax system. The numerous little schemes referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, again make an appearance in the Statement. Last year the Finance Bill was some 600 pages long. Tolley's tax bible is now one-third longer than it was in 1997. The problem with this approach to taxation is that no one understands how the tax system works. Therefore, many of the wheezes simply cannot have the effect that the Chancellor expects because people do not understand how to take advantage of them. Many people are fearful that they will run foul of the tax authorities if they attempt to do so.
Finally, I think that the Chancellor is complacent about the tax credits. He is very proud of the tax credits. We have applauded him in his attempts to transfer more money to poorer families and to pensioners. But on the child tax credits there have been a number of years of increasing complexity with a messy system which involves child benefits, child care tax credits and the working families tax credit. The Statement today implies that there will be great simplification of that messy system. We look forward to it. But, given the Chancellor's past record on the children's tax credit system, we have our doubts.
We are even more doubtful about the plans for pensioner tax credits. Again we applaud the aim, but we doubt very much whether the proposals in today's Statement are the best way of using the available funding. The noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, mentioned some of the problems. It is complicated. It can be relatively easily fiddled. All the indications are that the take-up will be vast.
We have consistently argued for age-related pension top-ups which have the great advantage of being simple, easily understood and protected from tax fraud.
For all the Chancellor's fine words, the Government have presided over a health service which even their own Ministers accept now remains in crisis; a transport system which is the worse in the developed world; an exchange rate which is crippling our manufacturing sector; and a tax system which, frankly,

179
no one understands. The Statement does nothing to address these issues. It is a great disappointment both to the House and to the country.
5.22 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I find it fascinating that both noble Lords, in responding to the Statement, should not subject what is in it to any serious degree of analysis or criticism. I understand their difficulties. I have only seen it in the last few hours. They are responding to it in a much more restricted period, and I am entirely sympathetic about that. But the main outstanding themes of the Statement were subjected to no effective criticism whatever in the two speeches we have just heard.
The Chancellor has described in the Statement an economy which is surviving better than the other economies of G7 and what are admitted to be uncertain world circumstances. There was no recognition of that in the speeches that have been made. He has also described that within that economy the public finances of this country are in an exceptionally strong position relative to our leading competitors in the developed world.
Of course there are huge risks in all these things. But the record to date and the forecast—I shall come on to the issue of forecasts and independent forecasts in a minute—is the pay back for four-and-a-half years of stability and prudence—I am not afraid of using the word—in the management of our finances. That is now working. There was not a word of recognition of that in the speeches we have just heard. Instead we hear the complaint of those who have no interest in addressing the real issue; the complaint about the complexity of the tax system. I have never denied that the tax and the benefit systems are too complex. They are complex for reasons that are well known to both Opposition parties. They are complex because special interest groups, often with good justification, make pleas for exceptions to the general rule of taxation and of benefits.
Let me give one example because I am limited in time. It is an example of business assets. Some 10 years ago, when I sold the majority share of my business I paid capital gains tax on all of the proceeds of the sale of that business. The concept of business assets was then in its infancy and although I was selling a majority shareholding of a business that I had started myself 20 years previously I had not reached the age of 60 and therefore did not qualify for any of the business assets legislation.
Business assets legislation has grown up substantially over the past five years or so because tax lawyers and accountants and those who have the interests of enterprise and small business have demanded that. The extensions that have been made to it—in particular those made in this pre-Budget Statement—are at the request and at the demand of those who, often from Opposition Benches, demand that enterprise should be encouraged.
I apologise for complexity. But I do not apologise to the extent of saying that the kind of simplification which appears to be demanded by the Opposition
180
would be of benefit or acceptable to the people of this country. The same is true to some extent, but not entirely, of the complexity of the credit system. What started with the pre-Budget Report of last year, gaining since in refinement and conviction, has been the simplification of the children's tax credit system. I admit that there is more than one system designed to help families with children avoid living in poverty. It is proposed that that should be simplified. The same will happen in respect of pensioners and pension credit.
These things do not happen immediately. The penalty with them all is that an announcement that is made one year cannot be realistically fulfilled within the 12-month period but almost certainly is fulfilled two years after the time of the first announcement. That is partly because of consultation and refinement of the proposals, but also because it is a huge tanker to turn around.
We should all like these benefits to be simpler and easier to understand. Both noble Lords are right to say that we should like to have a higher take-up of them. Of course it is not the same thing to say that one has a minimum income guarantee which eliminates poverty and then eliminate poverty. In order to achieve that, one has to increase the rate of take-up. All these things are true, but none of them detracts from the fundamental benefits and success story being described in this pre-Budget Statement.
The noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, says that, having reduced our debt, it is terrible to borrow over the next few years. First of all, borrowing is for investment purposes. The noble Lord failed to recognise that the Statement includes a doubling of public investment. That is in addition to any investment made in the form of private public partnerships. He did riot recognise that the size of our debt has gone down from 44 per cent of GDP in 1997 to just over 30 per cent now and for the next four years.
The noble Lord, Lord Newby, who is far more of an economist than I, complains about over-optimistic forecasts. All the forecasts being made now about this year—2001—are for growth of around 2 per cent. But we now have three quarters' figures in. They cannot be significantly different from 2.25 per cent growth; the probability is that it is too low. The independent forecasters have been wrong and are wrong in this case; we are right. There are some differences between our forecasts and those of some independent forecasters; there always will be. However, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development thinks that we are right; I believe that the Confederation of British Industry thinks that we are right; and a large number of independent forecasters think that we are right.
The noble Lord Newby compares our policies with Stalinist five-year plans. There is a considerable difference between the management of a market and of a command economy, as, in his calmer moments, I think he would accept. The point is that, in contrast with the last years of the Conservative government, when Chancellor after Chancellor included over-optimistic forecasts in the Red Book for our fiscal state

181
and the economy and then had to retract them the next year, this Chancellor, throughout his period of office, has given realistic forecasts that have proved to be accurate and for the benefit of this country. I do not apologise for any of that.
5.31 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, in the 35 years that I have practised economics in this country, the British economy has genuinely never looked better. I rarely praise my own party and the Chancellor, but it is unusual that we have a low interest rate and the best growth record in the G7. I believe that the forecasts made for next year are prudent.
Does my noble friend agree that we now need to urge others to adopt a much better definition of financial prudence, especially in the stability and growth pact, than they have done so far? If such routes were adopted, the euro-zone would have better growth than it has so far.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I think that I am being tempted beyond my capacity. I have gone as far as I can to defend my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and to praise his achievements. To start to criticise other countries' economies is further than I wish to go—although I am grateful for what my noble friend says about the Chancellor's achievements.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, why, when unemployment is claimed to be so low, is employment lower than in May 1997 in 267 parliamentary constituencies in this land?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not know which are the 267 constituencies. Employment in the country as a whole is, of course, more than 1 million higher than it was in May 1997. If the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, is right to say that employment is lower in 267 constituencies; it must be much higher in the nearly 400 other constituencies. That is a statistical riddle that perhaps he and I should discuss outside the Chamber.
I suspect that that is because, despite the continuing difference between regions of this country and the difficulty that there has been reviving the regions, the economies of which were smashed by the Thatcher government in their destruction of the coal, steel and other industries, there is some recovery of equality throughout the country.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, it was fascinating to hear the Statement. The Pre-Budget Statement has become more and more like a Budget. Perhaps the precedent created by giving us that long and interesting Statement means that we shall also hear the Budget Statement repeated on the same day. We should then have the opportunity to debate it immediately.
182
I agree with what my noble friend Lord Saatchi said about health. Indeed, I find it amazing that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should have gone into all that detail on the health service. Had I been the Secretary of State for Health, I should have been rather irritated. Having said that, I congratulate the Chancellor on five years of cautious and successful macro-economic management. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Desai, that the economy is in a strong position.
I am sorry that the Minister was so uncharitable as not to recognise that the starting point for Mr Gordon Brown's economic management was the sound economic situation that the Labour Party inherited. Given the good present situation of the economy, he could have had the generosity to do that.
I found it especially encouraging in the Chancellor's Statement that he felt it a particularly suitable moment to embark on new supply-side policies. That is absolutely right. The Liberal Democrat spokesman talked about the need for higher taxes. I can think of few thinking politicians today—other than the noble Lord, Lord Hattersley, perhaps—who would agree.
The forecasts for the world economy are rather more gloomy than the Chancellor suggested. I hope that, if consumers stop consuming and tax revenues fall by as much as I think they may, the Chancellor will recognise that this is a time to borrow—even if that means abandoning his sustainable investment rule and the golden rule. Will the Minister comment on that?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, despite the distinction of my noble friend Lord Desai, compliments about macro-economic policy gain in credibility when they come from the Conservative Benches. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Marlseford, for what he said.
The noble Lord asks whether the Statement is becoming more like a Budget Statement, and whether that means that we should debate the Budget Statement in this House. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, would agree with that second proposition. But that is a matter for the House, rather than for me.
However, I should sound a note of warning. Various projections are included in the tables of the pre-Budget Report, which noble Lords will not have had time to study. They should not be taken as the equivalent of the projections based on calculations made for a Finance Bill. There are few firm commitments, other than consultation proposals, in the pre-Budget Report. Nothing that is not a firm commitment—such as the £1 billion for the health service or the guarantees for pensioners—is included in the tables. They are therefore not strictly comparable with the Red Book, or Budget Report.
I am sorry that we have returned to May 1997; I confess that I was tempted, and I fell. Of course, the last few years of the Conservative government showed, in particular, a steady decrease in unemployment that has continued under this Government. It would be

183
churlish not to recognise that a number of macroeconomic indicators were improving under the chancellorship of Mr Kenneth Clarke. However, the Chancellor has today talked about the public finances and the unsustainable extent of public borrowing—the fact that we could not have sustained the golden rule or our borrowing principles if we had not spent a considerable time when we took office working within the spending constraints left by Mr Clarke. That made it possible for us to adhere to these rules. There are serious arguments to be made without too much parti pris.
However, the fact is that we are all Keynesians now. Even Mr Bush recognises that borrowing at this stage of the economic cycle, as proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, is, it can be strongly argued, the right thing to do. Under the Government there has been a substantial increase in public investment which some of us believe does not go far enough to remedy the under-investment of the previous 20 years. Nevertheless, it is significant in its own terms and also significant in counter-cyclical policy.

Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill
Second Reading debate resumed.
5.41 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, we turn from one major subject to another. However, before commenting on the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill, I want to make a couple of personal comments. First, I apologise to the House and seek its understanding that should the debate continue to run at its present rate of progress, I must leave before the end in order to keep engagements in Manchester early tomorrow. I regret that very much. Secondly, we look forward to the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan of Rogart, who has waited a long time today to make his maiden speech.
We on these Benches support the Bill dealing with terrorism. Terrorism committed here or elsewhere can never be in the public interest and it needs to be discouraged and outlawed. We recognise the need to bring forward a Bill now. Some people in the country are fearful and are concerned about terrorists already living among us or coming to live among us in the future. We are grateful for the Government's concern about that.
However, we are concerned about the Bill as presently drafted and I want to refer to a few of our concerns. First, we must be clear about definitions. I refer in particular to Clause 21. What do we mean by "terrorism" and "terrorists"? Morally speaking, terrorism is terrorism, whoever commits it, wherever it is committed, whenever it is committed and however it is committed. But if we are to make distinctions between one terrorist and another—I have already heard reference made to foreign terrorists and national terrorists, international terrorists and today we are told by the Minister that some terrorists are stateless—
184
we must be clear that those distinctions are sustainable at law because we do not want to have endless legal disputes over identity.
Secondly, I want to deal in more detail with Part 4, which deals with immigration and asylum. I am concerned about the potential damage to existing constitutional protection for such people as genuine seekers of asylum. The Bill describes measures to deal with immigration and asylum and Clause 21 allows the detention without trial of foreign nationals who are "suspected" of being terrorists but who have not broken British law and cannot be deported or extradited to their own countries.
The provisions are before us in order to prevent terrorists from posing as bona fide immigrants. However, it seems that those suspected of being foreign terrorists will be interned indefinitely without knowing the evidence against them, that is, until the expiry of the five-year time limit on the use of the detention powers. Can we be sure that genuine asylum seekers will not have their claims rejected out of hand and that they will not be denied the protection of the 1951 refugee convention? And can we be confident that implementation of the proposals to identify and detain terrorists will not undermine the human rights of those who are genuinely seeking asylum in the United Kingdom?
I remain concerned, as do a number of my colleagues, that without sufficient consultation the Bill could lead to the introduction of laws which instigate racist or religious discrimination and offend civil liberties. Will the Bill lead to the imprisonment without trial of those who visibly appear to be terrorists, because of their colour, ethnicity or culture? While supporting government legislation to outlaw terrorists, I am concerned that the new measure will have a negative effect on community relations in the United Kingdom.
In the Christian tradition, the example of Jesus, who was crucified unjustly because he was thought by some to be a friend of the Zealots (religious terrorists), reminds us not to impose injustice on the innocent. If we are to speed forward legislation, failing adequately to consult and debate with organisations which represent minority, ethnic and religious groups, we run the risk of destroying the recent welcome advances made in community relations in the United Kingdom.
The whole topic of asylum seekers is controversial. Is it right that asylum seekers' fingerprints are to be kept for up to 10 years if they committed no offence? Above all, the denial of judicial review for a person detained under the Bill as an asylum seeker breaks centuries of tradition. I shall leave the lawyers to explain it all, but I want to point out that we recognise the point. Am I correct in concluding that a person could be detained for the whole five-year period, even if there is a six-month review by the Special Immigration Appeals Commission? Is that a proportionate response to the current situation?
After all those hesitations and questions about the Bill, I gladly note, first, that the Government have resolved not to allow asylum seekers to be deported to

185
countries where they will face torture, inhumane treatment or the death penalty. The fact that that has been spelt out is most welcome. Secondly, we are pleased that the Bill could speed up the present asylum process.
Part 5 of the Bill, concerning race and religion, is also of crucial importance to us, but my friend the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark will speak about that later in the debate. I want to turn to Part 10, which deals with police powers.
I am concerned about the potential damage done to fragile community relations if the Bill is implemented as drafted. As regards police powers, Clause 89 allows photographing, fingerprinting and searching for identification. Clause 94 seems to allow a police officer to order people to remove gloves, balaclavas, face paint, a burka or any other outer garment,
"at any place … for a specified period not exceeding twenty-four hours".
Authorisation under Clause 89 is by a police inspector or higher rank, but Clause 93 applies to police constables on patrol.
What exactly will the police powers be? Will any police officer be able to stop a person wearing a scarf, balaclava, a turban, a veil or gloves in a public place and request their removal? Will a police officer be able to arrest men and women without charge, take them to a police station, require them to be searched, including perhaps through burkas, photographed (including photographs of their body) and fingerprinted when no offence has been committed?
I am pleased to note in the Bill that intimate searches and photographs of a person of the opposite sex are prohibited—that is clearly stated in the Bill—and that the only persons allowed to act in that way are police officers or designated lay staff. But the power to remove articles of clothing from people who have done nothing wrong seems severe. Will such power help the atmosphere on the streets? I speak as one who comes from the North of England.
Such powers are likely to impact hardest on ethnic minority and some religious groups who traditionally cover themselves and are not amused by some of our advertising for under-garments which we see on bill hoardings around the cities. Does this part of the Bill in effect bring back the old stop and search laws? The powers seem to be wider than the old law because there is no need to prove why the examination is necessary. It could prove very divisive in some areas where enormous attempts have been made, and continue to be made, by leaders of local ethnic and religious community groups—among them Members on these Benches and the police—to build and rebuild good community relations following not only September 11th and difficulties earlier in the summer but those which date back to the Stephen Lawrence inquiry and previously. A great deal of work has been done which we do not want to see called into question or undermined by the implementation of the Bill in a heavy-handed way.
186
I conclude on a positive note because we welcome the Bill, even if we have some questions on its drafting. I refer to nuclear, aviation and biological security. The proposals to increase restrictions on laboratories, civil nuclear plants, airports and aircraft are very welcome. It is also good that aircraft operators will be able to remove from aircraft and airports persons who are not there legally. If security at airports is to be similar to the restrictions at the Channel Tunnel, as I believe is the intention of the Bill, that is very good news.
5.51 p.m.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords, some noble Lords may have noticed that my introduction to your Lordships' House involved a reversal of roles since my honourable friend Viscount Thurso has succeeded me in another place as MP for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross. Such a swap is, I think, a constitutional innovation which may commend itself to some noble Lords. Many noble Lords will remember Viscount Thurso and share my view that my former constituents have done rather well out of the exchange. I make only the rueful comment that, whereas he served an apprenticeship here of a mere six years, I had to spend 35 years in another place before I qualified to make the change.
The readiness is all. But it must be admitted that some are more ready than others. I have in mind my predecessor as Member of Parliament and now my noble friend Lord Mackie of Benshie. He has been kind enough to tell me that his electoral defeat at my hands had done him a favour. I never quite grasped what he meant. Now, however, having experienced for myself the kind consideration of your Lordships in this House, I have no doubt at all.
Throughout my life in Westminster I have been much concerned with the question underlying the measure before us this afternoon. How should a mature democracy properly seek to protect its citizens when they are threatened by dangerous lawlessness or external attack? The domestic overreaction of the younger Pitt and his Ministers to the threats of the French Revolution even moved me to write for the stage two years ago of the injustice done to the Scottish reformer Thomas Muir. But my own first legislative initiative was motivated by concern adequately to protect our citizenry against such a perceived danger.
As long ago as December 1966 as a private Member I piloted onto the statute book a Bill reflecting the provisions of the Tokyo Convention on crimes committed on board aircraft. It was the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, who has been with us so much recently, who, with distinction, led the British delegation in Tokyo. That convention sought to ensure that prosecution of such criminals was not prevented by absence of jurisdiction. It also gave powers to the commanders of aircraft as well as to passengers to take action against threatened criminal activity on board.
There was at that time a remarkable lack of urgency shown by the international community about these issues. Three years after signature only three states had

187
bothered to ratify the convention. It is also true that the international and domestic legislative processes are fallible in attempting to foresee and forestall the actions which terrorists may take to further their aims. The horrific and unforeseen events and atrocities of September 11th have shown that some amendments to the law are indeed needed. It is, for example, only in the Bill before us that a clear gap in the provisions of the Tokyo Convention is finally being filled by Clause 84(2), to which the Minister drew attention. That clause empowers certain individuals to use force to remove unauthorised persons from aircraft. No matter how carefully legislation is drawn in this sphere, it tends to ride behind events.
But I believe that there is another pitfall for governments when disaster strikes. That is to believe that what has happened might not have occurred had the law been different. That error may be compounded by the pressure on Ministers responsible for security to do something, and to be seen to be doing something. I sympathised with the Home Secretary when he sought. in another place to justify this Bill on the grounds that,
"Circumstances and public opinion demanded urgent and appropriate action after the 11 September attacks".—[Official Report, Commons, 19/11/01; col. 22.]
It is tempting but unwise to wave a piece of new legislation over one's head as if it is the last word and ultimate weapon in the arming of the citizenry against the threat of terrorism. The Government have done nothing like that with this measure. There was some suggestion of finality following the enactment of the Terrorism Act 2000, but the provision for its review and annual reports to Parliament by my noble friend Lord Carlile of Berriew and the Home Secretary are recognition that in this sphere of law there can be no last word.
We must also acknowledge that the law, however necessary, is unlikely of itself to counter the ingenuities of the terrorists and make good the deficiencies of intelligence, poor policing and security failures. The heroic passengers who on September 11th wrestled the suicidal hijackers down into the ground of Pennsylvania needed more protection than the legal defences of their action provided by the Tokyo Convention.
The Home Secretary has asked for urgent and appropriate action by Parliament. In this House we have been given twice as long as another place to consider carefully what is urgent, important and appropriate. I acknowledge at once that there is much in this Bill which is both urgent and appropriate, particularly those provisions which fill in the gaps in dealing with the funding of terrorism. But there are matters for which urgency cannot be claimed. I cite the ill-considered proposals on incitement to religious hatred. And there are matters which are of highly questionable appropriateness. For my part, the most questionable are the arrangements proposed in Part 4 of the Bill on the detention of terrorist suspects which require our derogation from Article 5(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
188
I do not overlook the Home Secretary's dilemma in respect of those whom he suspects are terrorists but who cannot he deported. Whatever the intentions, however, the consequence of Part 4 is repugnant. Detention without evidence in support being disclosed to the subject is repugnant. The SIAC review may be by a judicial tribunal and as such is preferable to an unchallengeable decision by the Home Secretary, but such a tribunal lacks the lineaments of natural justice. The evidence of the necessity of Part 4 is thin. The Joint Committee on Human Rights, on which I had the privilege to serve until the last election, has unanimously expressed its doubt,
"whether the measures (in Part 4) can be said to be strictly required by the exigencies of' the situation".
The Home Secretary himself said on 15th October:
"There is no immediate intelligence pointing to a specific threat to the United Kingdom".—[Official Report, Commons, 15/10/01; col. 925.]
Furthermore, it is a changing situation and the legal basis of there being a,
"public emergency threatening the life of the nation",
as required by the European convention, may even now have disappeared. The Home Secretary has already given some valuable indications of his willingness to reconsider particular weaknesses in the Bill, two of which have been referred to this afternoon: the use of the words "or otherwise" and the question of links to terrorism. If, however, the Home Secretary continues to regard Part 4 as necessary in the national interest, I hope that he will accept that it should not remain on the statute book for more than one year.
In a changing situation, Parliament has a duty to keep such executive claims of necessity under more than formal review. If the Home Secretary thinks it necessary to continue to limit legal protection of fundamental rights and freedoms and to put them beyond the reach of the courts, then he must come back and persuade Parliament that the "exceptional situation of crisis or emergency" is indeed still continuing.
6 p.m.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I am very fortunate to rise immediately after the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, and therefore to have the privilege of congratulating him on his maiden speech. I have always known him as a very self-effacing man, but no one should be fooled by that. He comes here after a most distinguished career in another place. He is a former president of the Liberal Democrats and has exercised considerable influence on his party's fortunes. He has been a Front Bench spokesman on home affairs and on constitutional affairs.
He established something of a record by standing for one and the same constituency under three different party banners. But, whatever the banner he has marched under, he has always been a man of moderation, who has spoken in measured terms. For that reason, he will probably be a lot happier here than he was in another place. But whether he is or is not, I can assure him that we shall always welcome him here.

189
We will be looking forward in anticipation for other excellent contributions such as the one he has made today.
I start from the standpoint that it would be absolutely wrong to deny the Government powers which they can show are urgently needed to meet the terrorist threat. The Home Secretary must be bearing a very heavy burden, and if he says that a power is urgently needed, we should take him at his word unless there is good reason to doubt it.
But we should surely not allow the present and immediate threat to be used to put on the statute book—by a timetable which does not allow the normal scrutiny—measures which have no bearing on the fight against terrorism or which bestow on the Government powers far wider than is necessary to meet that threat. Still less should we give the Government power to implement by secondary legislation measures which are not only wider than necessary to meet the threat but which create new offences, impose new penalties and affect to a very significant degree the individual rights and liberties of the subject.
The proposal to make incitement to religious hatred a criminal offence has been hanging around in the Home Office for a long time, at least since 1985 when it featured in a Law Commission report. So it has precious little to do with the events of September 11th, except in the sense that after September 11th it was offered to the Muslim community as a kind of sop to buy support for the war against terrorism. So I, for one, was very pleased when I read in the papers that it was going to be dropped from the Bill. I was correspondingly disappointed when I learnt that the reports were all wrong.
I am sure that the Minister knows that there are genuine worries that the measure could be used to punish no more than the intemperate voicing of sincerely held beliefs. Some fear that, in the event, it may be used more against Muslims, who are not always slow to attack others for their religion, than against those who vilify them. A fat lot of good that will do in ensuring that extremists do not get up to mischief in the Muslim community.
The proposal is not necessary to meet the present threat. It needs a lot more thought than can be given to it in emergency legislation. Having waited for 16 years for it to become law, we can face with equanimity the possibility of having to wait for a few more years.
Turning to Part 4, the cause of much anxiety, in order to derogate from Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights the Government have had to go through some truly extraordinary contortions—asserting that while there is no actual emergency within the country, there is an emergency within the meaning of the convention, a public emergency so serious that it threatens the life of the nation. There is something Alice in Wonderland about that.
It is sad and not at all funny that the Government should feel that, as a result of the convention, they cannot do the obvious thing—throw out of the
190
country terrorists who have got in here, and then prevent any more arriving. Because of what most would say is the strained and artificial interpretation that has been put on Article 3 of the convention, the Government feel that they cannot remove people who are a danger to the state even to countries such as the United States of America and India—countries which every right thinking person knows provide a reasonable standard of justice and do not torture people or put them to death arbitrarily.
The Government feel that, because of this, they must take the far more authoritarian step of suspending habeas corpus. It is laughable that the Government feel themselves forced to argue that it is perfectly proper to try to blow bin Laden to pieces on the soil of Afghanistan but, if he arrived in this country claiming asylum, we would have to admit him to examine his claim and would not then be able to extradite him to America to face trial unless America said that it would not subject him to the death penalty. That is an absurd position for us to have got ourselves into.
I do not know whether it is practicable to follow the suggestion that we should denounce the whole convention and then re-enter with a reservation as to Article 3 but, if the Government say that it is not practicable, I, for one, am prepared to accept detention as the only practical alternative, hoping that some at least will eventually learn the lesson that an obsession with rights can end up leaving the citizens of a country with fewer of them. That is what is happening here.
Turning, finally, to Clauses 110 and 111—formerly Clauses 109 and 110–I should mention that I am a member of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers, which has had some fairly strong words to say about these clauses. In seeking power to implement measures by delegated legislation, the Government are following the precedent of the European Communities Act 1972. But the measures which we are now considering are far more serious. Because they affect individual rights and liberties and cover the most sensitive areas of policing and criminal justice, they are far more serious than the largely economic and regulatory measures adopted by means of the 1972 Act after we joined the Community.
That original regulation-making power was granted to the Government in 1972 after a protracted debate. The Bill was in Committee for no less than 22 days after three days debate on Second Reading. These powers, which can be used to legislate on matters far removed from the terrorist threat, are sought in a Bill which is rushing through Parliament at breakneck speed.
Perhaps I may spell out what the clause gives the Minister powers to do. It does not only give him power to implement decisions made after 11th September by European Ministers as their response to the events of 11th September, it enables him to implement by delegated legislation every decision that has already been made at intergovernmental level and every decision that may be made in the future under Title VI of the Treaty on European Union, the third pillar.

191
It gives the Minister power to create criminal offences which have nothing whatever to do with terrorism: serious offences which have nothing to do with terrorism, and which attract imprisonment for a term of any length—we have only to look at Clause 110(7)—and quite minor offences which have nothing to do with terrorism, attracting sentences of two years or less on indictment or three months before the magistrates—I refer to Clause 110(5). Such measures are not passed on the likes of Mr bin Laden.
The power enables the Minister to implement by order measures such as the draft framework decision on the European arrest warrant. I know that the Government have said that they will introduce primary legislation in that case, but that does not alter the fact that the power is wide enough to implement, by secondary legislation, a measure such as the European arrest warrant, a measure that would allow extradition for offences—
Earl Russell: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that if this House were to lose its power to reject statutory instruments, the power to introduce all this by statutory instrument will be an even more nugatory restriction than it is at present?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, indeed it would. I entirely agree with the noble Earl. I was concentrating so much on the Bill that I was not thinking of the possible implications of changes in our powers under second stage reform of this place.
I want to emphasise this point about the European arrest warrant. One must look at the scope of that warrant to get clearly in one's mind the potency of this regulation-making power. If the regulation-making power is so great that it could put into law the European arrest warrant, it means that the Minister could legislate by regulation in order to provide a power for someone to be removed from this country to face trial abroad for offences that are completely unknown in this country—xenophobia, for example.
The power is wide enough to enable the Minister to take steps with regard to offences against children—that has nothing to do with terrorism—offences concerned with drug trafficking, and offences in connection with corruption and fraud. All those are words in Article 29 of Title VI of the European treaty. It also gives the Minister power, as set out in Article 31e, to establish the constituent elements of criminal acts by delegated legislation—again, not in the field of terrorism but throughout the whole of our statute book dealing with criminal law. These are truly dramatic powers, which ought to make the hair of any noble Lord who has hair stand on end. They embrace not merely the agenda adopted at Tampere—although that is wide and sweeping enough, with its reference to new police powers and the harmonisation of criminal laws—but everything else in Title VI of the treaty.
I confess that I would object to such powers of delegated legislation in any Bill. Powers to legislate on matters affecting the liberty of the subject should be dealt with by primary legislation. Why were these matters included in Title VI, the third pillar, in the first
192
place? They were put there to ensure that they would, in view of their sensitive nature, be dealt with at an intergovernmental level and. in Britain's case, be implemented by primary legislation. I understand that that was the whole purpose of the third pillar. It is wrong that such powers to make delegated legislation should be sought at all. It is doubly wrong that they should be sought in emergency legislation with limited scope for debate.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Ahmed: My Lords, the terrorist attacks in the United States on 11th September have changed our perception, our lives and indeed the whole world. None of us can condemn enough to comfort those who have lost their loved ones. However, we need to be cautious while legislating to protect individual citizens from those who create havoc in our society through international terrorism that we do not infringe civil liberties and discriminate against any sections of our community.
I remind your Lordships that legislation and military power alone do not prevent terrorism. The United States had "secret evidence" laws in place three years before the tragic events of 11th September. They gave the United States authorities powers of detention without trial, and have been seen as contrary to the principles of freedom of speech, freedom of expression and civil liberties. It may not surprise your Lordships to know that 95 per cent of those detained were Arab Muslims.
In order to reduce the threat of international terrorism, we need to strive for global social justice, eradicate poverty and corruption, promote democracy and safeguard freedom of speech. We need to promote the United Nations Universal Charter of Human Rights and to deal with illegal occupations and oppression. We must also reform the United Nations Security Council so that it mirrors the world of the 21st century instead of reflecting the past.
Nothing could ever justify the terrorist attacks on innocent civilians. However, history bears witness to the fact that this is how some individuals react against some nations. For example, in the 1960s, during the Algerian struggle, bombs exploded in Paris; and in the 1980s, when tension grew in Northern Ireland, bomb attacks took place in London. Now that tension is growing in the Middle East, such tragic events have taken place in New York and Washington.
The Home Secretary has emphasised his concern to find a balance between the security of this nation and the duty of our country to protect people under the regulations of the European Convention on Human Rights. While I acknowledge the necessity to ensure both elements, I am anxious to see that the appropriate provisions are made and that there is no abuse of power.
I congratulate the Government on introducing the incitement to racial or religious hatred clauses, which are essential. Until now British Muslims have been subject to the xenophobic assaults of the extremist far

193
right groups such as the BNP and the National Front who have taken an explicitly anti-Muslim stance to avoid prosecution under race legislation.
Events since 11th September have strengthened my opinion that, as we have religious discrimination laws in Northern Ireland and the Race Relations Act 1976 covering the Jewish and Sikh communities—and rightly so—other religious groups such as Hindus, Muslims and Christians should be similarly protected.
During the tensions that occurred in the north of England this summer, a certain right-wing figure was openly attacking the British Muslim community. This week, posters have gone up in London, and the Internet site of that person's organisation is full of lies and attacks on the Muslim community, inciting religious hatred and violence against Muslims.
Two weeks ago, a senior Member of this House claimed, "You cannot be a Muslim and be British". I said then, and I say now, that we take pride in being Muslims and we take pride in being British. No one should be misled by any "rent a quote" organisation claiming that five British Muslims had been killed in Mazar-i Sharif by the US bombing when two weeks later they turned up in Islamabad. British Muslims should not be made responsible for the actions of a few individuals, just as we do not hold all Catholics responsible for the actions of a few IRA or Real IRA members.
Perhaps I may take this opportunity to congratulate the Government again on taking such an active role in researching and implementing religious discrimination laws to protect all religious and non-religious groups. The Derby University and Cambridge University reports on the issue, and the support of the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister, have been much appreciated by many communities. Islam teaches us that while we may comment we must not mock and abuse other religions. This is in accordance with the long-standing tradition of freedom of speech but without stirring religious hatred in our nation. The British Muslim community is keen to see that implemented by law. Although I would have preferred a separate incitement to religious hatred Bill rather than the carrot and stick approach in this Bill, I am prepared to support any legislation that will protect individuals from racism and xenophobia.
Nevertheless, I am concerned at the speed with which this legislation is being considered. The Home Secretary calls for the making of proportionate provisions for the threat to national security. But are we also sufficiently prepared to anticipate the effects of those provisions on our nation?
I have three main concerns regarding the practical implications of the Bill. In his reply, will the Minister say how the religion clause will affect the British Muslim community? How accurately and appropriately will people suspected of terrorism be detained? How justly will the police use their additional powers?
194
The British Muslims are wary that they will be segregated from society because of their religious beliefs, especially in the light of recent world events. If we are to include religion under the same umbrella as terrorism, then it is inevitable that some people may consider certain religious beliefs to be a form of terrorism. We do not want to see that happen. While I strongly support religious discrimination laws, I propose that that should be a separate Bill. This is necessary to avoid any misunderstanding between the two issues and to emphasise that the Government are wholly supportive of the need to improve religious relations.
Secondly, the derogation of the detention clause poses an obvious risk of people being wrongly detained. Perhaps I may emphasise this point as there is clear evidence in our history of such past practices. There have been many cases where innocent people in their hundreds have been detained: for example, during the Second World War, in Northern Ireland and, more recently, at the time of the Gulf War. A further concern is whether, in keeping with the religion clause, there will be unjust detaining of suspects on the basis of religious prejudice.
Thirdly, I agree with the proposal to give the police and Customs services the authority to demand the removal of any item of clothing, and so on, which they believe is being worn wholly or mainly for the purpose of concealing identity. We must take all necessary action in the interest of public safety. But there is a feeling that that power may be abused. There have already been cases where Muslim women have been ordered to remove their head coverings, scarves and hi'jab without substantial reason when visiting relatives in prison. This has caused deep humiliation and distress. I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester for mentioning the burka and similar concerns to which I have referred. The Qur'an outlines how important it is for Muslim women to be modest and the hi'jab is one of the means of achieving that. To date, no connection has been established between criminal activities and Muslim women wearing the hi'jab. That should be noted; it should he considered an expression of religious belief. In his reply, will the Minister please assure the House that the hi'jab will be recognised as a religious practice?
Finally, I support the Government in their actions and request that we proceed with caution. Our nation cannot sit in fear and all necessary actions must be taken to secure the safety of this country and its people. It will not be appropriate to cause internal struggles and discontent at a time when we must have a strong united front, closed to hate crimes and terrorism but open to offerings of compassion to those in need of our support. Let it be clear that this House will not tolerate prejudice; that a person's personal beliefs and faith will be respected under the custom of civil liberties, and that those who are religious should be free to practise the teachings of their faith.
6.25 p.m.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, it is a great pleasure and a privilege to follow the important speech

195
of the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed. It was moving to hear him say that he and other Muslims took pride in being British. I do not think that I am alone in expressing my pride in sharing my nationality with him and with them. It is not through any lack of respectful interest that I do not explore the very important questions that he raised about Part 5 of the Bill. I intend to deal exclusively with Part 4.
It is often said that in every war freedom is an early casualty. We do well to remember that. Emergencies have a habit of outlasting those who declare them. In our own country the emergency in Northern Ireland is now in its 30th year and still going strong. We need to take care that our scrutiny of emergency legislation does not become blunted. We need a clear mind as to how to test any government's claim that once again emergency measures are needed if the country is to be defended. In particular, we have to test what the Government advance as necessary legislation and test whether it goes too far.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Waddington about the many parts of the Bill which I believe fail the test. There is only one sensible test: what hostile threat should the Government reasonably foresee; and what is the limit of reasonable measures which should be taken to meet it? There is a rather uncomfortable cliché that an ounce of practice is worth a pound of theory. It is only a cliché because it is true. The best, but not the only, guide to what one can reasonably foresee is what has happened in the past. The more recent the past the better the guide. But it is not the only guide because sometimes threats have also been made. Their credibility has to be assessed; as does what the recent past tells us about those who make them. In bringing forward the Bill, I believe that the Government are content to be judged by that measure. Whether or not they are content. that is how they should be judged; but they must be fairly judged.
It is extraordinary how quickly some people forget. We know that hindsight is a faculty which has 20:20 accuracy. But for all too many of us—none who has spoken in this Chamber today—retrospection soon becomes massively myopic. It has often been said recently that it is a good thing that we are not legislating in the immediate aftermath of the events of September 11th. But I am not so sure. That enables me to say at this point how glad I am to be able to salute the charming and thoughtful maiden speech of my old friend and colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan of Rogart. He took pleasure in the fact that we were legislating after some 10 weeks. I am not so sure that that is altogether a good thing. The reality of those bodies hurtling out of the windows of the blazing towers is even now fading—perhaps because subconsciously we want it to. Yet the Government tell us that they and we face the foreseeability of terrorist attacks within this country no less horrifying in their scale and evil. We must beware a psychological need to fade out the memory of that horror when we ask whether the severity of the Government's proposals is warranted.
196
Do we accept what the Government tell us and, if we do, are their proposals proportionate to the gravity of the risk of which they warn? It is not naïve to say, in matters of supreme gravity, that a democratically elected government are entitled to be trusted. What would people say if someone who could not have been lawfully deported but who was credibly suspected of being an international terrorist had been left at large to launch or assist such an attack on this country when power could have been taken from Parliament to detain him until he chose to leave? People would say, "You could see it coming, yet you did nothing".
I should not care to stand before this country and say that to seek such legislation would have been a grave departure from principle and one giving rise to a dangerous precedent. Would not the country answer, "You already had a dangerous precedent on 11th September, yet you chose to accept the risk to us that it would not be followed here—even though you were warned by your advisers and by the blatant threats of known terrorists"? I have faced some difficulties in my time and survived them but I should not care to face that situation because I should have failed in the most important duty of all. Allowing the nicety of my admirable principles to prevail over a threat of such magnitude would be seen as disproportionate, to put it mildly.
I am sorry to put the matter so starkly, but the Government are entitled to believe that they have a stark choice. Some people argue that the Government had more than one alternative. It is said that, by some fancy footwork, the Government could have denounced the whole human rights convention, then—in a twinkling of an eye—re-entered it with a reservation on Article 3, which guarantees the right to life. That way, they could lawfully deport a suspect in the sure and certain expectation that he would lose his life at the other end or at least be tortured.
Even if that approach had worked, I should find it disreputable and unworthy—and I believe that the country would have done so. Whether it will be lawful to kill bin Laden will itself be subject to well-established principles of law—as everybody in the relevant services recognises
Nor is it enough to suggest criminal prosecution as an alternative. As one might expect constitutionalists to know, it is for the independent Director of Public Prosecutions, not Ministers, to determine whether a prosecution of that type shall be brought. The DPP will require evidence that is not only admissible but available and likely to lead to a conviction. It comes as no surprise that the need to protect sources would generally stymie that requirement.
The only alternatives are true internment—and there is something to be said for it in some circumstances or cases—or to do nothing, for which there is no case. The Government are justified in taking the route of immigration control and curtailing a suspect's liberty to that extent. It is of great importance that the suspect should be able voluntarily to leave this country at any time. However, here I part

197
company with the Government. Much of the Bill has no connection with the emergency but I will deal only with Clause 29's attempt to exclude judicial review.
Where we must accept the need to curtail a suspect's liberties to a limited extent, there is no need to exclude the jurisdiction of the courts over the process of that curtailment—that is, the jurisdiction of all courts except the Special Immigration Appeals Commission, if that is a court. I say that without the slightest intention of causing offence to anybody who sits on that commission. It was invented four years ago, for a different purpose, and there is good reason not to seek to exclude judicial review.
In the bad old days before we had any administrative law in this country, judges slavishly used to accept that if a Minister thought fit to do something that an Act of Parliament allowed, that was the end of the matter. Judges thought that they had no power to review whether the Minister had gravely misdirected himself on the law or taken account of wholly irrelevant matters, to the grave disadvantage of a citizen who was left with no redress.
All that has changed, not so as to substitute the judge as the decision maker but to acknowledge the judge as a legitimate referee in cases where it is said that the relevant rules have been broken. If judges find that the rules have been broken, they say, "Go back and start again". That development has proved an effective curb on the improper exercise of executive power in public matters. Where a case has required this, it has been resolved in a few hours—with the Court of Appeal also standing by for an immediate hearing.
I was disappointed to hear the Home Secretary—whom I greatly admire—grumbling so soon after entering the Home Office about judges being unelected. No matter what government have been in office, senior judges have been a thorn in Ministers' occasionally errant flesh. Quite right too. Ministers used to say to me when I was the Attorney-General, "Look what your judges have done now". I would reply, "They aren't my judges. They aren't anybody's judges". That was the whole point. If judges were elected, they might seem to be.
Jurisdiction is so vitally important that no precedent at all should be set for excluding it—especially when there is no need. We can bet our boots that any such precedent would be relied upon to justify further attempts at excluding judicial review in future. I concede that the Government are entitled to argue that, under the Bill, the commission could do everything that a divisional court could do by way of judicial review and that an appeal lies with the Court of Appeal—but only on a point of law. We will no doubt examine that matter further in Committee but it is not sufficient reason to make an exclusion that was never made when the commission was established by statute four years ago. Neither the SIAC's own decisions nor those of the Minister were protected by judicial review then and that should remain the position with the new and enlarged jurisdiction conferred by the Bill. We
198
have it on the Home Secretary's authority that not one judicial review of a SIAC case has taken place, so there is no reason to fear factitious duplication now.
I must not stretch your Lordships' patience by further criticism, though one is spoiled for choice—not least, the unexplained exclusion of terrorists concerned only with the affairs of any part of the United Kingdom. I confidently expect that the noble Lord who is to follow me, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, will deal with that aspect.
I conclude with the fervent hope that the Government will have second thoughts in any event on excluding judicial review—failing which, I hope that your Lordships will invite the other place to think again.
6.39 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, I begin by adding my congratulations to those that were so warmly expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, to my noble friend Lord Maclennan of Rogart on his distinguished maiden speech, which combined persuasiveness and elegance to a remarkable degree. He made some neat beginning remarks about how he and Viscount Thurso had changed Houses. Led by that, I am tempted to add a glancing reference to the fact that, had it not been for my noble friend Lord Maclennan, while I might still be standing here this evening and I might still be called Lord Jenkins, I would not be called Lord Jenkins of Hillhead. I owe that entirely to his perception, almost exactly 20 years ago.
I have not troubled your Lordships for many months past, believing that when one gives up a leadership it is best to allow one's successor—and now my successor but one—to get on with it untrammelled. However, as almost exactly 27 years ago, on 28th November to be precise, I introduced a Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill—with what turned out to be ironic parentheses—I thought that perhaps I ought to speak.
I confess that I got that Bill through on a still tighter timetable than has been the case here. I moved the Second Reading at 3.30 on a Thursday afternoon and completed all stages in the Commons 17 hours later, having made 14 speeches—short ones, happily—during the night. Sometimes I resisted amendments and sometimes I accepted them, when they seemed to have convincing arguments. The pressure was by no means wholly from a libertarian point of view. There were several who wanted me to turn the BBC into a government agency as far as Northern Ireland was concerned. I resisted that as firmly as I resisted the moves to weaken the provisions. Your Lordships sat especially early on the Friday morning and the Bill was ready for Royal Assent at 9.30 that morning.
The balancing factor is that we made it clear that, as the Bill had been introduced rather hurriedly, it could not continue except with primary legislation—not an executive order—six months later, when there had been time for reflection and consideration.

199
In view of all that, it would not be possible for me, without the most blatant hypocrisy—one tries to avoid it in its blatant form, at any rate—to denounce the principle of a legislative response to acts of terrorism or its accelerated passage through Parliament. However, I have a number of reflections from that experience, not all of which may be entirely welcome to the Home Secretary.
While the atrocity in the wake of which I was acting was of an immensely smaller scale than that of September 11th, it was much nearer to home. The two explosions in Birmingham pubs caused 24 deaths and nearly 200 serious injuries, almost entirely among young adults. They were part of a series of events, many of which were in Birmingham. The Guildford bombing had also happened only six weeks previously. Birmingham was not only the second city of England; it also happened to be the city of the constituency of the Home Secretary of the day—though I hope and believe that that did not influence my judgment.
None the less, I did not then contemplate any return to the 1971 policy of indefinite internment without trial, which had become heavily discredited and which, in retrospect, is undoubtedly thought to have exacerbated rather than contained the IRA terrorist threat. The new powers taken then were much more precise and limited.
First, the police were allowed to detain a suspected terrorist for up to 48 hours on their own authority and then for a further five days with the specific authority of a Minister of the Crown. Secondly, much tighter controls at the points of entry for Northern and southern Ireland were introduced. Thirdly, and most controversially, the Home Secretary was given powers to exclude from Great Britain—that is, just from this island and not from the United Kingdom as a whole—citizens of the Republic of Ireland or those originating in Northern Ireland had they not been domiciled here for 20 years if it appeared to him, on advice, that they were, or were likely to be, involved in acts of terrorism. However, two independent assessors were appointed to whom representations could be made.
Those were the practical measures. There was another that was largely for show: making the IRA an illegal organisation. It had not been illegal on this island before. Hitherto it had been able to engage in marches and funeral demonstrations.
Looking back, what do I think of that Act? I think that it helped to steady a febrile state of opinion at the time and to provide some limited additional protection. However, I doubt that it frustrated any determined terrorist. I think that it made it possible to defeat what looked at first as though it might be a strong mood to restore the death penalty for terrorist offences, which I believe would have greatly exacerbated the problem from a martyrdom point of view. The fact that we were able to win that vote only three weeks later with a crushing majority in the House of Commons owed a great deal to the courageous support of the late Viscount Whitelaw, who had become convinced during his time in Northern Ireland
200
of the disastrous effect of the death penalty for terrorist offences. I do not take the same view as the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, on that issue.
If I had been told at the time that the Act could still be on the statute book 20 years later, I would have been horrified. It is often the provisional that endures. We should be very careful about justifying something on the grounds that it is intended to last only for a short time.
There is a wider consideration. Not at all as a direct result of that Act, but associated with the mood of that time there occurred some of the worst miscarriages of justice in the recent history of British criminal law. Guildford and Birmingham became notorious names in that context. There was undoubtedly a certain atavistic desire to get any Irishman and convict him. That affected police, prosecuting counsel, judges and juries. As a result, several years in the 1980s had to be spent on a campaign under the inspired leadership of the late Cardinal Basil Hume, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, and myself, as well as those two towering legal eminences, the noble and learned Lords, Lord Devlin and Lord Scarman, to right some of those appalling mis-convictions.
In reaching my conclusions, I owe your Lordships a great apology. I am afraid that I cannot stay for the end of the debate, as I have a compelling engagement. I hope that I shall be forgiven for that. I much dislike having to leave early.
At a time of threat, to be seen to be doing something rather than nothing is a natural human—and perhaps particularly ministerial—reaction. But something, anything, is by no means always better than nothing. You can do more harm than good. It should be very carefully directed at the threat and not splayed over a wide area of increase in executive powers. It should be done with a wary consciousness that what starts as a temporary measure is only too likely to last. Above all, something should be done within a framework of respect for the rule of law and an awareness of the need for those at the hinge point between the security of the state and the freedom of the individual—and no one is more at that hinge point than the Home Secretary of the day particularly when there is public clamour—to remain as calmly judicial as possible. I have sympathy for Mr Blunkett with the conflicting pressures upon him. But I cannot endorse this Bill as it comes unamended to your Lordships' House.
Looking back, I say this. I do not exactly regret having introduced the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1974. I believe that it was inevitable in the circumstances. But it is not one of the legislative measures of which I am most proud.
6.51 p.m.
Lord Rogan: My Lords, as an Ulster Unionist, I am always keen to give my support to any measure which seeks to tackle terrorism within our borders. This occasion is no different. That said, I have to tell noble Lords that this Bill does not in my view go far enough.

201
Parliament was recalled at the beginning of September 1998 to debate the Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Bill. This legislation, your Lordships will remember, was deemed necessary by the Government following the terrible atrocity just over two weeks earlier in Omagh. Twenty-nine people died as a result of that Real IRA bomb attack, and many hundreds were injured.
The mood across the country at that time was one of great sadness coupled with understandable outrage. There was also a desire to do something—anything, almost—to ensure that the perpetrators of the act were brought to justice and that the distressing scenes which we witnessed could never be repeated. However, more than three years on, I must report to your Lordships that not one person has been convicted under the Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Act 1998. I therefore respectfully ask the Government, as we prepare for the Committee stage of the Antiterrorism, Crime and Security Bill, to listen carefully to the arguments that are set out in this Chamber and to study closely the amendments that are being tabled by noble Lords in all parts of this House in an attempt at improvement. As the Minister is no doubt aware, rushed legislation is very often not effective legislation no matter how sincere the Government's intentions may be.
My principal difficulty with this Bill is the failure to extend it to Northern Ireland. This was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. The repercussions of this are potentially very great indeed. Last week my party leader, David Trimble, and the leader of Her Majesty's Opposition, wrote a joint article which appeared in the Daily Telegraph under the heading,
"There's no such thing as a 'good terrorist', Mr Blair".
I am sure that every noble Lord in this Chamber will agree with that view. However, the Government, in excluding domestic terrorists from the provisions of this legislation, have unfortunately left themselves open to the charge of differentiating between terrorists.
Clause 21(4) of this Bill states that,
"'international terrorism' does not include terrorism concerned only with the affairs of a part of the United Kingdom".
I find that phrase not only inaccurate but also rather offensive.
Despite the protestations of Gerry Adams that the actions of the IRA terrorists and the actions of A1'Qaeda terrorists are somehow different, I fail to see the distinction. The Government try to justify their decision to exclude so-called "domestic terrorists" from the Bill on the grounds that the IRA is on ceasefire. Yes, the IRA may well be on ceasefire—of a sort—but the Real IRA is most certainly not on ceasefire and neither for that matter are the UDA, the UFF or the LVF. And, yes, while IRA volunteers over recent years have not been as active in the United Kingdom as previously, we now know that they have been keeping themselves occupied in other parts of the world.
202
As Mr Trimble and Mr Duncan Smith pointed out in their article,
"The links between international terrorists and Irish republicans are well-established. In August, three senior republicans were apprehended in Colombia, suspected of collaborating with the narco-terrorist group FARC. Much of the IRA's arsenal results from its connections with the Arab world, specifically Libya. Prominent members of the Basque separatist movement, ETA, have been regular visitors to republican conferences over the years".
I think the problem is obvious to see. I simply find it rather disturbing that our Government, particularly our Prime Minister, can spend so much time flying around the world seeking to bolster the international coalition against terrorism, yet are apparently comfortable in excluding from the provisions of the Bill terrorist groups which operate on our very own doorstep.
It has been well-publicised that my party leader has signed a letter to the Home Secretary, David Blunkett, seeking the extension of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill to Northern Ireland. However, the media seem largely to have ignored the fact that the letter was also signed by the Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland, the new SDLP Leader, Mark Durkan. That indicates, as we all know, that the desire to see the Bill extended to the Province is not just a Unionist demand. It is a wish shared on both sides of the political divide in Northern Ireland. I trust that the Minister will take that into account when we begin the Committee stage of the Bill.
Before resuming my seat, I want quickly to flag up one other issue which I hope we can discuss in some detail in Committee. I am referring to the admissibility of wire-tap evidence in bringing prosecutions against terrorists. Any noble Lord who has turned on the radio or television in recent weeks to be updated on the current situation in Afghanistan will no doubt have encountered a procession of individuals talking about the importance of intelligence in this so-called war against terror. Some of those individuals are well qualified to talk about such matters; some are perhaps not so well qualified. But all of them are right.
When the Prime Minister decided that it was right for the United Kingdom to stand shoulder to shoulder with the United States in the action against Osama bin Laden and his accomplices in both A1'Qaeda and the Taliban, he did so primarily on the basis of a dossier of information provided to him by the intelligence agencies. One can be certain that wire tap evidence formed a large proportion of the intelligence contained in that dossier. Surely if our Prime Minister and this Government can decide to send our troops into battle on the strength of such information, then it can only be sensible for it to be used to bring terrorists to justice in our own courts.
7.1 p.m.
Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, the reports my noble friend the Minister listed in his opening speech, including that of the Joint Committee on Human Rights of which I am a member, induced undertakings which go some way to improve the safeguards in the

203
Bill. They should have the effect that when we work to defeat international terrorism, we do not disproportionately undermine from within the human rights framework of democracy which terrorism aims to destroy.
I wish briefly to refer to three parts of the Bill: those dealing with detention, religious hatred and corruption. The Joint Committee report makes other points and I look forward to seeing the government response to all of them.
On the difficult clauses which set up a system of detention for suspected international terrorists who do not choose to leave the UK, several distinguished and learned noble Lords have already spoken and more will speak later. I shall therefore simply refer to an illuminating context which I heard last week from the president of the European Court of Human Rights, Lazius Wildhaber, when he gave the Paul Sieghart lecture to the British Institute of Human Rights.
Judge Wildhaber described the European Convention on Human Rights—the foundation of our own Human Rights Act—as,
"protecting democracy by recognising the state's right to counter terrorism".
Hence the facility to derogate from Article 5 of the convention—that dealing with the right to liberty—but not from Article 3 which absolutely prohibits despatching anyone to torture or to other inhuman or degrading treatment. The purpose of the article enabling derogation, he said, was to,
"balance the vital needs of the state with the strongest protection of human rights",
in the circumstances prevailing. Again, he stressed that to counter terrorism under the convention, rights may be curtailed to the extent necessary. The point at issue in relation to the detention of suspected international terrorists, therefore, is not that their rights are curtailed, but what curtailment is necessary and what is the balance.
In that connection I particularly welcome the positive response made by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary to doubts raised in the Joint Committee about the objective justification for ordering a suspect to be detained. He confirmed that in another place by moving amendments to include the words, "reasonably" and "reasonable grounds for a belief", which allows the Special Immigration Appeals Commission to assess judicially the grounds for detention. As Judge Wildhaber also said,
"The enemy of rights is arbitrariness".
My right honourable friend also promised to define more clearly "links with" terrorists as grounds for detention. That will be important.
The "sunset" clause, which follows representations from the Joint Committee and others, is also to be welcomed, underlining as it does the essentially temporary nature of any derogation from human rights' obligations because of circumstances which may and, we hope, will change.
I welcome Part 5 of the Bill extending the prohibition on inciting racial hatred to religious hatred, including inciting hatred against people
204
because they have no religious belief, and not only because it remedies the unfair anomaly which my noble friend described. When I was chair of Camden's Race Equality Council, I came across many examples of abusive hatred and discrimination, particularly but not only against Muslims resulting in intimidation, assault and terror against children as well as adults.
I welcome the statutory affirmation of equality for all religions and beliefs. As someone of Jewish background who is nevertheless a humanist, I am also glad to see my non-religious creed on a level with other beliefs, I think for the first time in English law. That provision implements in practice the right we all have to observe our religious belief in freedom, and now is the right time to do it because it follows the acts of terrorism that have increased violent prejudice and cause a present danger.
As for freedom of speech and the freedom to make jokes, surely one of the tests of the mature democracy referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan of Rogart, in a notable maiden speech, is that we can all understand what is different about "inflammatory" and "critical" or "satirical". It is the action of a civilised society to define that borderline when there are pressure points. Only a week or so ago the United Nations Human Rights Committee urged the UK to extend its criminal legislation to cover offences motivated by religious hatred. Even if such a provision were rarely enforced, the fact that it is on the statute book sends a signal that beliefs are equally respected in this country. That being so, I suggest it is anomalous to retain the common law offence of blasphemy against Church of England beliefs and, following my right honourable friend Frank Dobson in another place, I hope we can adopt the amendment drafted by the Law Commission which would repeal it.
Finally, I greatly welcome Part 12 of the Bill, which realises the much-heralded implementation of the OECD Convention against Bribery of Foreign Public Officials. I do so in conjunction with Transparency International (UK) on whose advisory council I sit. It has been argued that bribery has little to do with terrorism. But clandestine funds and money laundering have a very close connection with terrorism, as the noble Lord, Lord McNally, said. Corrupt governance is where terrorism flourishes and to undermine the systemic causes of terrorism we need to rely on system changes rather than fire-fighting and bombs. The measures which enable the tracking of bribe money are those which can identify and block the resources of international terrorists.
I said that the Bill aims to implement the Convention. It does so, as my honourable friend Beverley Hughes admitted in another place, minimally. I think we could, with very little adjustment, do even better. The Bill defines foreign public officials by applying the 1889 UK law definition of a public body to the foreign equivalents; that is, local authority and government officers. This leaves out anyone holding legislative office, or officials or agents of public enterprises or public international organisations. The OECD convention covers all such people, and for good reason. It would be easy to

205
amend the Bill to provide for what the OECD intended. It is very good news that foreign bribes will, in effect, no longer be tax deductible; but it would also be helpful to extend the jurisdiction of the Serious Fraud Office expressly to include serious corruption offences and to remove the requirement for the consent of the Attorney-General to institute proceedings, as the OECD advocated. None of those points detracts from the considerable achievement of bringing these provisions on to the statute book.
In conclusion, I am heartened by the willingness of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary and my noble friend the Minister to listen to the voices of human rights commitments as our legislation takes the fateful step of protecting democracy by means which include the temporary curtailment of rights. I hope the listening mode will continue through all the stages of the Bill. I return to Judge Wildhaber:
"Terrorism is anti-democratic. But democracy should neither be under-protected nor over-protected".
7.12 p.m.
Lord Selsdon: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, obliquely referred to one of the origins of terrorism being the revolution in France which led to the heads of large numbers of the aristocracy being removed at that time. Today, the government adopt legislation to remove Members of your Lordships' House, often at will. However, there is no similarity between that and terrorism because legislation cannot in itself remove terrorism.
Noble Lords will know the origins of terrorism. I believe that the strict definition of the word is "government by intimidation" and that a terrorist is someone who seeks to promote his views by intimidation. I find it difficult when I look at this piece of legislation not to experience a certain anxiety. I get what the Americans call "goose bumps". There is something wrong with it. Yet I pay tribute to all those who worked long hours and long nights to put together what I regard as an admirable White Paper. However, as a piece of legislation it has much missing.
I turn to what I regard as the most important commodities that are available to us in this country: freedom and privacy. But both suffer if they are confronted with fear. I believe it was Thomas Carlyle who said that the first duty of man is the subduing of fear. At this time I believe that the first duty of government is the subduing of fear. We have little knowledge of the impact of 11th September, but previous events caused anxiety. The English bombing of Libya led to many people refusing to come here because they thought that Libya could bomb England. The same applied to Baghdad.
I have no legal qualifications in this area and I am not learned. However, during my working life I have been lectured to by many third, second or even first world governments with firmly held views and vociferous criticisms. They used to ask, "Why, when you are our friends, do you harbour in your own country people who wish to overthrow us not democratically but by violence?" That has been the
206
case for many years. Some of those people pass through Croydon. I should declare an interest as Baron Selsdon of Croydon. I should have preferred a title drawn from one of my old family relationships in Scotland but that was not in my gift.
I refer to the phrase, "His presence in the United kingdom may be prejudicial to public order and good discipline". I understand that we have an awful lot of people whose presence in the United Kingdom could be prejudicial to public order and good discipline. I do not see how this piece of legislation as currently drafted will remove fear and take us much further forward. I recognise within it the hand of American legislation where bribery and corruption and other ingredients are included. I ask myself why it is all necessary.
Let us look at the financial world in which I have worked for years. There is plenty, probably too much, legislation which requires certain reports and returns to be made under the European convention of 1993 on money laundering and forfeiture and under recent legislation. That involves much bureaucracy and causes much concern and is an extraordinary invasion of the rights of the individual. If someone has not paid his telephone bill or filled in the appropriate forms, he is told by his bankers, who may have looked after him, his family, his ancestors and his children for years, that their hands are tied unless he fills in those forms.
Here I come to the basic principle of banking which is often forgotten; that is, the source and application of funds. I refer to the duty of care that a bank or anyone in the financial institutions has to his client. That includes confidentiality. It also includes that lovely phrase, "Know thy customer". Before we had "Big Bang" and a widening of the financial institutions, everyone had a hank manager whom he or she had usually met. Now one picks up the telephone, dials a number and is told to press one of a series of buttons. I remind your Lordships that should they wish to speak to someone they should never press a button. Ultimately, they will get a voice. However, there is no longer a manager whose duty is to make sure that he protects the bank and his customers. Many people used to say of someone, "He does not bank with a respectable bank and, therefore, he is not trustworthy". We need to say to those involved in the banking system, "It is up to you now to follow that philosophy of knowing your customers" rather than try to increase the legislation in that area.
These days you can move money around in a way you never could before. You can swap things. You do not actually have to have cash passing through accounts. You can barter. But, at the end of the day, is terrorism about money? What was the cost of taking a small penknife on a plane? What is the impact of that and how much funding is needed in this country? Anyone can be a terrorist and create fear.
Here I move on to another area. What is the fear? It is not necessarily the fear of being blown up. It begins with anxiety. Anxiety then becomes fear and fear becomes terror and terror becomes panic. Fear is often fear of the unknown. Here I come to the horrendous

207
schedule of viruses and bacteria that have scared the living daylights out of so many people. However, I could not even see smallpox among them.
I hope that I may make a suggestion to the Government. Most of those bacteria can be treated in one form or another, although viruses are not so easily treated. I hope that the Government will do me the favour of writing me a long letter which I could circulate widely and which perhaps could even be incorporated in an announcement in the newspapers. The letter should list the diseases in the schedule, the cures, the people who have them and should tell people not to worry so much. People are worried and I believe that the young are more worried than we are. Of course, taking into account their average age, I assume that at one time or another noble Lords have all been vaccinated against smallpox. Certainly we have a long life expectancy and are probably immune to many of the diseases. But it is disease that causes fear.
I move on to another concern which many of us cannot quite make out at the moment. I refer to nuclear and other types of attack that are mentioned. What is the fear and how can the Government alleviate it? The Government cannot remove fear by this Bill, but they can remove it by communication. I am sorry that no right reverend Prelate is with us at present because one debate in this House moved me greatly. It was initiated by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury and was, in effect, on the role of religion in the creation of war or the creation of peace.
As your Lordships know well, half the world is made up of people of the book: those of Jewish faith, who are the oldest; those of Christian faith; and those of Muslim faith. All have a community of interests and all recognise each other. The belief which is at large at present that it is all right to go out and kill someone, after which one will go to heaven, is not accurate. I suggest that the leaders of those three faiths take a leaf out of the book of His Royal Highness Prince Charles and start to provide a little more explanation. In my view, if a Muslim were to study the Koran correctly, he would see that what is being proposed at present is against the Koran. Therefore, I believe that some of the problems can be cured by providing information.
I do not understand many of the other elements of the Bill. They are complicated and cause me considerable anxiety. In the debates that are to follow in Committee, I hope that the Government will end up with something that is workable. I wish them well anti commend them on their action. However, at present it may not be necessary to move quite so quickly but: merely to indicate to people the direction in which we are moving.
7.22 p.m.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, all of us, irrespective of race, colour, religion or nationality, are affected by the events of 11th September in America. As my noble friend Lord McNally said, for that reason the objective of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill is not in
208
dispute. All reasonable people will support measures that bring greater security to people living under United Kingdom jurisdiction. But it would carry more weight if the provisions were commensurable with justice and proper scrutiny.
No one disputes that the events that took place in New York and Washington were an attack not only on the civilised world but also on our democratic values. We need to look beyond the revulsion, hatred, fear and anger. We must respond, and this Bill is no exception because terrorism erodes our own liberties. The principles of equality and liberty are rightly cherished. They had to be fought for and, in many parts or the world, including Afghanistan, they have still to be won. For that reason, we must not allow terrorism to control our ideal of an open society which values freedom, justice, liberty and peace. That is why we are concerned about the wide and undefined discretion of the Home Secretary.
This country has a sound record on human rights, both nationally and internationally. We set standards which other countries follow. The measures described in the Bill should be explicit about judicial scrutiny by way of judicial review. The powers of the Secretary of State are wide and affect the rights and liberties of individuals. Therefore, it is important that decisions are reviewed both judicially and administratively so as to ensure that justice, which in some cases may not seem to be done, can be challenged by other means.
I shall concentrate on only two measures in the Bill. One relates to the denial of access to the asylum procedure for a suspected international terrorist. Is it not a cornerstone of our justice, and in this Bill is it not vital, that those who are suspects and who are detained indefinitely have a right to know the full nature of what is alleged against them? What safeguards are in place to ensure that a regular review takes place of those who are detained?
My second point relates to incitement to religious hatred. I shall deal with that matter later. Needless to say, I have the support of many Back-Benchers on the government side of the House. I am delighted also that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, broadly shares my view. I look forward with great interest to his contribution.
The Bill will be judged by a number of criteria. The main one which concerns us all is the balance between protecting our freedom and ensuring that our hard-won liberties are not sacrificed by the threat of terrorism. This is where I part company with the Minister. I am afraid that the Bill has lost that balance. In a way, it is a victory for those who are out to destroy our civilised values. For that reason, we should send a clear message to the terrorists, both here and on the international scene, that we shall deal with them but shall not sacrifice our freedom and liberties, which are the essence of our parliamentary democracy. To do anything less is to offer terrorists precisely what they set out to do.
The United Kingdom Government supported the 1951 Convention on Refugees. The Bill as drafted would lead to the denial of access to full and fair

209
procedures in accordance with that convention. I am told by the UNHCR that there is no need for such a provision because the international refugee instruments do not offer protection to persons who have committed acts of terror or extreme violence. Will the Minister confirm that that is so? If it is, why do the Government need that measure?
Perhaps I may refer to Clauses 34 and 35. I hope that I have referred to the correct clause numbers; they seem to change fairly frequently. They are contrary to the principles that are central to the 1951 convention. Clause 34 infringes the principle that a person who requests asylum should be given access to fair and effective procedures for determining their refugee claims. It is a matter of serious concern that such infringement will arise when asylum appellants before the Special Immigration Appeals Commission are denied consideration of their asylum claim on account of a certificate issued by the Home Secretary. For the SIAC appellants concerned, the application of the 1951 convention would be suspended.
I was deeply moved by the contribution made by the noble Lord, Lord Corbett of Castle Vale, to the Human Rights Act 1998 (Designated Derogation) Order 2001. The noble Lord reminded us that in Parliament we all have a duty to do what we can collectively to safeguard the safety and security of citizens. But we also have a parallel duty to safeguard the human rights of citizens as well. The noble Lord reminded us of the Gulf War, when 50 Palestinians living in the United Kingdom were detained because of an alleged link to terrorism. The same happened to many Iraqis and Arabs. All were released without charge and many claimed asylum in the United Kingdom. To rub salt into the wounds, they even had to pay a financial contribution towards wrongful detention.
I have never accepted that the Government know best. They got it wrong during the Gulf War and they will get it wrong again. If people living in the United Kingdom are suspected of being terrorists or are agents of terrorists, why have we allowed them to live in peace and security in this country for so long? Why did it take the events of 11th September to fish them out? Why did we not use the powers in Section 56 of the Terrorism Act to deal with those who are involved in terrorist activities or who incite others to do so?
The Bill contravenes the requirement that asylum applicants are entitled to have all aspects of their claims considered. In any event, it provides that, where Article 1(F) or Article 33(2) are at issue, no consideration should be given to whether the asylum seeker has a well founded fear of persecution. Any threat to the asylum seeker's life or freedom would he disregarded as Clause 34, which is limited to SIAC cases, and Clause 35 apply to all asylum procedures.
Perhaps I may explain why we on these Benches are concerned. The effect of the Bill would be to suspend the application of the 1951 convention and dispense with the long-established principle of due process, fairness and natural justice in asylum procedures. Those clauses undermine the letter and spirit of the
210
convention. The 1951 convention as it currently stands is adequate to award the grant of protection to a person involved in acts of terror or serious violence. Therefore, there is no justification whatever for proposing changes to asylum procedures in order to address questions of national security.
I turn to Part 5, which relates to racially aggravated offences—assault, public order offences, criminal damage, harassment and attacks that are aggravated by religious hostility. The provision concerning incitement to racial hatred will be extended to cover religious hatred. The provision goes much further than the domestic situation and includes cases in which hatred is directed against groups that are abroad.
The Home Office seems to have woken up rather late in the day. I fail to understand why that provision forms part of this emergency Bill. In a debate on the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill as long ago as June 1994, my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill said that with the resurgence of anti-Semitism and in the light of the settlement in this country of a large Muslim population and other religious minorities, it was particularly important that the law should signal Parliament's recognition of groups that define themselves by their religious beliefs and that the law should offer them some effective protection against words or conduct that deliberately stir up hatred against them because of their beliefs.
At that time the Runnymede Trust published the report of a distinguished commission, which was chaired by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford. It called for the creation of a law on incitement to religious hatred in mainland Britain, as there is in Northern Ireland.
After all these years, the Government have seen fit to introduce a measure that we broadly support, but which should not be part of the anti-terrorism Bill. It requires detailed consideration and it should take into account not only incitement but also matters relating to religious discrimination. Matters relating to cases in which the hatred is directed against groups abroad will immediately bring the Government into the politics of the Subcontinent and the Middle East.
Has the Minister given any thought to incitement against, for example, the Ahmedian community in Pakistan, which was perpetrated by someone from this country? What impact would that have on the Muslim community in this country? The last thing that we want is for those battles to be fought on the streets of London.
Creating new offences will never on its own protect members of racial or religious groups from violence and abuse. We need seriously to examine whether the police, in investigating an offence involving the incitement of hatred or one that may be racially or religiously aggravated, look for and produce evidence, and whether the Crown Prosecution Service adequately presents that evidence.
When I served on the Home Office working party on racial attacks and harassment, we constantly received complaints involving the distrust of criminal justice agencies, particularly the CPS, and about the need for

211
such agencies to recognise racial aggravation. There was also a concern that the CPS is more willing to prosecute members of ethnic minorities than members of the white majority who commit racist crimes. In most cases. the CPS fails to recognise racial motivation as an aggravating factor.
The record so far relating to incitement to racial hatred has been very poor. The situation involving religious hatred is no different. In a debate on 21st November, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford pointed to the difficulty that since 1988—more than 12 years ago—only 42 defendants have been successfully prosecuted and that in 1999 there were only four prosecutions, which resulted in only three convictions. Anyone who saw last Sunday's "Panorama" programme on BBC1 will vouch that extremists circumvent the laws so that they can carry out their vile propaganda against other minorities.
There is also concern about the security of all communities in Britain. The Government have rightly recognised that, but they have done so in the wrong context. Religious hatred, particularly when it is directed at minorities, has existed from the time when minorities set foot in this country. The events of llth September are not required to recognise that. We on these Benches find it difficult to accept that the Bill is the right place for such legislation. We are not alone in that—even the Commission for Racial Equality argues that a distinction can be made between anti-terrorism measures that can be justified as necessary in the current emergency situation and those that have wider implications and which should be given greater consideration in Parliament.
When will the Home Office and Downing Street learn that these measures are resented not because they are inappropriate but because they patronise ethnic minorities and the Muslim community in particular? My advice to the Minister is that religious hatred is not new. I could have told him about that when I first arrived in this country in 1956. The matter needs to be looked at not in a piecemeal fashion but as a comprehensive measure that will take into account the prohibition of direct and indirect discrimination on grounds of religion or belief. We need not worry about the statutory definition of religion or belief because practices that are contrary to human rights, as guaranteed by the Human Rights Act, will not be lawful.
The Minister would have our full support if legislation that was separate from the anti-terrorism Bill was involved. That would allow your Lordships' House seriously to consider what was appropriate and how we could command the respect of all citizens. To do otherwise smacks of the Jo Moore syndrome; that is, in this case, to clear the Home Office cupboard while the going is good.
It is not the Government's job to interpret other people's cultures. I refer to facial coverings and so on. In the 1960s, we received international condemnation when some women from the Subcontinent were subjected to virginity testing at Heathrow Airport. The single error of subjecting an individual to having to
212
remove facial covering—that is a deep cultural value—could damage relations between racial communities for years.
Finally, I am officiating at a major function tonight, which was planned about six months ago. I ask noble Lords to accept my apologies for not being in the House later—I shall not be able to hear subsequent speeches. However, I shall make up for that by reading Hansard tomorrow.
7.36 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, this is a Bill in response to a crisis. There are golden rules about such legislation, which is usually passed very quickly through your Lordships' House and another place. If those golden rules are not observed, such legislation is usually regretted afterwards. That is probably particularly true with Bills affecting civil rights and especially true with Bills stemming from the Home Office. There is plenty of evidence for that from the Defence of the Realm Act onwards, and probably from before that.
One of the golden rules is that the Bill should be concise, clear and deal only with the crisis. It should not therefore be a vehicle for the Home Office to shove in various measures that it has up its sleeve for other purposes. The noble Lord, Lord Waddington, spoke informatively about that. This Bill, on the contrary. as many noble Lords have pointed out, is large. It has 165 clauses and several schedules. In parts it is not at all clear and it deals with many matters t hat are not just to do with terrorism.
The Green Party realises the need for the Bill and supports it, but we are concerned about certain threats to civil liberties. Although members of the Green Party are totally law-abiding people, we are given to protesting about some of the arrangements of those in power. As a result, we shall seek to probe and perhaps move amendments to certain clauses, which I shall now list.
The first is Clause 92, which deals with photography and involves the power to pass on photographs of people who are not guilty of any crime to practically anyone, including foreign governments. Consider the purposes for which photographs of Kurdish protests in this country might be used if they were passed on to the Turkish Government.
The second is Clause 94, which involves the power to require the removal of disguises. We do not challenge the principle of asking people to be recognised, but we wish to qualify the way in which that is done, because it is often misused and people are often arrested for not removing their face-gear when they have not been given proper time in which to do so.
The third is Part 8. We want to clarify whether "fissile material" includes nuclear waste of the kind that passes regularly through London by rail, and of which a great many of us disapprove and object to intensely.

213
The fourth is Clause 116. We believe that the need to report plans should be limited to serious cases and that one should not be arrested for not reporting the kind of light and possibly idiotic conversation which may take place at a dinner party.
We support the Bill but we want to make certain that it does not inadvertently remove important civil liberties. During the forthcoming days I look forward to working closely with my old colleagues in the Liberal Democrat Party on those issues and with other noble Lords in other parts of the House.
7.41 p.m.
Lord Brennan: My Lords, this is probably the most wide-ranging Bill in peacetime in its curtailment of traditional principles and what we thought to be fundamental human rights. However, I do not reject it for that reason. I simply say that it should be investigated with particular care.
Its objective, according to ministerial statement, is to counter the threat of international terrorism. The executive wishes to act and to do so now. It is for Parliament to revise and to do so thoughtfully. It is humbling but reassuring for a comparative newcomer to your Lordships' House to have listened to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, and in particular to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, who introduced into the debate enormous experience and judgment. When the executive wants to act and Parliament needs to revise, they are the kind of voices which help to ease the inevitable tension.
It would take a particularly uninquiring mind totally to accept the Bill or totally reject it. There is much to be welcomed, much to be doubted and much, we hope, to be changed. I shall put to your Lordships for consideration at this stage and for ministerial consideration three aspects of the Bill which illustrate the range of its diversity. First—this may surprise many noble Lords—I ask whether the Bill has gone far enough. Secondly, can it be balanced in its essential Part 4, which deals with detention without trial? And, lastly, has it gone too far in Clauses 110 and 111?
I turn to the first question: has it gone far enough? Most reasonable observers would be of the opinion that one of the most effective weapons in suppressing terrorism is to suppress its means of being financed. That requires not only national legislation but international action. I particularly welcome Parts I and 2 of the Bill and their inter-relation with the relevant provisions of the Terrorism Act. However, I must point out to the Minister and to the House that in 1999 a draft international convention was put before the United Nations. Its objective was to suppress the financing of terrorism. Our ambassador is in charge of the implementation of the Security Council resolution of 28th September, a principal component of which is that countries should report back in December as to the action they have taken to suppress, among many things, the financing of terrorism.
214
I invite the Minister to tell us in detail—if not now, certainly in Committee—whether the Bill combined with the Terrorism Act fulfils Article 18 of that 1999 convention, the general purpose of which is to ensure internationally as well as nationally the tightest control of financing arrangements which terrorists can use through normal banking and financing procedures. Most people in the public arena would think that if we were to take action on that front we would have done something extremely important and significant. That is a general conclusion. Has the Bill gone far enough? I await explanation about my suggestion regarding the convention.
The second question is how we can best achieve a balance with regard to Part 4. It offends the sentiment of anybody who believes in human rights to have a concept in a Bill which involves detention without trial, but sometimes that is unavoidable. Here we have the situation where those suspected of serious international terrorist crimes cannot be deported back to the relevant country where they may be tried for such crimes because to do so would expose them to death or torture and thereby breach their human rights. To me as a citizen, not as a lawyer, it is an absurd proposition to suggest that such a terrorist can remain at large in this country because of that risk or because he can find no other country to go to. I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, that in the public mind that state of affairs would require the type of action the Government are undertaking because there is no alternative.
However, I further agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, that in designing a system to counter that risk such a system must involve adequate legal protection and, at the least, the provision of judicial review. If that is introduced, the balance is preserved. I await with interest an explanation of why that legal protection is either inappropriate or unnecessary. It is not legal semantics; it is a protection. Even if Part 4 of the Bill passes and there is a derogation, the law of the European convention will prevail in the sense that the Government may have to answer for the provisions if they are not reasonably balanced.
The law will prevail for this potential reason. The Government invoke the derogation from the Act because of a public emergency that threatens the life of the nation. In taking any necessary steps because of that objective they must act only to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of that situation. Therefore, the Bill should go no further than is required by those exigencies. If it goes further—we shall examine that in Committee—the case of Aksoy v Turkey a year or two ago shows that even where there has been a derogation, an affected party can go to the European Court. That court will effectively determine whether the government in question have followed the requirements of the convention in the way I have described. As I said a few moments ago, there may come a time when the Government have to explain themselves to that court if a balance is not preserved.

215
My third concern goes to the opposite extreme. Has the Bill gone too far? I am a convinced European. But I value the criminal law of my own nation because it reflects the culture, the history and the standards of my own people. The right to trial by jury and the principle of habeas corpus are criminal law principles with which I am acquainted and which I value and understand.
Two years ago a Select Committee of this House rejected the European Commission's proposal for a corpus juris. For the very reason that we can be Europeans but still preserve our national criminal law system. I know of no senior lawyer in this country who advocates a corpus juris. That is not to say that proper provision should not be made to implement the third pillar provisions as and when they arise. The critical question is how to implement them. I find it constitutionally difficult to accept that a meeting of Ministers in Europe can decide what the criminal law of this country will be and that it should then be enacted by secondary legislation. I find that constitutionally difficult to accept.
How can that state of affairs be avoided? The third pillar includes, as one of its major objectives, dealing with terrorism. Can it be plausibly argued that such a serious criminal offence with such serious penalties can properly be dealt with in the process I have just described and by secondary legislation, as to the offence as to the standard required for conviction, and as to the sentence then to be imposed?
I had thought when I joined this House that Parliament's functions included a primary fundamental function to make the criminal law of this land by primary legislation. I remain a convinced European. I invite consideration of this question. I ask whether such a vitally important constitutional matter is properly to be included in the Bill in the terms in which it is presently included. The Bill, I fear, goes too far.
I launched these three points by complaining that an uninquiring mind would either be for or against the Bill. I hope that my inquiring mind is not proved overly fertile if I say it is a Bill that should progress in some parts, should be balanced in others and should be very much questioned in the third sector that I described.
I said that Parliament should exercise a revising function. It should do so with intellectual rigour because of the vital importance of the objective and the means being sought to reach that objective. But that intellectual rigour should not become intellectual rigidity either by those who will propose amendments or by those on the Front Bench who will seek to resist them. Determination can rapidly become obduracy and obduracy can rapidly sink to an obscurantist failure to appreciate the merits of the opposite side's argument.
It was very important (was it not?) for the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, to remind us that in the 1970s, which I remember well from doing some of those terrorist trials, the atmosphere was so dangerous. But even then, as Home Secretary in the
216
17-hour passage of the Bill in 1974, he listened to and was ready to accept sensible amendment. Surely that will arise in the passage of this Bill.
In one of our debates about the state of affairs in Afghanistan in September and October, my noble and learned friend the Leader of the House reminded us that there would come a time when legislation such as this would fall to be considered and revised. He prudently reminded us of the terrible example of the Official Secrets Act. That Act, swept into force and eternally vilified thereafter, is still difficult to get off the statute book. It was a wise judgment which I am sure will be reflected by the Ministers on the Front Bench handling the Bill.
At the end of the day we all approve the objective, but we all, as parliamentarians, want to conclude our discussion on the Bill satisfied that we have engaged in reasonable and intellectually mature debate that balanced the objective against the means.
7.56 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, it is a sheer privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, and particularly the remarks that he has just made. I wish to associate myself with them unreservedly.
The noble Lord took three points: first, the emphasis on international action to suppress financing. I go along with him on that wholeheartedly. Secondly, with regard to balance and Part 4, I totally accept what he said. The type of action is accepted at least so long as it is protected by judicial review. That was a point taken by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, and with which I wholly agree. Thirdly, he asked: does the Bill go too far? Again, I agree with the analysis of the noble Lord, Lord Brennan. I agree with all that he said on that, and in particular in the context of the constitutional position.
I shall deal with only two points and I shall try to keep my remarks reasonably short. The first relates to Part 5 of the Bill—the incitement to religious hatred—and the second to Clauses 21 to 33 of Part 4. First, as to incitement to religious hatred—Part 5—notice has been given that in Committee objection will be taken to that part; that is, to the Question that Clauses 37 to 43 stand part. Criminalisation of incitement to religious hatred has no sufficient connection with this anti-terrorism Bill. If it were hustled on to the statute book in a desire to protect our Islam community, it could work much unintended mischief and could well defeat such purpose.
There is much discussion, further discussion, thought, further thought, safeguards and assurances required before Part 5 could be accepted as drafted or indeed, in the time available, amended. I wholly take the way in which that was put by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, a moment ago. That is wholly apparent also from the short debate in your Lordships' House on 21st November (at col. 1223 of the Official Report), and in particular some observations or the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford: from the sense of the full debate of another place yesterday

217
(at col. 673 of Commons Hansard), and from paragraphs 56 to 60 of the Second Report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights.
If the Government want to criminalise incitement to religious hatred, so be it. But a new Bill should be presented. That point was dealt with by the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, and the reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester; I think that it is about to be dealt with by the reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark who is shortly to speak. I ask the Government again to take that on board. The new Bill would be presented with safeguards for freedom of expression by those who speak or write in favour of or against religion—or against those who do not believe in a religion; we must have a wider spread than has yet been dealt with. "Religion" has to be a religion in some form accepted as such.
I turn to certification of suspected international terrorists under Clause 21. I cannot help but wish to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan of Rogart, on his magnificent maiden speech, and to rely very much on his appreciation—and on that of my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew of Twysden and my noble friend Lord Waddington—because it is wholly accepted that certification as an executive act by the Secretary of State and detention are wholly requisite and proportionate responses to the global threat in the wake of 11th September. But what is not accepted is the manner of implementation by the SIAC regime, which is open to the most serious objection, as other noble Lords have said, as affording no substitute for judicial review—habeas corpus—as administered by the High Court.
The regime fails to comply with the minimum tenets of natural justice when a person so certified by certification loses his liberty. The person is entitled to know the substance of the grounds on which the certificate is granted—a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia. The person is not entitled to have a free choice as to who should represent him before SIAC on appeal. Grounds are at the root of the essence of the process of judicial review. If you do not know the grounds, I do not know how you can cope with judicial review. The appeal from SIAC is limited to a point of law, dependent on the advice of an-house advocate who is not able to tell his client the grounds on which the certificate is issued. It sits behind closed doors and, save on a point of law, its decision is final. The jurisdiction of the High Court is excluded by Clauses 30 and 31.
The rigidity of the statutory framework under Clauses 21, 25 and 26—albeit as amended and somewhat improved in another place—lacks the flexibility of judicial review as administered by the High Court, which is accustomed to dealing with privilege from disclosure on grounds of national security, and in which loss of liberty takes immediate precedence, as in all courts, over all other business.
The exclusion of the jurisdiction of our courts under Clauses 30 and 31 usurps the function of the judiciary. It is in breach of the separation of powers which is the basis of our unwritten constitution. It is not a
218
proportionate response to the global threat. It does not meet the test as put by my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew. It is much to be doubted whether the European Court of Human Rights would accept the derogation under Article 15 sought by the Motion. I explained why I thought so on 19th November and shall not repeat it.
In Committee, with the support of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, an amendment to Clause 21, which was foreshadowed on 19th November at cols. 888 and 889, will be tabled to ensure that the written grounds of suspicion and belief will be served on the person with the certificate when the certificate is served. They will show the substance of the case against him—not the details, but sufficient substance so that he knows what he has to meet. Notice will be given of objection to Clauses 30 and 31, which exclude the jurisdiction of the High Court, standing part of the Bill.
If it were to be implemented, the proposed regime would afford an abuse of executive power because, however we consider it, it is not strictly requisite in the circumstances. I am not now speaking about the convention; I am speaking about emergency legislation in time of war where some such provision could be strictly necessary. But we are not in a situation where this proposed regime is strictly necessary, and, because it is not, it is unconstitutional and an abuse of executive power.
It is the function of this House to contain and protest against an abuse of executive power. It is the duty of this House, as sole guardian of the constitution, to defend it.
8.10 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, all noble Lords in this House will be united in defeating terrorism. The debate on the Bill is to discover the most effective response to the terrorist acts of 11 th September. I therefore approach the Bill in the most constructive way possible and any criticisms I may make in no way diminish my determination to ensure the safety of the people of this country.
As regards Parts 1 and 2, I agree with the sentiments expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, that attacking the financial basis of terrorism is an effective way of scotching it. My criticism of Part 1 is that perhaps it does not go far enough. It suggests that a magistrates' court should deal with the financial implications when cash and property are seized from terrorists. The sums involved could be considerable and the powers of forfeiture, compensation for victims, decisions on the earmarking of property and the tracing of property could give rise to complicated issues of law and fact. The magistrates' court is not the appropriate place for those to be determined. I hope that the Minister will consider that at least the county court should have jurisdiction over such matters.
As regards the freezing orders, I note that the responsibility for making them rests with the Treasury, which is to act upon a "reasonable" belief. That word appeared in the Bill when it was first drafted and it suggests that the Government fully accept that judicial

219
review can apply to the provisions of Part 2, notwithstanding the fact that the freezing order is to be made by way of statutory instrument under the affirmative procedure. That does not prevent judicial review. I should be grateful if in reply the Minister could confirm that judicial review will apply to the provisions of Part 2.
Part 3, which relates to the disclosure of information, is different. My noble friend Lord Dholakia called it the "Jo Moore clause"; a good time to bury the bad news. The bad news is that it extends Clauses 47 to 49 of the Criminal Justice and Police Bill which the Government withdrew last May. Under Clause 17 no fewer than 53 public authorities, as set out in Schedule 4, are required to assist any criminal investigation or proceedings being carried out in the UK or abroad. Those are not just proceedings connected with terrorism but any criminal investigation. According to the Bill, the tribunal abroad may be a court of some standing or it may be any tribunal.
There appears to be no judicial control, no tests of reasonable grounds for believing that a crime has been committed, and no suggestion that conditions should be laid down by anyone concerning disclosure. Therefore, disclosure overseas could take place even though the conduct being investigated is not criminal conduct in this country and no charge has been brought.
To illustrate that, the BMA is concerned about the position relating to medical records. Confidentiality has previously been overridden only in cases of serious crime in this country. Now it appears to extend to any criminal proceedings. Will the Minister say whether there are any curbs to that general requirement for disclosure from those various public authorities?
Clause 19 permits the disclosure of all the 32 million tax files and all the VAT records kept in this country not just to the police but, for the first time, to the security services. That provision did not appear in the clauses of the Criminal Justice and Police Bill which were withdrawn in May. Again, the provisions are not limited to terrorism. Clause 19(2)(a) permits the disclosure to the security services,
"for the purposes of facilitating the carrying out by any of the intelligence services of any of that service's functions".
Therefore, the provision is couched in the widest possible terms, is not limited to terrorism and again is not subject to judicial control.
Under Part 4, terrorists should be locked up. No one who has any experience of terrorist trials and who has seen the evidence and photographs which go with such trials can for one moment be enamoured of those who seek to use terrorist methods for political and ideological motives. The Americans propose to introduce military tribunals which can sit anywhere in the world. They have precedence for that going back to the days of the Civil War. Those military tribunals will reach a majority decision on conviction and on sentence, even though the sentence they may pass is that of death. They can convict simply on the basis of
220
reason to believe in guilt rather than sureness of guilt, which is the standard of proof we apply in this country. President Bush recently said that suspects will receive,
"a full and fair trial".
At the same time he called for Osama bin Laden to he found dead or alive. I have every sympathy with the pain and anxiety which has gripped America, but those procedures remind me of Judge Roy Bean, who administered the law west of the Pecos: "We'll give you a fair trial and then we'll hang you".
In this country, under these provisions, for us, who have for centuries been the guardians of the common law, the Government's proposals are to dispose even of the fair trial in relation to Part 4 detainees. The Home Secretary does not have to be satisfied that a detainee is in fact a terrorist; suspicion and belief will be enough. Obviously, he will not be acting from anything he knows himself; he must rely on informers who pass information to the security services, which pass it to the Home Secretary. That wellspring of information may well be polluted. There can be no investigation of the quality of the information that is provided to the Minister. There is secret information to the secret services and then it is passed on through secret procedures for the locking up of the detainees. The detainee has no opportunity to challenge the information that has been laid against him. Habeas corpus and judicial review is denied to him, as was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell.
I have detected a dangerous anti-lawyer culture on the Government Front Bench. I find it to be defensive because the Home Secretary and Ministers in this House who have that anti-lawyer attitude feel a little uncomfortable when dealing with people who have hands-on experience of the matters and the criminal justice system which come before the House. The defensive attitude is to make jokes about lawyers and to pooh-pooh their attitude. In fact, the freedoms of this country were won by lawyers such as the advocate Erskine, by juries and by famous judges such as Lord Atkin and others who saved the freedoms for individual people against executive interference.
It is suggested that the Special Immigration Appeals Commission is a wonderful appeal system against the Minister's certificate. When the Minister introduced the Bill today, he said that it was a major part of our constitutional framework. It is a new and untried part of our constitutional framework, and I believe that it is a busted flush. It was set up to deal with decisions to deport people, not imprison them indefinitely, but it has dealt with only three cases. In one case, that of Mr Rehman, the commission was hold enough to disagree with all the findings of fact of the Minister, in particular that the individual had engaged in military training and fund-raising on behalf of a terrorist organisation. The commission found precisely the opposite. However, the noble and learned Lord. Lord Hoffmann, said in the Judicial Committee of this House:
"Even if the appellate body [the commission] prefers a different view, it should not ordinarily interfere with a case in which it considers that the view of the Home Secretary is one which could reasonably be entertained".

221
Therefore, the commission was instructed by the Judicial Committee of this House to defer to the decision of the Minister.
The procedures are so important. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, described the procedures before the commission and I do not repeat them. But I have been involved in habeas corpus and judicial review proceedings. I was involved in the first case in which public interest immunity in a criminal case was claimed by the Government. I am aware of the protections that can exist in those proceedings. It is possible for the Government to claim public interest immunity to prevent the disclosure of informers or information in the possession of the Government which they do not wish the public to know. It is also possible for the issues which arise to be dealt with fairly and properly. It is very important that there should be full disclosure in those proceedings. It has all the safeguards of the legal system and, as far as concerns habeas corpus, centuries of tradition behind it. It is one of the foundation stones not merely of the law of this country but that of the United States and many Commonwealth countries which have inherited the common law. For the Government to attempt—I do not believe that they would succeed—to set aside habeas corpus and judicial review is entirely wrong.
There is really no substitute for charge and trial. The Government must have thought that that was the right way to go only 18 months ago when they introduced the Terrorism Act 2000. Under that legislation weapons training, directing terrorism, collecting information that is useful to terrorism and even inciting terrorist acts abroad entirely outside the jurisdiction of this country are all offences punishable with terms of imprisonment from 10 years to life. That is a fair armoury to deal with the threat of terrorism.
Even if a detainee cannot be deported because of Article 3 this country still has jurisdiction to try him here for terrorist offences that he has committed abroad involving explosions or chemical or biological weapons. One way to deal with the difficulties of obtaining proof is to invite foreign governments to provide this country with evidence so that a person whom we cannot deport to another country under Article 3 can be tried here. At trial procedures can be adopted which will protect witnesses and members of the security services. Public interest immunity for sensitive material is placed under judicial control. Such material is not disclosed to the defendant if it is contrary to the public interest.
The truth is that detention without trial does not stop terrorism but breeds it because it is full of potential injustice. We have heard that it was introduced in Northern Ireland in 1971 and abandoned four years later, as my noble friend Lord Jenkins said. It is ironic that on 12th January 1998, which is less than three years ago, the noble Lord, Lord
222
Dubs, then a government Minister, said during Second Reading of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill:
"In this Bill, the decision has been taken to get rid of the power of internment. Frankly, it has not worked. The Government cannot see any circumstances in which they would wish to use the power of internment. It is fundamentally a process that is against the rule of law and undermines democratic principles. The Government believe that to get rid of the power is sensible and signals their adherence to the rule of law and democracy. We do not believe that it in any way weakens the power of the Government to deal with terrorism. The use last time of internment to deal with terrorism was a failure. We believe that the use of internment would strengthen the terrorists because it would give them a further argument in their communities against the Government and we want to deny them that".—[Official Report. I2/1/98; col. 909.]
I do not believe that the events of September 11th have so fundamentally changed the threats to our society that it is necessary to introduce in this Bill the equivalent of internment. The reaction to those events must be steady and proportionate. We did not introduce detention without trial following the Brighton and Canary Wharf bombs. What greater attack upon the government of this country could there have been than the terrorist attack in Brighton during the Conservative Party conference? We must not panic now. Those parts of the Bill which introduce that sense of panic must be defeated.
8.26 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark: My Lords, I am glad to be able to make a contribution from these Benches to this important debate which raises so many fundamental issues. My noble friend, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, has already spoken on the subject of civil liberties. I now focus on the proposals to deal with incitement to religious hatred. I must declare an interest as co-chair of the National Interfaith Network. I have represented the Church of England for many years on the Inner City Religious Council located in what is now called the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions. During that time the council has made several efforts to put the questions of religious discrimination and hatred onto the statute book. So I appreciate this attempt by the Home Secretary to respond to the anomaly that members of some religions have some protection in law either through the common law concerning blasphemy or because they are regarded as a definable ethnic grouping, while other faiths have no such protection. The clauses in this Bill redress the balance to a certain extent.
As noble Lords have heard, some people feel that while there is a case for legislation in this area it is unfortunate that the proposals reside in a Bill whose overall concern is that of anti-terrorism. But, knowing how difficult it has been over the years to persuade the Home Office, under governments of several political colours, to bring forward legislation on this subject, I for one am grateful for this attempt in whatever Bill it resides.
The noble Lord, Lord Waddington, reminded us that the subject had been on the agenda of the Home Office since the 1980s. I suspect that that is where it

223
would have remained—on the agenda. It appears that the Muslim Council of Britain shares that view, according to the statement that it issued in support of this legislation following a meeting with Home Office Ministers yesterday. There is some merit in having the legislation in this Bill. September 11th and its aftermath placed stresses and strains on the religious fabric of society. Some extremist groups were not slow to stoke the fires of anti-religious phobia smouldering below the surface of civilised life.
But what of the proposed legislation itself? I am not an expert on the diet of clergy, but I think I can say that the proposed legislation before us to combat religious hatred is something of a curate's egg. It sets out to offer protection to members of religious groups when others would stir up hatred against them by reason of their adherence to those religious groups. By "religious groups", the provisions mean groups whose members are defined by reference to religious belief, or, indeed, lack of religious belief.
I welcome the Bill's implicit acknowledgement of the importance of religion in human life and society. Belief, difference of belief and lack of belief stir up some of the deepest passions known to humanity. In this secular age, I am glad that religion's power is not discounted here.
I welcome. too, the Janus nature of the legislation before us, which, in the words of Hamlet, looks both before and after. Looking fore, the legislation protects members of a religious group from the incitement of hatred directed against its followers from those outside. Looking aft, it aims to curb expressions of hatred from extremist religious groups within a religion.
Every religion has its extremists. I cannot speak for other faith communities but, for myself, I know that I would not wish to have my Christianity defined by some of the wilder actions and statements of its more extreme members. It may well be that members of other world faiths feel that the extremist positions within their faiths actually betray the ideals of their faith. Although it may be hard for them to say so publicly, they might be quite glad if the law of the land offered restraint to such groups.
There is a further reason for welcoming the provisions in the Bill. This lies in the fact that the clause concerning the incitement to religious hatred is careful to deal with persons and not with theology. Your Lordships are dealing with a Bill concerned with religious belief and religious affiliation as a fact and not as an issue.
I welcome the fact that the Bill is not, therefore, encroaching on the questions of the relative merits of the faiths espoused by Her Majesty's subjects, nor quashing the legitimate criticism, or even ridicule, of any one of those faiths. Perhaps it is all the more important in this secular age to remind your Lordships that the Bill indeed requires not only religious groups but also what we might call "areligious" groups to accept such criticism and ridicule. They do not always accept it gracefully.
224
For all these reasons I welcome the Bill. However, there are reasons for caution to which I wish to draw your Lordships' attention. The wide provision made for religious groups is wide indeed, extending to those of all faiths and none. Indeed, there even seems to be no apparent requirement that the faith in question is a faith, or a non-faith, recognised by anyone else.
There are, however, as your Lordships know, groups which purport to be religious, and which are certainly espoused with all the zeal of a true believer, in which little is apparent beyond oppression and abuse. I would not wish to encourage your Lordships to think that the sin of hatred was acceptable towards such groups, but neither would I wish your Lordships' House to condone some destructive sects which might call themselves religious.
I believe that if the legislation is applied with focus and with integrity, there should be no difficulty in preventing it from being inappropriately used, but your Lordships may wish to note that the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. I am always a little nervous when the answer to such hard questions is, "We must let the courts decide".
Another reason for caution is the effect that the proposals might have on the witness which adherents of all faiths might wish to make. Of course, there can be no room for the stirring up of religious hatred in this witness, but legitimate evangelism must not be curtailed by this legislation. I wish to seek assurances from the Minister that it will not be.
There is another aspect of the legislation which is a potential cause for concern. It is that the legislation does not attempt to deal with religious discrimination as such. There are good reasons for this. Religious discrimination and terrorism are two different things. This legislation deals with terrorism and, as I have indicated, I would not wish to suggest that it would even be appropriate to wrap up all religious hatred issues with the question of terrorism. Religious hatred is alive and kicking well outside the borders of what might be described as terrorism.
However, the United Nations Human Rights Committee urged the United Kingdom not only to extend its criminal legislation to cover offences motivated by religious hatred, but also to take other steps to ensure that all persons are protected from religious discrimination. Your Lordships may therefore wish to remember for a future time that, although the legislation before us deals with the matter of religious hatred, discrimination is still a matter about which much thinking needs to be done, and it needs to be done both in your Lordships' House and. in another place.
In another place, there was an attempt to use this legislation to remove the common law offence of blasphemy. Since that amendment was rejected. there is little need for me to take up your Lordships' time on the subject. However, it is perhaps worth reiterating the views of the Church of England on the law of blasphemy. In a nutshell, we would not be opposed to a revision of the blasphemy laws if something better could be put in their place. "Something better" would

225
be something which covered more religions than the Christian, or, indeed, more Churches than the Church of England—if it is, indeed, only the Church of England which enjoys protection under current laws.
However, "something better" may not be easy to produce. It can be argued that any attempt to extend the blasphemy law to cover all faiths is bound to fail because the beliefs of some faiths could well be described as blasphemous in terms of the beliefs of others. No legislation will remove this fact of life—or, more accurately, this fact of faith. This probably means that no simple extension of the law of blasphemy will quite do. We can, however, try to find other ways to ensure that the deeply held beliefs of one group are not offensively ridiculed or disturbed by others. It would be good to do so.
But that is for another time and another day. We must not let the best be the enemy of the good. Today we are dealing with the good of tackling the evil of incitement to religious hatred. The proposed legislation does not do everything, nor are its consequences totally predictable, but I believe that it is an honest attempt to tackle a real problem and I would wish to give it my support.
8.38 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the right reverend Prelate. The underlying theme that he suggested to the House was that we should view the situation that this Bill represents with appropriate caution. I share that view. It is for the Minister to convince me, and people who think like me, that the invasions of civil liberties enshrined in the Bill are justified.
Before I come to that, may I commit an unpardonable act and refer to my friend, my noble friend Lord Maclennan of Rogart. I knew him when he was simply Bob Maclennan, but I know that it is different in this place.
I remember very well the dying days of 1978 when he was at the Department of Consumer Affairs and was drafted in with my right honourable friend Michael Meacher who dealt with the Companies Bill while I dealt with the Merchant Shipping Bill. Every Monday and Wednesday, all three of us gathered round a table and spoke about the Companies Bill, for which I happened to be responsible. This is virtually the first occasion in 23 years that I have had the opportunity to say thank you. They were a terrible team! I think it will be generally agreed that our fellow Minister is doing very well at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
My plea, like that of the right reverend Prelate, is for caution. We need to be ever more vigilant when a Bill reduces freedoms—especially those that we rightly take for granted. My commitment in this debate is to listen carefully to what my noble friends have to say. Their task is a most difficult one. They must face up to the terrorist while at the same time convincing people like us that the derogations of civil liberties that are proposed are wholly justified.
226
I do not say this lightly. In facing up to the problems posed by the Bill, if amendments are suggested from the Conservative or Liberal Democrat Benches I shall have no difficulty in entering a different Lobby if I am convinced that that will strengthen the Bill and at the same time strengthen civil liberties.
I am profoundly concerned that under the terms of the Bill the Home Secretary is given wide discretionary powers in a way that is unprecedented. As I understand it, he is able to detain any individual that he, the Home Secretary, and those advising him suspect is "an international terrorist" or "a domestic terrorist". There is no proper judicial oversight of those powers. We could be left with a situation where the Home Secretary was behaving quite differently in cases that came before him. That is to say that, so far as concerns his judgment, precedent can be of very little value. Frankly, I need to be persuaded that that is right. At the present time I do not believe that it is.
The question is whether, to use the Home Secretary's own words, the Bill strikes a perfect balance between protecting freedom and ensuring that hard won human liberties are not trampled under foot. That is indeed the test. Does the Bill follow that course? The onus is on the Minister. Many of us are not wholly convinced that that is the situation.
The burden is heavy. It is not made easier by the absence of scrutiny of large sections of the Bill by the House of Commons. It could have been done; it should have been done. But the House of Commons had to accept, literally, everything that was placed before it. There was no time for debate. That is wrong. Too much is left to the subjective view of the Home Secretary. Why should he be exempt from providing objective justification for what he decides? Is not that objectivity in accord with the legal standards that we have learnt to take for granted?
Let us remember that the usual procedures of examination by judicial review are to be replaced by the Special Immigration Appeals Commission. Is that right? It is fundamentally different from the court's approach to this subject when it is sitting in judicial review. No longer will the appellant and those representing him have all the intelligence that is available to the Minister. That was the gravamen of my interjection when the Minister broached this matter. I am not wholly convinced by his argument.
Certainly, the commission will know all the intelligence that is available to the Minister. Those representing the Home Secretary will obviously know. But that information is not to be made available to the appellant. Why not? Would it so undermine the purpose of what is proposed?
It is true that the appellant will have recourse to the Court of Appeal, but only on a point of law. The issue will be decided by the Court of Appeal, provided that the appellant faces removal. If I am wrong about any of this, I stand to be corrected, and I shall be happy to be corrected. I note that the Attorney-General nods with approval.
The Attorney-General (Lord Goldsmith): My Lords, I am nodding with approval at my noble friend's suggestion that he is happy to be corrected. That is what I hope to do when I reply to the debate.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, that is what I meant. I know that the Attorney-General, who is a friend of mine, is capable of doing that.
I ask whether internment without trial is the most appropriate remedy, especially where there is no proper judicial scrutiny. I hope that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, will deal with that matter.
Are we going to confront a situation where only Muslims will be detained? Or are we going to face a situation where others will be detained as sacrificial lambs? By doing this, do we not risk the law being brought into disrepute?
I turn to the police powers. They are to be enhanced by Clauses 93 and 94. The police can demand the removal of facial covering and gloves where they consider that identification can be brought into question. The Joint Committee on Human Rights considered that that could be extended to non-terrorism cases. Is there anything in that? If so, we have to consider seriously where the situation is being taken. What the Joint Committee had to say is of utmost importance. The Library has done the House a service. It has produced a full note on the Bill. The committee said:
"We regard the provisions relating to police powers contained in clauses 88 to 92 of the Bill as being in need of additional safeguards and mature consideration, and accordingly draw them to the attention of each House".
Is the Minister proposing that there should be such additional safeguards so far as concerns those provisions?
Page 11 of the Library Note states:
"This country has more anti-terrorist legislation on its statute books than almost any other developed democracy. Much of it, rushed through in the wake of previous atrocities, proved ineffective and in some cases counter-productive and needed to be amended. Often it was supposed to be temporary and turned out to be permanent. It therefore behoves us to examine carefully the latest proposals in the wake of the atrocity on September 11".
The Government need to deal seriously with those words. I am sure they will. I do not envy them the difficult situation in which they find themselves. But it is for the Government and the Ministers here to persuade me and people like me—and I think there are many—that the hesitations which we have expressed about the measure are utterly misconceived. They have not done that so far; but we have several opportunities before us and I hope that they will succeed.
8.53 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I want to say a brief word about how the Bill is being treated under the Scotland Act. It is worth mentioning because it seems to introduce an interesting new dimension in how to get devolution to work.
228
Much of the most important content of the Bill relates to matters devolved to the Scottish Parliament. However, on 15th November the Scottish Parliament decided to ask Westminster to extend the Bill to Scotland except for Parts 5 and 12 and the measures relating to the removal of disguises. Your Lordships may be interested to note in passing that when the Scottish Parliament decision to opt out from Parts 5 and 12 was made, that had already been included in the Bill which had been introduced in the House of Commons and ordered to be printed three days before on 12th November. It seems that the Government take the Scottish Parliament a little for granted as sometimes they do Westminster. Be that as it may, the outcome is that in most of the Bill, despite devolution, your Lordships will be legislating for Scotland as well as for the rest of the United Kingdom.
I understand that this is the 25th time that the Scottish Parliament has asked Westminster to legislate for it on devolved matters. Some have been small matters, some of considerable importance. On this occasion, I hasten to say that it seems extremely sensible, at least for the urgently needed measures., to legislate in that way. The United Kingdom as a whole must protect itself against terrorism and to legislate separately, north and south of the Border in different ways and at different speeds, would he unwise.
In any case, what would have happened if on these devolved matters Scotland had proceeded separately? During the Committee stage of the Bill in the House of Commons, I note that on most of the contested issues which relate to Scotland the Liberal Democrats and the Scottish Nationalists joined with the Conservatives to vote against the Government. Indeed, on several occasions the Liberal Democrats led the way. Had this been replicated in the Scottish Parliament the current measures could probably not have been proposed, let alone have become law. It is possible that the ruling Labour/Liberal Democrat coalition would have fallen apart in the process. After all, the Justice Minister and Deputy Chief Minister is a Liberal Democrat Member of the Scottish Parliament. It is even more interesting to speculate on how this sort of thing would be handled if there were different parties in office at Westminster and Holyrood, but that, fortunately, is for the future.
Turning briefly to the contents of the Bill, like other noble Lords I welcome some clauses and am anxious about others. I believe that what is now Part 5 relating to incitement to religious hatred may have the opposite effect of that intended. I have thought a lot about this, and have talked to a lot of people. I shall say no more about that now. However, I hope that the Government listened carefully to the extremely interesting remarks today of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark, the comments over a period of time of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, and in particular to those of the noble Lords, Lord Ahmed and Lord Dholakia. I know what the Government seek to do; we all want it to happen. But there are problems. I believe that they are linked to some confusion between religion and culture. I may be wrong but I think that that is at the heart of the problem.

229
The Law Society of Scotland suggests that, given the close interrelationship between the Bill and how the Scottish law will operate subsequent to the Bill, the Government should continue to consult with the Scottish Executive as the Bill develops. For example, the Law Society of Scotland considers that the provision on noxious substances in Clause 112 can be dealt with under Scottish law as a breach of the peace and hoaxes involving noxious substances, referred to in Clause 113, can also be dealt with under existing Scottish law. It would be helpful if the Minister could assure us that there will be continuing discussion with Scottish Ministers as this develops. I realise that speed is of the essence. It is very difficult. But it is important not to create problems in that area.
My last point relates to Clauses 110 and 111 on the third pillar. I hope that all noble Lords will read carefully the report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee of this House and the remarks in this debate of my noble friend Lord Waddington. I am a member of that committee and will read with great interest the Minister's remarks about the report in his opening speech. I thought that I was greatly encouraged but one can never quite believe one's ears. I shall wait until Hansard appears tomorrow, to know how encouraged I am. I want to say more but will keep my remarks for Committee.
Decisions made by the Council of Ministers that come to Westminster having had no scrutiny in Europe, often after being negotiated to a swift timetable, are difficult for our Select Committees to trace. Decisions are often made before a Select Committee can have a go. It is important that proposals from the Council of Ministers are made subject, if necessary, to primary legislation. The Government's attempt to arrive at hasty decisions on some subjects will not work in the case of matters dealt with under the third pillar. I hope that we will all read what has been said about that aspect in reports and by your Lordships. I look forward to the Committee stage of the Bill.
9.1 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, there are times in this House when I doubt whether I am engaged in political activities or research. At the moment, I am engaged in reading the parliamentary debates in 1628 on whether the king should be allowed to imprison without cause shown. The resemblance to present issues is remarkable. The arguments have changed remarkably little over four centuries.
Wearing an historian's hat, one has to give full weight to all sides of the argument. Points made by the executive have always caused some difficulty to the civil liberties side of the argument. I refer, for example, to the difficulty of betraying confidential or intelligence sources; or the need for urgent action in the face of potential serious crime, such as the Gunpowder Plot, which, had it succeeded, would have been on the scale of September 11th. Considering the
230
amount of legitimate authority that would have been destroyed, perhaps its effects would have been on a greater scale.
The points made on the other side of the argument also have great force—not least that the executive, in deciding to use such powers, is in danger of being judge and party in its own court and, having got such powers, is also tempted to put them to further use. The point at issue in 1628 was whether the king could imprison Members of Parliament for refusing to lend him the sums they had refused to vote him in taxation in their parliamentary capacity. Give an executive a power and it may use it impeccably—but we do not know what its successors will do.
I thank the Government for the care that they have taken not to present this as a debate for and against terrorism. We are all equally against terrorism. My desire to stay alive is as great as the Minister's desire. We are arguing about the effectiveness of measures. The noble Lord, Lord Brennan, in an extremely interesting speech, just about got it right. The noble Lord said that nobody is suggesting that dangerous terrorists should remain at large because we cannot return them to the country from which they came. He said that any power must be placed under proper legal protection. I agree with that also and equally.
One must subject any measure for restricting civil liberty to certain tests. First, is the measure more likely to bite on the guilty than on the innocent? Secondly, is the measure likely to reduce the crime at which it is aimed? Thirdly, one must remember that there is no such thing as a crime so terrible that an innocent person should be imprisoned for it.
Where I oppose parts of the Bill—only parts—it is because I am not convinced that they pass those tests. My concern is making powers effective. My noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford touched powerfully on the point that nothing does so much to increase terrorism as injustice—especially injustice that cannot be remedied in any court of law. I agree also with my noble friend Lord Dholakia about the UN convention and about Clauses 34 and 45 of the Bill. The reputation of asylum seekers in this country is not as high in justice as it should be. Anything that risks, perhaps entirely inadvertently, giving the impression that there is an association between asylum seeking and terrorism or that anything in the UN Convention on Refugees provides protection for terrorism is to be resisted—especially in light of Section 33(2) of the 1951 convention. I say nothing with which Ministers disagree but I would be extremely grateful if they will confirm that that is the case.
Because of the impression that asylum seekers create, Clauses 34 and 35 should not remain in the Bill in anything like their present form. Certain people, because of the merits of their asylum claims, will not be examined and will not be subject to any review of the facts. Appeal is allowed only on a point of law, which is designed to protect the most inaccurate part of the decision-making machinery of the whole British Government—and that is saying something. The Home Office has a knack of wandering into minefields

231
when it makes decisions. Your Lordships may remember an application that had a note attached saying, "This is a pile of pants". It was an application by a refugee from Afghanistan. Look at what we are being told now about the situation of the population of Afghanistan.
Some years back, the Home Office was extremely suspicious of the notion that any persecution was happening to Czech or Slovak Roma. My noble friend Lady Williams of Crosby tabled a Question on the subject to the Foreign Office and got an extremely different Answer from anything that she was hearing from the Home Office. I found that discrepancy interesting. The lack of any investigation into any question of fact on appeal is a matter likely to be of some concern.
I am also a little concerned about the lack of examination of the asylum claim, because it strengthens the tendency that we see all too often for the condemnation of terrorism—in which I fully join—to develop into a full-blown 17th century doctrine of non-resistance. In 1938, my mother was attempting to enter the United States and was asked to sign a declaration that she believed that resistance to authorised government was not justified under any circumstances whatsoever. She looked at this and thought, and then wrote, "I agree with this. I think the United States should be still subject to the British Crown". It took my father considerable diplomatic effort to get her in after that.
That shows the force of what, in discussion on this Bill, I have come to think of as the Nelson Mandela point. I remain completely unrepentant concerning—indeed, I am proud of—the hospitality that this country has in the past given to members of the African National Congress. I hesitate to say that people who have no recourse to the ballot box have a right to resort to terrorism—in fact, I do not say that. However, as UNHCR says, the lack of consideration of merit of the asylum claim means that there is no way of testing the proportionality of the exclusion by the Home Secretary's certificate. In an appeal that goes beyond the borders of this country, that could be a very material point. It certainly does not become us to forget it.
I have a number of particular points to raise. I am grateful to the Minister for the inclusion of the word "reasonable" in Clause 21. Whether that goes far enough is another question. It is necessary that there should be some disclosure of grounds in order that any proper hearing could take place. Getting that right will be a matter of intense difficulty, although I do not. believe that it is insuperable.
The reference to "links" with international terrorism has not been thought through. I understand what is meant, but we should consider the case of Mr bin Laden's son. I do not mean one of the sons in Afghanistan in training under Al'Qaeda, but his entirely innocent son who was, until recently, an undergraduate at Harvard. The American authorities have told that young man that they have no ground of suspicion against him but that at the moment they
232
advise him to discontinue his studies at Harvard for his own safety. I declare an interest in the view that one does not have to take responsibility for everything that one's father does. Were my father present, I am sure that he would join me in making that declaration mutual. The word "links" does not quite say what the Government intend.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Earl, but for the avoidance of any doubt, the Home Secretary and I have both made it clear that we are working on rewording that paragraph. We will bring forward another form of words. The current wording is unsatisfactory and we are going to deal with it.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the Minister warmly for that. It is exactly what I had hoped I might hear him say.
On certification, appeal is to be made within a fixed time. I would be grateful if it were possible to insert the words "can only be made in the fixed time without leave". There are cases, particularly former torture victims and former rape victims, who have great difficulty in telling their story or in making any serious communication until a long time afterwards. The Home Office would do itself nothing but good by allowing a safety valve for such cases.
My greatest concern is about the restriction of judicial review. I heard what the Minister said on 19th November about judicial review. But the SIAC review does not deal with the basic facts. That is a very big gap. The sheer fact of Parliament attempting to restrict the power of judicial review I believe has implications which stretch far wider than the whole contents of this Bill, important though it is.
It is important that Parliament is not the only source of legal authority. The authority of the common law predates Parliament by a pretty long time. Legal positivists from James VI and I to Michael Howard have always found that fact irritating to them, but fact it remains and there is no way it can be denied. The principle of natural justice, which is the foundation of judicial review, as far as we know predates even the common law itself.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, who always interests me and with whom I usually agree, seems to make a habit of saying one thing in each speech with which I can disagree, just to keep us going. He referred to the dark days before administrative law when he said that there was no judicial review. But may I draw his attention to the case of Ridge v. Baldwin 1964, which is one of the earliest successful cases of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, as he now is. If you look at the list of citations it begins with one from Coke's Reports of 1618. I have looked up that citation, which is right in the middle of the area of my own research. It is correct in the spirit and the letter and one of a very large sequence of cases of the same type. In fact, the power of judicial review goes back a very long way indeed.

233
It is also important because, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, said—and on this I do agree with him—there is a very real risk that attempts to restrict it may, in his words, "prove futile". That is because judges from the beginning set out to construe not just the letter, but the intention, of Parliament. They were doing that not only before Pepper v. Hart but before there were any parliamentary records whatsoever. So the only way they could do it was to assume the intentions of Parliament were in line with the principles of natural justice, as they still do, which is why the noble and learned Lord, Lord Millett, in the case of Bate v. The Chief Adjudication Officer, which I believe was in 1993, said,
"The Secretary of State's explanation of this clause is so unreasonable that Parliament cannot possibly have intended it".
Having had this House counted out by dividing against that clause, I must declare an interest in agreeing with him. So it is the duty of the judges to find Parliament's intention to be in line with the principles of natural justice, if they can.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Reid, in the case of Anisminit v. Foreign Compensation Commission (1969), said,
"It is a well-established principle that the provision ousting the ordinary jurisdiction of the court must be construed strictly, meaning, I think, that if such a provision is reasonably capable of having two meanings, that meaning shall be taken which preserves the ordinary jurisdiction of the court".
Lord Reid is a judge much honoured in many quarters. Indeed, reading The Times Law Reports of his cases first began my serious interest in the law when I was a schoolboy. I believe that that is something which the courts might continue.
The alternative scenario says that it could lead to disaster and since Murphy is the only person whose legislation is unrepealable at Westminster, I have a distinct fear that both might prove to be the case. In the short term I believe that attempts to restrict judicial review will prove futile and when the Home Secretary comes to terms with the fact that that is the case, I believe that a balance of power within our constitution, which is a vital part of why we have a claim to resist terrorism, could be in a danger greater even than that of 11th September.
9.20 p.m.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, the Government have no greater obligation than to defend the nation state against armed aggression. I defer to no one in my support for such defence. The challenge we face and against which this Bill must be measured are the events of September llth.
The terrorist plan was to send five deadly missiles against four targets. Those targets were what the terrorists saw as the Great Satan, but what many of us believe represent the source of prosperity and peace for the world: the World Trade Centre, the success of global capitalism; the Pentagon, from which the freedom of the world was protected throughout 50 years of Cold War until economic competition won the
234
struggle peacefully; the White House, the seat of government of the world's superpower; and the Capitol building in Washington, a beacon of democracy for two centuries. Three of the weapons hit their targets. A 60 per cent success rate would be a remarkable tribute to planning and logistics in any military strike. So we are up against a truly formidable enemy.
I propose to use my time this evening to examine the credentials of the guardians of our security who have devised measures in this Bill; that is, the Home Office. After all, we are being asked, as another place was asked, to take most of their proposals on trust. Although there have been a number of distinguished Home Secretaries—and I have admiration and respect for both Mr Straw whom I regard as a personal friend and Mr Blunkett—they have had to preside over the most constipated department in Whitehall.
After observing its performance over many years, first in Whitehall myself, then as a journalist and more recently from this House, I do not believe that we can trust either the judgment or the effectiveness of the Home Office. However, the new Permanent Under-Secretary of the Home Office, John Gieve—recently appointed from the Treasury where he was Director of Public Services—has a high reputation. He was responsible for seeing that the Home Office was restructured as a potentially effective Ministry of Criminal Justice, which means that it has been shorn of some of its peripheral responsibilities. He has the challenge to make the Home Office into an effective instrument in the battle against terrorism.
I shall seek to illustrate what I mean by some examples that are directly relevant to the objectives of this Bill—the battle against terrorism. After the Dunblane massacre the Conservative Government introduced the Firearms (Amendment) Bill 1997. I had noted that there was no way in which the police forces of this country could rapidly discover who was licensed to hold a firearm and who had been refused such a licence. With all-party support I introduced an amendment to the Bill to require the establishment of a central register of persons who have applied for a licence or to whom a licence has been granted. Despite opposition in this House from the Home Office, the amendment was passed and became the law of the land as Section 39 of the 1997 Act. It came into force on 1st October 1997. Four years later it has still not been implemented. The Home Office has offered one excuse after another. In April last year the House of Commons Home Affairs Select Committee, of which the noble Lord, Lord Corbett, was then chairman, stated,
"We are appalled that the national database . . . is not yet in immediate prospect, over two years after the implementation of the ... Act".
The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, told me in a Written Answer dated 25th July that the firearms certificate holders' register should go live shortly after March 2002. I shall be pleasantly surprised if he can tell me that that date is still valid.

235
The fact is that the Home Office feels that it can decide which of the laws of the land it will comply with. It is quite happy to defy Parliament, in this case because it never wanted the amendment. What would happen to a private citizen who behaved in that way? That is one reason why I have no confidence in the competence of the Home Office.
I now turn to the weaknesses of the various official record-keeping systems, which already militate against the measures in Part 4 of the Bill to strengthen the UK's security. I take passports as an example. I have discovered that there is virtually no effective control over passports. Some 73 per cent of the UK population hold passports; that is, 43.8 million valid passports. On the death of a passport holder the passport is supposed to be handed back for cancellation. Unexpired passports of dead holders have a street value, just as stolen passports do, but it is a higher value because the death is not notified to the passport office.
Let me quote the following figures as an illustration. In the year 2000 there were 611,000 deaths in the UK—that means deaths of some 448,000 passport holders. Yet only 34,000 passports were handed in—less than 10 per cent. So I asked the Government what they proposed to do about that. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, replied on 31st October:
"The Passport Service is seeking to establish arrangements to receive routine notifications of death as part of its work on improving fraud countermeasures".—[Official Report, 31/10/01; col. WA161.]
I thought that I would probe a little more deeply arid therefore I tabled another Question using the actual words from the reply given by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, to find out when that very overdue exercise was started and when it would be completed. Two weeks later on 14th November back came the Answer from the noble Lord, Lord Rooker:
"We have not started to establish arrangements requiring the Government to be routinely notified of the death of United Kingdom passport holders and we have no plans to do so".— [Official Report, 14/11/01; col. WA81.]
I accept that the noble Lord may not have the time to read the answers to PQs before he signs them, but it is another illustration of why I have no confidence in the Home Office.
Furthermore, I discovered that 80,000 British passports are lost or stolen each year, of which 20,000 disappear in foreign countries and again have a street value to a whole range of criminals of whom terrorists are but one example. Since the end of 1991 all British passports have been issued in machine readable form. Incidentally, even here the Home Office appears slipshod in its information. On 14th November the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, informed me in a further Written Answer,
"The United Kingdom Passport Service issued the last old blue 10-year passport in November 1991".—[Official Report, 14/11/01; col. WA82.]
How come that when I looked at my own old blue passport I saw that it was issued in December 1991?
There is at present no passport or other routine immigration control on departure from the United Kingdom, but, much worse, there is no routine
236
recording of machine readable passports on entry into the UK. Investigations into 11th September would undoubtedly have been helped if these had been in place.
The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, tells me that the Immigration Service is urgently exploring the use of technology to require airlines to retain passport details of passengers before they hoard a flight to or from the UK. First of all, there is no way in which that can be enforced for passengers travelling to the UK by foreign airlines. Secondly, what about Eurotunnel? Thirdly, it is the job of the government immigration services, not the airlines, to protect our borders.
My example of passports is, of course, merely an example of the wider problem of the increasing need for state monitoring of individuals through the proper establishment of their identities. In my own mind there is no doubt that the time has come for the establishment of a proper unique identity number which the use of modern science could link in a foolproof way to the individual concerned. It would probably be useful and sensible to use the national health number which is issued to every UK citizen at birth and which is itself based on the old wartime identity card number. There is, in fact, no need for—
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I am reluctant to intervene as much of what the noble Lord says is inaccurate, but his final comment is, frankly, not true. The National Health Service number issued to millions of people in this country has for several years had nothing whatsoever to do with the wartime identity number. Several years ago everyone was issued with a brand new number; it has nothing to do with the wartime identification system. That went out years ago.
Lord Marlesford: With great respect, I have known my national identity number since I was a child in the war. It was TXAP774, and it is still my national health number. I have put that number on every form and those forms have never been sent back. I reject any suggestion that that type of monitoring infringes to a disproportionate extent civil liberties or human rights.
I turn briefly to the handling of asylum seekers and the recently announced asylum application registration card, which is intended to replace the, standard acknowledgement letter. I want to raise a question about the right of asylum seekers to travel outside the UK. On 7th November the noble Lord told me that asylum seekers who travel abroad while their claims are being considered are deemed to have withdrawn their applications for asylum. He said that the ARC is not a travel document and will not confer the right of entry.
Yet on 10th August this year the Home Office Immigration and Nationality Directorate issued a specification for the updating of a personalised document issuance system that includes a travel document, known as "passport-style", for non-British citizens. It would allow them the same travel facilities as does a passport. I have obtained a copy of the Home Office specification. The figures in it show an explosion in the number of passport-style documents

237
issued by the British Government to non-British citizens. In 1997 there were 16,000. Last year the figure was over 50,000. The contract for that travel document has just been awarded to the Stationery Office. Can the Minister assure us that those documents have not been, and will not be, issued to asylum seekers?
Of course, one object of many asylum seekers—especially those who believe that they are unlikely to be given asylum—is to play it long. Having to start their applications afresh as, under the Government's rules about foreign travel, they must, would be the ideal way of playing for time. I believe that that is yet another example of the Home Office not knowing what its hands and feet are up to.
The Government are asking us to take the soundness of this legislation on trust. I hope that I have provided examples of why I personally do not have sufficient confidence in the Home Office machine to do so. Why, therefore, should we subject the Bill to the full and detailed scrutiny to which it has not been subjected in another place, and why should we limit the rapid passage being demanded by the Government to clauses which are genuinely required with real rapidity?
My sad conclusion is that I am more impressed by the effectiveness demonstrated by the forces of terrorism than I have been by those of the government department sponsoring this Bill. The Bill should be divided between the essential and the inessential; between the real priority and the Home Office convenience priority. Before Christmas we should scrutinise and pass the essential, and there are additions to be made in that respect. Let the Government bring back other proposals at a later date. This House has the power to insist on a better Bill. It is our duty to do so.
9.33 p.m.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: My Lords, it is always said that one of the great strengths of this House is the specialist experience that individual Peers bring to debates. I always believe that to be the case, especially when I listen to the historical analysis of my noble friend Lord Russell. Clearly the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, has cornered for himself a specialist understanding of passports.
One of my own areas of direct and long experience as a lawyer has been in the conduct of terrorist trials. In over 25 years of practice, I have acted in—I worked it out last night—either 14 or 16 major Irish cases arising out of the Troubles: the Brighton bombing trial, the Balcombe Street siege, the bombings at Harrods, Oxford Street, Warrington and the Ebury Bridge Road Barracks, and the appeal of the Guildford Four. The list is long. I have also acted in cases stemming from the conflict in the Middle East, from that in the Indian Subcontinent, and I have acted in cases involving the politics of animal liberation and anarchism. I have acted in a whole range of other trials that involved allegations of violence for political ends. When one gains a degree of expertise as a criminal lawyer, one is repeatedly instructed in such cases.
238
In that process, I suspect that I have become one of the few Members of this House who, if placed alone in a room with a lump of plastic explosive, a detonator, an alarm clock and a length of fuse wire, could probably make a home-made bomb without too much difficulty. I hope that that does not mean that I will end up on the special files of the security services!
A Noble Lord: You probably already are!
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: My Lords, I am told that I probably already am!
I mention my experience because being involved in those cases has given me, to some extent, a long view of the criminal justice system and its relationship with terrorism. I am afraid that most of our failures derive from over-reaction. When the Prevention of Terrorism Act was introduced in the 1970s—I was still a young lawyer—we made the first huge departure from the normal rules of arrest and detention. We made it possible to detain people for up to six days without access to lawyers or any other outsider, and it meant that the police could question those people repeatedly. The result, as we all know, was that in a number of notorious cases, vulnerable people admitted offences that they did not commit. I refer to the cases of the Birmingham Six, the Guildford Four, and Judith Ward, and there are others. On spurious intelligence and inadequate evidence, the Maguire family and a man called Guiseppe Conlon were all convicted.
We learnt that changing the rules and abandoning principle does not work. Getting the cases so badly wrong introduced a poison into the legal system that affected policing generally, not just in relation to terrorist trials. Bad practice took hold and the price, in terms of distrust and cynicism, has affected the confidence of the general public in our criminal justice system. It certainly meant widespread alienation of the Irish community living in Britain. Of course, we know what happened in Northern Ireland in the wake of internment—that was one of the most powerful recruiting agents that the IRA ever had.
Bad laws have a price tag attached to them. Rushing to legislation is rarely successful. There is no such thing as temporary legislation; it is never temporary. In 1995, after the bombing of the Israeli Embassy, I acted for a Palestinian woman who was charged with placing the bombs. She was in fact—I stress this—an innocent woman. The current Director of Public Prosecutions, who was the prosecuting counsel in that case, would agree with that, as would the lead officer in the antiterrorist squad who was also involved in the case. That woman ended up in the dock because of mistaken identity and poor work by the security services. The effect on her and her family was devastating, and the toll is still being paid. The effect on the Arab community was also devastating: the case engendered fear. A woman from a middle-class background, with a professional husband and two children at British public schools suddenly ended up in Holloway prison. The feeling in the community was, "If it could happen to her, it could happen to any of us". She ended up in prison because of a tenuous association, and everyone became fearful.

239
I am afraid that I do not have complete confidence in the intelligence sources that will be relied on in the cases that we are discussing. Intelligence sources are often wrong. More importantly, I should be worried about accepting too readily intelligence from other security services, which may be highly questionable.
Many aspects of the Bill are unacceptable to me. However, at the heart of it is my sense of outrage at the idea of incarcerating people without charge or trial. There are a number of questions we should ask ourselves. Are these extraordinary powers necessary? The answer is that we already have the legal tools to combat terrorism. Our own terrorist legislation is some of the strongest in the world. If people are living here in Britain and have trained, counselled or procured the recent horrifying events in New York and if we have evidence of that, there is no difficulty in prosecuting them. If people are inciting terrorist crimes, we can put them on trial and imprison them.
However, the Home Secretary wants to detain people where the evidence is not strong enough to put them on trial or is not admissible. He wants to be able to incarcerate people without their knowing the reasons and the evidence upon which that incarceration will be based. To any person concerned with human rights, that cannot be acceptable. That is why the lawyers will tell the Minister that they are getting it wrong. Our experience must count for something.
There is nothing new in dealing with intelligence material. There have been suggestions that the evidence coming from intelligence sources cannot be used in court in the normal way because to do so exposes sources and informers. On many different. occasions I have cross-examined witnesses in terrorist cases where their names are never disclosed; where they are referred to as "Mr X" or "Miss Y" and where screens have been used. Now, with new technology, it would not be impossible for someone to give evidence in an adjacent room and for their whole face to be obliterated by shaking up the pixels on the screen. We could even use sound techniques to distort the voice. There are many ways in which evidence can be given without putting security at risk.
However, the main issue is that what is being suggested in the Bill flies in the face of natural justice. Another point of real concern is that the body which will be hijacked to fulfil the function of reviewing decisions taken by the Secretary of State—the body already referred to, SIAC—is a tribunal established to consider deportation issues, and is not fitted for the purpose to which it will now be put. To suddenly row it in to take on the hugely important decision of indefinite incarceration of people without charge or trial is totally wrong.
Clause 29 deliberately and expressly excludes the courts, habeus corpus and judicial review from the whole procedure. It is an outrage against our liberties. It is a bridge I will not cross. I suspect that many in this House will feel the same. It is an affront to the values that we are protecting in the war that is being waged against terrorism. In the face of terrorism,
240
governments have to strike delicate balances between collective security and individual freedom. We in Britain have more experience than most in dealing with terrorism. Other Western democracies look to us. We are ahead of the game.
The guiding principle should always be that limitations on rights and freedom must be kept to an absolute minimum. Like others, I strongly support the proposals included in the Bill which deal with money laundering. I am also glad that the Home Office in its trawl for loopholes and other things that can be thrown into the Bill have discovered that there was no law to deal with possession of a nuclear weapon. What have we been paying the Home Office for for all these years?
In declaring war on terrorism I understand that we were doing so to preserve freedom and basic rights. But passing this kind of legislation undermines the values we want to protect. The Bill is an attack upon our freedom. When it comes to voting. I urge this House to stand firm in resisting the core of this legislation.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, it is a real pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws. Perhaps I may say to her that I as a layman have had the very strange experience of visiting in prison a number of victims of serious miscarriages of justice in terrorist cases. I was therefore delighted when the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, mentioned in some detail the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four and the long campaign that was required to establish the innocence of those people.
So I speak tonight as a rather sceptical layman. I believe that the burden is on the Government to justify the Bill's very miscellaneous contents. The first question that comes to my mind is whether a genuine public emergency, threatening the life of the nation, actually exists here now. I simply say that qualified opinions differ very much on that subject. I do not believe that acts of international terrorism have been conducted here since September llth.
Before the ceasefires in Northern Ireland, conflict stemming from there caused well over 3,000 deaths, 45,000 injuries and the displacement within the United Kingdom of thousands of innocent civilians. It involved two attempts, as has been mentioned. to murder the whole Cabinet. Yet no one proposed such far-reaching measures as those before us today. How do the Government justify the existence now of a greater state of public emergency?
In the Bill we find clauses dealing with religious hatred in this country, or with the bribery of foreign officials overseas. I am sure that these are very desirable, but they are nothing to do with an emergency. I therefore strongly support those who have demanded that the measure be split into separate Bills. That would make it possible for long-term changes to be subject to normal parliamentary procedures, even if the emergency provisions may need to be enacted more rapidly. Here I agree very much with the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford.

241
The onus surely is on the Government to justify every extension of powers beyond those in the Terrorism Act 2000. Here I follow the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. It would indeed be helpful to know what have been the results of recent arrests and detentions under that Act.
The Bill provides many serious grounds for concern. What, for example, will be its effect on community harmony and race relations in this country? Already there is anxiety among ethnic groups, some of whose members have belonged to, or who now support, the legitimate aims of overseas organisations that are banned in this country. I am thinking particularly of the Kurds and the Palestinians, but Chechens in this country might also be subjected to guilt by association and so might Afghans. Great care will be needed. We shall have to uphold the ancient principle of "innocent until proved guilty". Massive increases in penalties, with some potential prison sentences trebled, will also need thorough examination.
The London office of the United Nations Commissioner for Human Rights and others have expressed great concern over Clauses 34 and 35 of the Bill. Clause 34 will apply only to very small numbers of people, perhaps 10 or so a year. That is a strong reason why those people should be allowed to state their case as refugees, all the more so since, if they cannot be deported, they are likely to be detained unless they voluntarily leave the country.
Clause 35 is far more wide ranging. On that point I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia. It is likely to exclude significant numbers of people from the protections of due process and natural justice. At present, all factors are taken into account and there is a balancing of the fears of death and persecution against possible crimes committed elsewhere. What weight should be given, for example, to acts that are technically crimes in Iraq or Iran?
The proposed new dispensation may make the difference between the granting of full refugee status and exceptional leave to remain. That in turn may affect the prospect of a family being able to reunite in this country. It also seems that the Bill gives power to return people to other countries from the ports, thus denying them access to legal advice. I therefore strongly support those who ask for all the asylum and refugee clauses to be removed from the Bill and considered in a far more deliberate and careful way in the asylum and immigration Bill which we have been promised quite soon.
Up to now, this country has had an honourable record in applying the international convention on refugees. It would be sad if the alleged emergency drove us into arbitrary interpretations of the convention.
I turn to Part 5 and the concept of religious hatred. The conclusive test must surely be whether the hatred, or the words inciting it, lead on to violence against persons or damage to property. That extremely
242
complex and difficult subject would be far better left for more mature consideration outside of any emergency context.
I trust that the freezing orders in Part 2 will be wide enough to catch money suspected of being laundered here by dictators and members of governments. There has been far too much of that in cases ranging from Nigeria to the former Yugoslavia. Will the Bill also catch the proceeds of illegal blood diamonds coming from various countries in Africa?
My final concern, which has already been raised, concerns Clauses 110 and 111, which cover the implementation of the European Union third pillar—secret inter-governmental decisions. A massive Henry VIII clause allows such decisions to be given effect by secondary legislation—albeit by affirmative resolution. The Government may say that there are precedents for that. I reply that the major changes required for co-operation in criminal matters should, because of their sensitivity, remain subject to primary legislation. In that respect I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Waddington.
The difficulty, of course, is to distinguish between major and minor change. If we were given adequate time, perhaps criteria could be found to make such a distinction. The noble Lord, Lord Brennan, asked for—and I am sure will provide—intellectual rigour in the Bill's forthcoming stages. That is one area where it is much needed.
I object to the haste with which the Bill is being driven forward. I object to the inclusion of items only tenuously connected to the alleged emergency—especially those that I have cited: immigration and refugees; religious hatred; bribery overseas; and the third pillar. The Bill should be split up, and if the Government do not accept that, they are likely to do lasting harm that they will come to regret. Anything that decreases time-honoured freedoms and protections for the individual is in itself a victory for terrorism. The Government must therefore justify each and every encroachment, given the serious criticisms made from all sides of your Lordships' House today.
9.55 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, when I saw the Bill I asked myself the following question: would its existence on the statute book have had any effect on those who drove hijacked aeroplanes into the side of two splendid skyscrapers on the waterfront of New York? I am afraid that the answer must he no, it would not. The incident happened as a result of the failure of intelligence. In the story, The Day of the Jackal, the intelligence service did not get the breaks it needed, the police did not pick up the hints and no one knew what was going to happen. I suggest that the Bill would not have made a blind bit of difference whatever.
That is not to say that I in any way believe that government should not keep legislation under very close review. It is government's prime duty to ensure that the Queen's subjects can go about their business in peace without let or hindrance and, above all, without interference from the outside ungodly.

243
I have been a Member of this House for many years and I have lost count of the number of terrorism Bills which have come before us. I remember that in 1998 or 1997 we debated the legislation which came before us as a result of the Omagh bombing. We were brought back here in the middle of September to rush through the legislation.
There is the terrible feeling that governments believe that they must do something and be seen to be doing something. That is not wise government; it is bad government and it is "dangerous dogs" government. I slightly criticise my own party for not saying to the Government, "Look, you have got your Bill, but we shall not allow it through in this rushed process". Let us suppose, for instance, that the government review had taken place three weeks earlier and that the Bill had been introduced three weeks earlier. We should still have received it next week, but after a much slower and more deliberative process. Let us assume that the Government had not completed their review until January. Would it matter if the Bill had taken three weeks longer to produce? It is completely and utterly insufferable that the Bill described in today's Times as the "Christmas tree bauble Bill" should be rushed through so that we have Second Reading today and the Committee stage tomorrow. It is a 125-clause Bill.
It is not as though during previous periods of internment the forces of law and order have been anything other than incompetent. During the war they locked up hoards of people who had fled Nazi Germany through fear of persecution. The least said about internment in 1969 or whenever in Northern Ireland, the better. As regards Iraq, the Iraqi ambassador as he left the country said to those in the Foreign Office., "Here is a list of young men who are finishing their studies at British universities. You have seized the money, so will you please ensure that their university fees can continue to be paid out of the blocked account?". "Yes", say those in the Foreign Office. Two days later, Plod goes round and locks the whole lot up as internment. I believe that every single one of those people decided to apply for political asylum and received it. It is not as though our efforts in interning the right people have been anything other than catastrophic.
It was said earlier that the number of people to whom the Government thought internment should apply would be 10 or 12. Do we really need to overturn centuries of British liberty for 10 or 12 people on whom a decent eye cannot be kept by the forces of law and order, or are those forces of law and order as incompetent as my noble friend Lord Marlesford says the Passport Office is?
Judicial review is not new. It is a sadness that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, is not in his place. At Eton I remember him as "Russell, CS", an incredibly clever little boy who seems to have grown up to be an incredibly clever old man! When James I, who was, according to the noble Earl, an early forerunner of Michael Howard—that fills me with complete joy!—tried to pass into law a measure which had not come before Parliament, Lord Justice Coke said that
244
nothing could come into law without the advice and consent of a triune Parliament; in other words, what is written at the beginning of the Bill:
"Be it enacted by the Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament".
That was the view of Lord Justice Coke and it was an early example of judicial review. To throw out judicial review for the possibility of locking up 10 people strikes me as quite unpleasant and dangerous.
I thought that I might skate lightly over religious hatred. I believe that it is odious and hateful that Hindus should have a caste system that condemns individuals to be hewers of wood and drawers of water; in others words, "You're a better man than I am, Gunga Din!", people. They may not rise in the social order or do anything other than clean lavatories throughout their lives. I believe that that is a very unpleasant attitude. The noble Lord, Lord Desai, told me earlier that it was a social custom, but I suspect that it is given authority by religious practice.
When I open the Koran, I read:
"They have taken their oaths for a cloak, and they have turned men aside from the way of God: wherefore a shameful punishment awaiteth them; neither their wealth nor their children shall avail them at all against God. These shall be the inhabitants of hell fire; they shall abide therein for ever. On a certain day God shall raise them all: then will they swear unto him, as they swear now unto you, imagining that it will be of service to them. Are they not liars? Satan hath prevailed against them, and hath caused them to forget the remembrances of God. These are the party of the Devil",
et cetera, et cetera. That is not very nice. That is what the Koran says about the Jews. Is that religious hatred? Are we to lock up everybody who says that?
This Bill is full of horrors. If the House does not insist that the legislation is repaired and the nastiness removed, even to the point of seriously falling out with the House of Commons, there is no point whatever in this Chamber. It will be reformed into a collection not simply of "Tony's cronies" but of "Tony's clones". I would never want to sit in a House like that.
10.8 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, for the past 10 years in this place I have not liked very much anything that has come from the Home Office, and I do not believe that I am about to change my view about that. As the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, reminded us, this is the third terrorism Bill in the past four years. We were brought back from our holidays after the tragedy of Omagh because urgent action was needed and in one day we passed a Bill. I remind noble Lords that that Bill had an extra piece added on to deal not simply with Omagh but with terrorists who were doing things in this country against foreign governments. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, told us in words of one syllable that that legislation would not work because it was flawed. Not a single person has been convicted under that legislation for what happened in Omagh. Therefore, what we did was a total waste of time.
Not being satisfied with the second half of that Bill, the Terrorism Act 2000 was enacted, under which all kinds of powers were given to the Home Office. It

245
allowed us to do all kinds of things to people. We were told at the time that it was absolutely essential that we did those things.
Now we have another terrorism Bill. This one, like the post-Omagh Bill of 1998, has all kinds of added frills which are utterly irrelevant to the urgent purpose for which the Government want legislation. If the Government want legislation for urgent purposes, I surmise that Parts 1 to 4 are essential. We should stick to Parts 1 to 4, debate them and forget about the rest of the Bill. As has been pointed out about the part of the Bill dealing with nuclear weapons and so on, if the private ownership of nuclear weapons has not been banned until now, why attack private property at such a delicate time?
Many noble Lords have spoken to Parts 1 to 4, and to other parts of the Bill, and I broadly agree with them. All I have to say about Part 4 is that I would like the review under Clause 26 to be carried out every three months rather than every six months. I should like the executive to be on a shorter leash.
I am conscious of the fact—it has been said by many noble Lords, but especially by my noble friend Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, who knows something about it—that we have got things wrong a number of times because of mistakes by security services, the police or the prosecution services. The mistakes are legion. If you go to the United States, you will find that the reputation of British justice is extremely low. It is not high because we have done things which are outrageous.
I shall tell the House why we have done those outrageous things. I do not like saying this, but even in matters as trivial as the recording of names, racism makes us get it wrong. People do not know how to spell Irish names, let alone Arab or Indian names. So there are false identities. People are arrested because their name may look like someone else's name but they are not those people. That happens because the people recording names have no knowledge of Arabic, Hindi, Urdu, Afghan or any other language. All of them, I am sorry to say, look alike and therefore mistakes are made. I am very fearful that this Bill—especially as there will be no judicial review, no trial and no open display of evidence—will make those matters much worse.
I am willing, more or less, to swallow some of these faults, but I do not like Part 5 at all. Many noble Lords have said that adding religious hatred to racial hatred will not work, but there is another reason. The whole idea that we need to add religious incitement is based on a fallacy. When certain kinds of people say, "Kill the Muslims" or "Get rid of them", they are not concerned with the Muslim religion. As far as they are concerned, there is no distinction between race and religion. They are not talking about Bosnian Muslims, Turks or American Muslims; they do not know what Muslims they are talking about.
People say that, for Jews, race and religion are identical, for Sikhs they are identical and for Muslims they are not. I do not believe that they are identical for
246
the Jews. If a Jew converted, those who hate the Jews would not take any notice of the fact that he had converted to Protestantism or Hinduism or any other religion; they would know that he is a Jew and they would persecute him. That is what happened in Germany. There, people were persecuted for being Jewish regardless of what religion they subscribed to. Indeed, Karl Marx is always referred to in his biography as a Jew, despite the fact that his father had converted to a part of the Christian Church. Karl Marx was an atheist, but he was always referred to as a Jew. Why? Because that is the way people identified him. We must rid ourselves of the notion that for Jews race and religion are identical.
When people attack Muslims, Hindus or Sikhs, it is a straight racist attack. They are attacking Muslims of a certain colour, of a certain national origin, of a certain ethnicity. Therefore, in introducing this legislation, we shall not solve the problem; we shall simply be adding one more false category to all the others.
I have another worry. Much of the impression that has been given as to why this provision is necessary has concentrated far too much on Muslims. That will do nothing but harm to the Muslim community. It will be seen as a special concession to a particular community. That is not what the words say, but all the justification has been given. It will do those in the Muslim community no good to know that they have been singled out as an exception. To that extent, we should be careful as to whether we really do mean religion, or whether we mean something else. I think that we mean something else.
An additional consideration, as the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, said, is that quarrels on the Sub-Continent will now be visited here with a double force. There is resentment among some Hindus that Muslims have been singled out for favour in the Bill. That may not be true, but that is how it is perceived both over there and over here. The last thing that we want is for communal riots in India to be re-enacted in this country because religious communities are encouraged to have separate identities. As soon as people have separate identities, they quarrel with each other. That is what identities are all about. We want to avoid that.
The Home Affairs Select Committee in another place concluded in its First Report:
"We have not seen sufficient evidence to justify the proposition that extending the law of incitement to include religious as well as racial hatred will work in practice. The proposals in the Bill would be difficult to enforce. We note in particular the evidence from a group of distinguished Muslim organisations and individuals: 'we have grave reservations about the extension of this criminal power to cover religious groups at this particular time'. We therefore see no reason for this measure to be included in this emergency terrorism Bill".
It would be a good idea if the Government were to break up the Bill and come back with Parts 1 to 4. We could battle day and night over Part 4 and improve it. They could leave the rest of the Bill aside, think about it and bring it back later, especially Parts 5 and 13. Part 13 raises grave problems, as the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, pointed out. If urgency is the problem, it

247
applies only to Parts 1 to 4. I hope that we can give better consideration to these matters. Yet another attack on civil liberties by the Home Office is more than one can contemplate.
10.14 p.m.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I want to refer particularly to the disclosure provisions and then to make some more general remarks about the content of the Bill.
The disclosure provisions are mainly to be found in Part 3, in Clauses 17 to 20, and in Part 11, in Clauses 101 to 104. Many organisations are now beginning to realise that the purport of those sections could scarcely be more serious for the whole issue of public information, or private information drawn into the public sphere.
An important section dealing with these disclosure arrangements is to be found on pages 15 and 16 of the second report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. The committee points out, correctly, that the Bill attempts to rehash those provisions which were rejected by this place when the Criminal Justice and Police Bill was before it in January and to extend the disclosure provisions. Public authorities will be required to disclose information to each other in relation to any criminal investigation. As many noble Lords have said, one of the many bones of contention across the House is that a Bill which is rushed through this House in order to deal with an emergency terrorist situation is being used for much wider purposes.
Under Part 3 of the Bill the authorities will be required to provide information in an extraordinarily wide range of circumstances: any criminal investigation; any criminal proceedings; and indeed any decision as to whether or not to investigate or pursue criminal proceedings. Public authorities include banks, health authorities, education establishments, all government departments and all quangos. The provisions will entitle Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise to reveal information about any individual in respect of any criminal matter whereas, as we sit here today, the only situations in which they can do that are those involving treason or murder.
Part 11 of the Bill will allow the Government to require "communications providers" to store information for such period as the Minister may require. Initially, there is to be a voluntary code on retention of information but, if the Secretary of State believes that it is necessary so to do, he or she can then make a mandatory order requiring information to be stored for such period as the Minister may require. In this House we struggled to have reference to the Technical Advisory Board inserted in the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act. That board is not referred to. I think that the Minister will agree that such a provision is a protection against misuse of some of the powers which are provided under the Bill.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, the noble Lord makes a fair point because every provision is not duplicated. In opening the debate, I made it clear that the powers which will be used for disclosure will conform fully to the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act and the European Convention on Human Rights. That is how the powers are monitored. Therefore, the Technical Advisory Board—the noble Lord is right: it was set up recently—will play its role. The procedures on disclosure of information will follow the RIPA rules, and will be ECHR compliant.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. When he refers to the RIPA rules, many will think of "Jack the Ripper rules", so vicious are these provisions. However, I am sure that we can insert a reference to the Technical Advisory Board as we proceed.
Some will say that the innocent have nothing to fear by disclosure. It is only the wicked and villains who should worry. But that is not true. The right to privacy long predates any human rights legislation. It is not a right in the formal sense but one that citizens of these lands have enjoyed since time immemorial. The Government would misjudge public opinion and anxiety if they were to proceed on an extraordinarily broad front with extraordinarily broad powers.
It is common sense and reality that there are rotten apples even in a well-run police force or security organisation—and rotten applies will use powers given by the Bill perniciously. The more intrusive and secretive the powers, the more pernicious the abuse. It is not paranoid to worry about such matters. Only last summer we discovered that the national databank that is supposed to destroy fingerprints and genetic materials taken from suspects had failed to discharge no fewer than 50,000 sets, which were languishing on the databank long after they were legally there. We should not tempt persons who are corruptible or who are likely to take short cuts by littering the statute book. Even if one only subscribes to the cock-up theory of life, the proposed powers are far too wide. I hope that the Government will listen to all parts of the House as the Bill progresses.
We live in an acquisitive state. There have been 11 criminal statutes since 1997 and those powers are too great for the liking of many in this Chamber. We will need a great deal of reassurance that the Bill is fair and proper.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, and my noble friend Lord Jenkins contributed remarkable speeches by men who have deep and long experience of the issues that we are grappling with tonight. I was struck too by the difference of emphasis between them, although both were sympathetic to the notion that the Bill is too broad and piggybacks clauses on to the terrorist emergency in an unacceptable way.
Both speakers felt that the need for judicial review in respect of SIAC was imperative. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, spoke about not being

249
caught up in the nicety of his admirable principles—not to be too refined in protection for suspected terrorists. He asked what would the public think if a further terrorist atrocity occurred in this country and all necessary steps had not been taken to prevent it. That is a fair question and the Minister dealt with it fairly when opening the debate.
My noble friend Lord Jenkins referred to the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1974, which came in the wake of the Guildford and Birmingham atrocities—when far greater alarm was caused to the British public than now prevails. My noble friend doubted whether that legislation had frustrated any determined terrorist but made the reasonable point that perhaps the 1974 Act steadied the febrile state of public opinion. He went on to point out that some of the grossest miscarriages of justice in modern history were subsequently perpetrated. The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, and others also referred to those miscarriages.
In urging the greatest care in passing the Bill, my noble friend concluded that we cannot defend our values by suspending them. I draw the further conclusion that fair-weather values are like fair-weather principles—nigh-on worthless, hypocritical and counterproductive.
We are dealing not with a war in the normal sense of the word, but with a crisis that we are all greatly concerned about and intend to try to address properly in the legislation. In responding judiciously to natural public outrage and anxiety, we must not feed public passions and fears by the measures that we adopt. Above all, in our debates and in discourse with the public, we must emphasise that we are not necessarily dealing with terrorists—only with suspected terrorists. It is easy to slip into the language of certainty when we are dealing with suspicion and the means of properly contending with it.
The trial process is fragile enough, even when carried out in the full public gaze and with the protection of jury trial. As we know well enough, in the aftermath of atrocities, wrongful convictions can occur. I note in passing that we have no definition of terrorism in the Bill. I was struck by the remarks of my noble friend Lord Russell on the ANC and freedom fighters.
I shall say no more about the inadequacies of SIAC, except to endorse the need for judicial review and for much greater protection by the means of trial. False "convictions" will sow dragon's teeth among the terrorist community. It is an unfair paradox that nothing so inflames and exacerbates the violent passions of the terrorist-with-a-cause than to suffer injustice at the hands of the state that harbours him and to which he may or may not be actively opposed. It becomes an extra casus belli and immediate provocation that can, and often does, lead to a commencement or intensification of terrorism by his fellow travellers against that state.
250
I draw your Lordships' attention to the remarks of the Bar Council, which referred to the nature of the SIAC process being inflammatory to segments of public opinion here and elsewhere.
Criminal laws have to strike a difficult balance between the rights of the accused, who may be a repeat murderer or repeat rapist, and the rights of society and of victims. The same dilemmas afflict us here, with the added complication that terrorism always involves group hatreds, which can be more activated to violence by oppressive laws and arbitrary trials than by an apparently liberal regime.
In closing, it is worth reflecting on our experience in the Second World War in respect of the Defence of the Realm Act and the infamous Regulation 18B, which allowed detention without due process. Some of your Lordships may know of the very important and interesting book on the subject published by Professor Simpson, in which he quotes the statement by Herbert Morrison, as Home Secretary, in a debate in 1942. Morrison said:
"What the House must do is to keep watch on the Home Secretary … to look out for cases where in their judgement he has gone wrong and they can get evidence that he has … I agree it is not cricket, but I cannot help it".
As we have seen in Ireland, the whole system was so unfair and counter-productive that in due course it collapsed.
I close my remarks with a quotation from Winston Churchill—that extraordinary man who, in the midst of his war negotiations in Cairo in November 1943, had time to telegraph back to Herbert Morrison on the debate that he was about to lead in the House of Commons on whether the Mosleys should be released from Regulation I 8B detention. It is interesting to note that Clementine had put pressure on him in Cairo to intervene. I remind the House that this was in the middle of a war which we were not certain of winning. In writing to Herbert Morrison, Winston Churchill said,
"You might however consider whether you should not unfold as a background the great privilege of habeas corpus and trial by jury, which are the supreme protection invented by the English people for ordinary individuals against the state. The power of the Executive to cast a man into prison without formulating any charge known to law, and particularly to deny him the judgement of his peers, is in the highest degree odious and is the foundation of all totalitarian government whether Nazi or Communist … Extraordinary power assumed by the Executive should be yielded up when the emergency declines. Nothing is more abhorrent than to imprison a person or keep him in prison because he is unpopular. This is really the test of civilisation".
I do not want to be melodramatic, but I believe, as many others have said more eloquently than I, that there are the greatest issues of the quality of our civilisation in this Bill.
10.31 p.m.
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, given that I follow the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, it is perhaps fortuitous that my especial interest is in the Bill's elements that have an IT flavour, particularly Part 11. Noble Lords will be aware that these are matters which have exercised the attention of some of us in

251
Parliament a great deal in recent years, specifically the Data Protection Act 1998 and the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.
What matters here is that Parliament had arrived at a settled view as to how the issue of data retention should be dealt with. The Government's case, presumably, is that the events of September 11th demand that we revisit the matter. So be it. However, to my untutored eye, Part 11, drafted as broadly as it is, betrays a certain indecision on the part of the Government. Equally, with no hint of criticism, there may perhaps even be a certain lack of full understanding of what can be realistically achieved. With that in mind, and in the time I have available., I propose to subject the provisions of Part 11 to the four tests of effectiveness, of necessity, of proportionality and of consequence.
I start with effectiveness. The attractions of facilitating intelligence gathering and law enforcement by reference to communications data seem self-evident. Indeed, the Minister stated in his introduction that this had been "central to investigation" of the atrocities of September 1lth. I do not dispute that, but there are complications.
The retention of data is the stockpiling of Internet and telephone traffic which has already taken place. It is not a predictive tool. Its purpose has much more to do with the investigation and prosecution of crimes already committed. As I say, I do not question or dispute the importance of that. But the purpose of this Bill is to address a current and ongoing emergency. It is that which justifies its tag of emergency legislation.
Moreover, the fight against terrorism demands rapid access to focused intelligence. But, as they stand, the Bill's proposals will produce such vast amounts of data that law enforcement and intelligence services could well be stymied by "information overload", the reverse of the Government's intentions.
A point constantly alluded to in our debates on the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill—it has just as much, if not more, resonance now—was that the technological skill and sophistication of terrorist and criminal organisations is such that they can readily avoid our attempts to legislate against them in this area. I do not say that that should stop us trying. Nonetheless, it is a fact that even those with limited understanding of the way in which the technology works can evade traceability and investigation by, for example, using pre-paid mobile telephones or web-based e-mail from public terminals.
Additionally, all of this presupposes that terrorist and criminal organisations communicate habitually and exclusively by means of modern technology. We know this not to be the case. For example, it is well known that a favoured method of transfer of funds for Al'Qaeda has been, and is, the brokerage system of hawala.
252
Moving on, I turn to the test of necessity and draw your Lordships' attention to paragraph 259 of the Bill's Explanatory Notes. This states:
"Communications data can be a useful tool for law enforcement agencies"—
no dispute about that—
"and if held by a communications service provider will be accessible by a public authority under Chapter II of Part I of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 which is shortly to come into force".
In other words, law enforcement agencies already have the statutory power, appropriately constrained, to obtain data for those purposes set out on the face of RIP. I accept that the Explanatory Notes go on to say that,
"whilst the Regulations permit the retention of communications data on national security and crime prevention grounds there is currently no general guidance given as to when these might apply".
To my mind, that is an inadequate fig leaf to justify the broad and imprecise scope of the data retention measures before us today. What cannot be disputed is that the power already exists. Proof of that is to be adduced from the fact that the United Kingdom National Hi-Tech Crime Unit submitted a request to ISPs and telcos that logs of communications for September 11th should be retained. On advice from the Information Commissioner that,
"the request from the NHTCU is lawful and proportionate in the circumstances",
ISPs complied with the request.
As I say, the Minister confirmed that in his introduction. But perhaps I can have clarification as to how long authority has been given for the retention of that data? Does it in fact relate only to the single date. of September 11th or stretch over a wider period? That is an important point. Moreover, perhaps the Attorney-General can confirm that, once RIP comes into full force, senior police officers will be empowered to authorise their own orders requiring the retention of data for the purposes specified on the face of that Act.
That lends credibility to the view expressed by Jonathan Bamford, Assistant Commissioner to the Information Commissioner, in his observation that,
"Part 11 isn't necessary, and if it is necessary it should be made clear why".
I shall be grateful if the Attorney-General can address that matter in his reply.
I move on to proportionality. Despite apparent assurances from the Home Secretary to the contrary, Part 11 of the Bill is not limited to providing data retention in respect of the current terrorist threat. Your Lordships will be aware that in an article published in Tribune on 26th October, the Home Secretary indicated that the voluntary regime would apply,
"strictly in the case of a criminal investigation against suspected terrorists".
None of us would argue with that. But the Bill as drafted makes retained communications data available to law enforcement agencies in respect of what my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith called the

253
"generality of crime", and indeed beyond. In terms, therefore, each and every one of us who uses a telephone or a modem as a means of communication will have our traffic data retained.
I may have misheard the Minister—I know now that I did not because of the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips—but I seem to recall that he said Part 11 powers are in line with the ECHR. In fact, both the Joint Committee on Human Rights and the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee expressed doubts about that. The Information Commissioner is just as unconvinced, as shown by the text of her recent memorandum on the Bill. Referring to Article 8 she states:
"There must be a concern that the proposed legislation would be incompatible with Convention rights as it fails to satisfy this basic requirement for precision and foreseeability in the delineation of the Secretary of State's powers".
And for good measure, in respect of the Data Protection Act, she adds,
"Continued retention of communications data by a communications provider beyond the completion of its own processing, in order to satisfy the needs of others, is likely to contravene the 1998 Act's requirements".
To the extent that the data retention provisions are inconsistent with both the Human Rights and Data Protection Acts, can they really be termed "proportionate"?
I come to my fourth test; that of consequence. Here I follow the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury. The Performance and Innovation Unit report, Privacy and Data, states:
"Privacy is a fundamental right. It is hard to quantify, which may have the effect that it is accorded less weight than other factors … but it is no less real. Furthermore, it is not simply relevant at the level of the individual … but it is also a common good for society as a whole".
The data retention regime promoted in the Bill will effectively transform our communications infrastructure—or may do—into a form of mass domestic surveillance. That represents an unwarranted invasion of privacy because it creates a regime where details of the personal life of all citizens will be available to public authorities with inadequate checks and balances. I should say here that I agree with the Minister that content is not an issue. Rather, as the Foundation for Information Policy Research has explained:
"'Traffic data' constitutes a near complete map of private life: who everyone talks to (by e-mail and phone), where everyone goes (mobile phone location co-ordinates), and what everyone reads online (websites browsed)."
Caspar Bowden, FIPR's director, goes further:
"Collecting the streams of thought of the population and processing them by computer is a good definition of a police state".
In so far as the measure provokes that degree of concern, it is all the more important that we scrutinise it as carefully as we can.
Inevitably, the provisions will also have consequences for industry, not only telcos and ISPs but also more generally. In passing, will the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General undertake to
254
publish the Horrocks report? There will be a not inconsiderable financial cost to ISPs and telcos, albeit that the Bill makes allowance for appropriate moneys to be paid out of public funds. None the less there is a real risk that,
"Extra costs arising from retention could increase overheads to the point where cheap transatlantic bandwidth makes it attractive to locate servers in offshore subsidiaries where requirements are less onerous".
The Government may seek to defuse this by highlighting the voluntary nature of the scheme—ISPs will not be obliged to retain data. But, in so far as it is argued that this is a key component of the efforts to counter terrorism, it suggests that the scheme is redundant even before its implementation. The consequence is that, in very short order, the Home Secretary is likely to use the reserve powers granted to him under the Bill to introduce a mandatory scheme that will be subject to a dearth of parliamentary scrutiny or accountability.
That said, my impression is that the industry is less concerned about financial aspects than technical ones. As I said, the volumes of data that will be subject to retention are vast. The consequence for most telcos and ISPs will be that management of compliance with the data retention regime will become so time consuming and routine that it impacts seriously on the successful running of their businesses. Inevitably, those various factors will compromise the competitiveness of the IT industry. As recognised by the CBI, the proposed data retention regime could damage consumer confidence in e-commerce and commercial exploitation of IT in the UK. I merely speculate how those consequences can reasonably be squared with the Government's stated policy of making the UK the best place in the world for e-commerce.
I hope that your Lordships will forgive me if I also say a few words about Part 3. As the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, pointed out, the genesis of this was Part 2 of the Criminal Justice and Police Bill of the previous parliamentary Session. The clauses before us are almost a carbon copy. Those proposals fell at the time of the general election for lack of scrutiny.
I have a particular concern here; namely, the technique of data matching or data sharing, whichever term you prefer. In that context I draw your Lordships' attention to an observation from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, during the passage of the Data Protection Bill:
"I emphasise that the first data protection principle provided in the Bill is that data should be used fairly and lawfully. We believe that that will deal with data matching to a large extent. Moreover, whenever data matching has been permitted it has been explicitly by statute".
Yet the Privacy and Data report I referred to earlier from the PIU seems to cut across that. It appears to recommend that the practice of data matching should not be subject to specific statutory authority on a case-by-case basis, as has been the custom previously, but that authority for its application should be obtained by secondary legislation as of need. As early as June of

255
this year—that is, prior to the current emergency—Rachel Sylvester, writing in the Daily Telegraph, observed:
"The Data Sharing and Privacy Bill will be introduced as early as possible. Ministers are aware of the importance of winning over public opinion".
My concern here is that, taken together, Parts 3 and 11 pre-empt the need for the data-sharing elements of such a Bill. They give public authorities carte blanche to data-match to their hearts' content.
I have detained your Lordships for longer than I might have wished, albeit that I have barely scratched the surface of the complexities of these parts of the Bill. I apologise on both counts. In my defence, these are very serious issues that merit proper examination and explanation. Because public opinion and the attention of parliamentarians are so unsighted on the substance of these issues, it could be argued that Part 11 is one of the more insidious elements of the Bill.
That said, I stand four-square behind the Government's determination to produce—I quote the Minister's words back at him—a "measured and proportionate" response to the events of September 1lth. The crucial words in that task are "measured and proportionate". To that end, and to assist the Government, I shall be tabling a number of amendments on Part 11 for debate in Committee.
10.46 p.m.
Lord Harris of Haringey: My Lords, I have always been told that brevity is a prized virtue in this House. At this time of night, it is certainly a virtue that I shall hope to achieve, although I have a tendency to stray. Having listened to so many interesting points made by your Lordships. there is a temptation to respond and to expand on each one.
I declare two interests. First, I am the chair of the Metropolitan Police Authority. The Metropolitan Police service will clearly be much affected by many of the provisions of the Bill and by the consequences that may arise from it. My second interest is that I was in New York on September llth. Therefore, I was much closer than I found comfortable to the events of that day. Indeed, on the previous night I had visited the all-night court, located at the base of the World Trade Centre. When I came out, I looked up at those magnificent buildings. On the morning when the atrocities took place, I was about to go back into the same area for various meetings.
It may well be that that experience and proximity have done something to colour my judgment in terms of this Bill. Certainly, I believe that being too close for comfort makes it very apparent to one how the nature and experience of terrorism has changed in scale as a result of what happened that day.
The terrorism of September 11th was of a magnitude very different from what we have experienced in the past—certainly in this country. It was not about persuading people of a particular political point of view; it was not about persuasion at all. It was not concerned about the consequences or the number of people who might be affected; and it made
256
it clear that in the future there will perhaps be no limits to what may or may not happen in a terrorist attack. A number of your Lordships have referred to the possibility of terrorism involving nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, and so on. Having seen what happened on September 11th, such matters which, in the past, we dismissed as being unlikely have now become much more likely.
Therefore, it is appropriate that we have before us today a Bill which looks at the new measures that may be required by that new situation and by the new magnitude of what we may face in terms of terrorism. It is appropriate that we review the balance that must be struck in terms of measures which perhaps infringe our freedoms and those which are necessary to protect us, or necessary to assist in protecting us, from terrorism. It is entirely proper that we review what is or is not a proportional response to a terrorist threat. That means accepting that there has to be a different balance in our individual relations with the state. It also means accepting that, as citizens, our rights will be affected by what has happened and by what now needs to be done. We must also recognise that the rights of people who are not citizens of this country will also be affected.
I was much struck by the opening remark of one noble Lord who, although his argument then went off in a different direction, said that no right-thinking person will accept that it is right that because a suspected terrorist cannot be deported to his or her country of origin, we should allow him or her to roam free in this country, particularly if there is some suspicion that he or she may be planning a terrorist act here.
I believe that the Bill provides due process. There has been much discussion of the alleged shortcomings of the SIAC process. However, these provisions avoid unnecessary abuse of the system. I sometimes feel that our many expressions in the House of the desirability and importance of judicial review are more about a job-creation programme for QCs or about creating a playground for lawyers. I make those comments knowing that my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General will be deeply affronted. However, I am trying to help with the arguments that he will have to deploy in a few minutes. I sometimes wonder whether the belief that judicial review is the solution to all ills reflects any sort of reality or the way in which life is lived.
I come back to what any right-thinking person might feel when there is a real belief that people are suspected terrorists and that they may be trying to commit a terrorist atrocity in this country. Would we allow them to roam free because of the belief that a judicial review process is necessary?
I want to spent a few minutes discussing Part 5, which is about incitement to religious hatred. Such provisions are long overdue. I have already spoken in your Lordships' House on that subject. I recall debates about Islamophobia, involving my noble friend Lord Ahmed, in which that issue was discussed at length.

257
There are tremendous anomalies in our current legislation. Sikhs and Jews are recognised not because of their religion but because they are treated as an ethnic group; and because their ethnic identity is so inextricably linked with their religion, the courts accept that incitement to hatred of Jews or Sikhs is covered by existing legislation. Such provisions do not extend to Muslims, because they may be from different ethnic groups.
Noble Lords have deployed against those provisions the argument that somehow they do not fit into the Bill. It may be that the Bill has so many different parts that it is difficult to say that anything falls outside its terms of reference. However, that is not the argument that I want to advance. It is undeniable that since September 11th there have been a substantial number of incidents in which religious hatred seems to have been the motive or when religious abuse has been hurled. For that reason, it is timely and appropriate to include this measure in the Bill. If there were further major terrorist incidents of the nature of those that we saw on September 11th, the tensions that could be created in our communities—perhaps because of events overseas—could be much more critical and the Bill's provisions would become that much more important.
Of course, there are several problems with the existing laws on racial hatred. Those points were elucidated by several noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia. It can be said that the existing law on the incitement to racial hatred had not significantly affected the production and circulation of racist material. There is rarely more than a handful of prosecutions each year under the Public Order Act 1986, which created a range of offences involving incitement to racial hatred. I am told that since 1988, there have been only 61 prosecutions.
Clearly, there is a major evidential test to be passed. Words or other material must be shown to be threatening, abusive or insulting and it must be shown that the perpetrator intended by such material to stir up racial hatred, or that in all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up. It is not as though the new provision will be something which all sorts of people will rush to use or which will be applied in all sorts of circumstances where one would not expect it to be so applied.
There is an anomaly and a gap in our legislation. Since September 11th we have clearly seen religious abuse build up and being used in some of the incidents that have taken place. It seems to me that there is a serious gap. It is appropriate for that to be filled at this time. However, given that there are clear concerns about how all these laws operate at present, it would be appropriate at the same time for the Government to give a commitment that they intend to review such laws in respect of racial hatred—and now, I hope, religious hatred—and how they can be made more effective in future.
A few moments ago I mentioned the fact that the courts have acknowledged the existence of Sikhs and Jews but do not do so in respect of Muslims. The idea
258
of extending the principle of racially aggravated offences to ones which cover crimes of violence involving religion is therefore important. Racially aggravated offences apply to crimes against Sikhs and Jews but not to those against Muslims. Let us imagine a violent confrontation in one of our towns between groups of Sikhs and Muslims. If, as he was assaulting someone, a Muslim made clear his hostility towards his victim on the grounds of his being a Sikh, that might constitute a racially aggravated assault and he would face a heavier sentence than would a Sikh committing the same type of assault against a Muslim and using identical words of hostility. That is not logical and should be addressed.
Finally, I want to talk briefly about the police powers under Part 10 of the Bill on the identification and removal of facial covering and gloves. These provisions are to assist the police in the process of identification, including the powers to search people being detained and so forth. The proposal is linked to amendment of Section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act, which gives power to the police to stop, search and demand the removal of any clothing that conceals identification in situations where a senior officer reasonably believes incidents involving serious violence may take place.
Identifying international terrorists—the principal purpose of the new powers—means that police and customs officers will inevitably target people from visible minorities. I accept that many people in such communities already feel especially vulnerable after September 11th, and certainly after the disturbances we have seen in northern towns and some of the problems that have existed in the past in terms of the fragile nature of police community relations. Given that the new powers, which I believe are necessary, could impact directly on police relations with ethnic minority communities, they need to be properly explained.
Police officers need to be properly trained in the use of the powers in line with an agreed protocol. The use of that protocol should be rigorously monitored and recorded. I believe this matter to be important. Therefore, I welcome the statement made by one of my colleagues in another place to the Home Affairs Committee that the Association of Chief Police Officers is drawing up a protocol to ensure cultural sensitivity and decent and respectful treatment of people under these circumstances. That work is important. I hope that ACPO will consult widely in drawing up guidelines.
I believe that the Bill is important, timely and, by and large, a proportionate response to the events of September 11th. In this House we shall subject it to considerable scrutiny—to scrutiny which perhaps it did not receive in another place. We have set aside many days and hours to debate the points before us. I hope that, as a result, we shall have a good piece of legislation and one which will help us in dealing with the situation we all face following September 11th.
10.59 p.m.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, what adverse consequences does the Minister foresee for the dependants of those detained under the proposed legislation? What plans does he have to address such consequences? In his role as Minister for asylum seekers, he will know, far better than that asylum seekers are obliged to live in temporary accommodation. Often that can be unsatisfactory. There is overcrowding. Occasionally the accommodation is unsanitary. The areas in which they are accommodated are often the most deprived areas of our country. They may also be isolated from their friends, from their extended families and from the community of their ethnic group. The families live on 70 per cent of the income support that is provided to other families in such situations who are not asylum seekers. Because they live in temporary accommodation, they often do not have facilities for preparing food and therefore are obliged to have takeaway food. That is far more expensive than food prepared at home.
The OECD report published the day before yesterday stated that our country is one of the most expensive countries, if not the most expensive country, in the developed world in terms of public transport. Families often suffer intimidation. They are sometimes harassed. Occasionally violence is used towards them.
The Government have a target of six months for processing asylum applications. Often that processing extends over years. Therefore, in that context, can the Minister assure me that the dependants of detainees will be able to have regular access and perhaps weekly visits to their detained family member? Will the Government, if necessary, pay towards the travel expenses of the family or provide them with a travel pass? Will the detainee be kept near his family, or, if that is not possible, will accommodation be offered to the family near to where the detainee is held? Will families occasionally be held in detention as a group under the new legislation? If so, how will the Government ensure that the needs of the child, in terms of development and education, are met? If as a result of detention—
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Earl. I may have misunderstood his first couple of sentences, but he is talking only about asylum seekers. No one has said that those who may be detained under Clause 21 will be asylum seekers. We are not targeting asylum seekers but international terrorists. We seek those who try to misuse the system by later claiming asylum. They may not claim asylum. They may already be refugees. They will be held—if they are held—in the same conditions as other people, such as remand prisoners. Their families will be treated the same. The noble Earl referred to the prospect of children being detained. I am not clear why the noble Earl raised that matter. We are talking about people designated as international terrorists. We are not talking about family groupings or children and their education.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his intervention. That helps me to put my case more clearly. I believe that there are two new detention centres which will take families for short periods of time—under 10 days. Is that correct?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I am sorry to labour the point. The immigration detention estate and its processes have got nothing to do with the Bill. Anyone held under the Bill as a suspected international terrorist will not be held in the immigration detention estate. They will be in prison, probably a high security prison. The Bill has nothing to do with the immigration detention estate—the new places coming onstream or the existing ones. There are only five places onstream. They are not fully occupied at the moment because they are brand new buildings. But we are not talking about that. That has nothing to do with this legislation. The prospect of induction centres and accommodation centres is completely outwith the Bill. That has got nothing whatever to do with it.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, I thank the Minister. Perhaps he will forgive my ignorance. He will understand that I am especially interested in families in vulnerable situations. I do not know much about this area, but I am raising a concern that appears to be being answered by the Minister. My picture is that a family has sought asylum here and then, through the efforts of our secret services, information is gained that strongly suggests that it is involved in international terrorism and it is detained for that reason. So the family members may have been asylum seekers at some point and then they are detained under the new arrangement.
Simply put, my concern is that some dependants of those detained may be vulnerable people. They may have difficulty accessing the detainee. It is important to emphasise that such detainees will be held only under suspicion of terrorism; no case under the normal process of law will have been proved against them. In similar situations, people have been held whom, on their release, have been clearly innocent. I am worried that in such circumstances families should have regular access to the detainee.
We may need to treat such families slightly differently from the rest of the families of people within the prison estate, because the Government are exercising an extraordinary power on a few people each year. The Government are saying, "We will imprison you because we fear what you may do. We do not want to risk our society suffering an attack like that of 11th September. We do not want to risk you inflicting that on other societies. But we will not take you through the full process of law." In such circumstances, the families of the individuals concerned should be given special attention. I look forward to hearing from the Minister—perhaps in a later conversation—greater elucidation of the full situation. I shall not detain the House further at this late hour.
11.8 p.m.
Baroness Harris of Richmond: My Lords, I should like briefly to concentrate on the policing aspects of the Bill covered in Part 10, and I begin with a declaration of interest. Until recently, I was a member of a police authority for 20 years. I chaired North Yorkshire's police authority for the last seven of those years. I was also a deputy chair of the Association of Police Authorities and a member of the National Crime Squad Service Authority.
Your Lordships may wonder what all that has to do with extending the powers of the British Transport Police, the UK Atomic Energy Authority special constables and the Ministry of Defence Police. I hope to be able to demonstrate that my concerns are not simply those of a narrow interest but begin to unpick some of the fundamental principles on which policing in this country is based.
My concerns about the Bill are demarcation and, more importantly, accountability. It has been a long-held belief that the powers of the police are well-documented and open to scrutiny under various Acts of Parliament. The police have wide-ranging powers, and the law is to be used to support those powers. I am therefore troubled that the extension of those powers will be to officers who, in the main, have had neither the wide-ranging training in law of regular police officers nor the experience gained by dealing with members of the public.
Professional and dedicated though I know those officers to be, they are not under the same scrutiny as regular police officers, nor will they be so when the Bill becomes law. Will the Home Office regulations apply to them? What further training will they need to bring them up to the same and publicly accepted standards of regular officers? Who is to pay for that? How long will it take?
We are expecting them to undertake a range of duties, albeit in support of their regular colleagues, but it is unclear to me just who will be in control of any given situation should one arise. Perhaps I may give an example of what I mean. An incident occurs and a constable begins to deal with it. It becomes apparent that he needs help and through his chief constable he calls on the British Transport Police or the Ministry of Defence Police or a special constable from the Atomic Energy Authority. One of those officers arrives and turns out to have a higher rank than the regular police officer. Who will have precedence in dealing with the incident? Might there not be legitimate grounds for believing that at least there is a possibility for confusion to reign? Who will take control of the incident? Who will write it up and report back on it? To whom will he or she report?
That leads me to another point. At present, there is no statutory British Transport Police authority, nor is there one for the Ministry of Defence Police. I am afraid that I do not know about the Atomic Energy Authority's special constables. However, I understand that authorities are to be created certainly for the BTP and MoD Police and I welcome that.
262
It is essential that when we are proposing extended powers to other law enforcement agencies we make them accountable. That is the convention when we talk about how the powers of our regular police officers are scrutinised. It is done through published local policing plans and rigorous consultation with members of the public. This legislation will be in place long before the creation of such bodies and in the mean time the Government are proposing to give wide-ranging powers to officers from those three services before proper scrutiny of their working can be put into place. That worries me.
I believe that there are existing and adequate powers for the police to carry out searches, examinations and fingerprinting of those in detention. The powers extend PACE to include "for identification purposes". If someone does not voluntarily admit to having an identifying mark, the police will be able to order him to submit to a search in order to ascertain whether or not he has a mark. How will they do that? May reasonable force be used? Will the person, perforce, have to submit to a strip search? If not, how can the police conclusively say whether or not there are identifying marks?
Similarly, in seeking the removal of face coverings the Government must explain why it is felt necessary to seek a new power to remove coverings even when the person requested to do so has not been arrested. Powers already exist for the police to remove anything worn to disguise identity.
Living as I do in the North of England, and coming into the winter months, I regularly see young people going about their business wearing balaclavas or hoods. It seems to be a fashion fad at the moment. They may be intent on mischief but I do not believe that they are intent on terrorism. The same applies to people attending football matches or lawful demonstrations. The point is that this part of the Bill would give wide-ranging powers to police officers before an offence has been committed and 1 believe it to be unnecessary, as does the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland and Scottish Ministers, who do not intend to use those particular powers. If the Government believe that it is necessary, why do we need these particular powers now? There will be ample time to debate them at leisure during the passage of the police Bill which is proposed in the next Session. It seems to me that they have little to do with stopping terrorism.
The Bill constantly puts the onus on the police officer with language such as "reasonably believes that", "that it is expedient to", or "reasonably expected to" and so forth. Again, our regular officers in the front line will have to balance their powers finely. That is a recipe for bitter confrontation, especially when dealing with young people and ethnic minorities at a time when we desperately need their support. An extension of PACE and stop and search powers is not necessary, could create conflict and will hamper good community relations. I urge the Government to look carefully at these proposals as we move through the various stages of the Bill.
11.16 p.m.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, the hour is late and I shall not weary noble Lords by repeating points already made. Much has been said with which I agree; there are some matters with which I disagree. But all speakers have been interesting and thought-provoking. Much has been said about Part 4. I have found the debate useful but worrying. I support the principles but suspect that there will be difficulties with the detail. Clauses 98 to 101 deal with the jurisdiction of the MoD and the British Transport police. I know that noble Lords will consider the position carefully in Committee.
The noble Baroness, Lady Harris, raised some concerns, particularly the matter of precedence. I do not believe that there will be difficulty in that regard. When we debated the British Transport Police recently it became apparent that when that force helped the Home Office police the latter would have primacy in the incident. When the Territorial Army works with the Regular Army sometimes there are similar difficulties over rank. As a major I have found myself deferring to a regular captain because he has the expertise. I believe that in the situations to which the noble Baroness alluded the same will happen.
I fear that there may be a gap in the Bill because it does not cover service policemen: the Royal Military Police and the RAF Police. Obviously, that may not be necessary at present, but it may be desirable to have a reserve power under the affirmative resolution procedure. It would be unfortunate if it was found necessary to return to Parliament for further primary legislation at a later date. However, it may be difficult to draft suitable amendments to the Bill.
I share the concerns of the noble Baroness about the lack of a police authority for the British Transport Police and the MoD Police. I worry that this Bill will make a BTP and MoD Police Bill less likely. We are aware of a number of anomalies relating to the British Transport Police and ironically this Bill may create a delay in dealing with them. Obviously, the priority is this measure.
The purpose of the Bill is to give the authorities the necessary legislative tools to do their job, but they also need the necessary equipment. Undoubtedly, the UK will face threats that it has not encountered before. However, that does not mean that there are no government organisations with the relevant expertise. Therefore, when a police force or security organisation asks the Home Office to approve a new piece of equipment it will have a government organisation to whom it can turn. Difficulty may arise if the equipment for which the organisation desires approval is already in use in another sophisticated friendly country, particularly the United States, but is not approved in the UK. The noble and learned Lord and the Home Office Minister know exactly what I am talking about. What assurance can the Government give that our police forces and other security organisations will not be denied access to equipment simply because the time or resources are not available to evaluate it in the UK? The Ministers appear to be slightly confused. I wrote to the noble Lord. Lord Rooker, this morning and left
264
the envelope in the Prince's Chamber Judging by the expression on the noble Lord's face perhaps he has not yet received it.
My noble friend Lord Marlesford raised some interesting points about passports and identity cards. Many of the difficulties that he described also relate to equipment capabilities. I, too, am very disappointed with the lack of progress on a firearms data base, which has some peripheral relevance to the matters we are discussing.
There may also be a problem of excessive demand for security equipment which cannot be met by the original manufacturer's production resources. There is nothing unusual about licensing agreements or manufacturing at several sites and in different countries in order to meet an emergency demand. Can the noble and learned Lord assure the House that a lack of production capacity would never be a reason for non-availability of the anti-terrorist equipment desired by our police forces? The Minister may of course prefer to write to me.
11.20 p.m.
Lord Warner: My Lords, it is with some trepidation that I rise to speak very briefly to Part 5 of the Bill. which is concerned with incitement to religious hatred. A number of noble Lords have touched on this part of the Bill and I share their concern about getting into the complex area covered by Part 5. I am more cautious in my approach to Part 5 than my noble friend Lord Harris.
I have the highest regard for my right honourable friend the Home Secretary and I understand why he included the provisions in Part 5. They are there from the best of motives. They show the Government responding with sensitivity to concerns in the Muslim communities that they might become the victims of incitement to religious hatred in the wake of the terrible events of 11th September. That was fully acknowledged by my noble friend Lord Ahmed in his thoughtful speech.
I am the last person to want to give any encouragement to the whipping up of religious hatred. Indeed, I speak as a long-standing member of the easygoing wing of the religiously indifferent and uninvolved. My concern about Part 5 is that it might turn out to be a case study of the law of unintended consequences, with the legislation being used against some of those whom it is intended to protect.
The word "hatred" has a range of dictionary definitions, including "active dislike" and "ill will". A large number of things could be said by a person of a particular set of beliefs that could be adjudged to be inciting people to active dislike or ill will towards another group with different beliefs. My understanding of the beliefs and textual interpretations of some adherents of different religions is that they can produce some fairly blood-curdling utterances about those who do not share their religious beliefs.
Given that Part 5 seems to apply to utterances that could relate to overseas groups, there seems to be plenty of scope in these provisions for unintended,

265]
unpleasant and messy consequences. All religions have their proportion of zealots, and I have an uneasy feeling that Part 5 will bring them out into the open, with consequences that we may well regret, as the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, indicated.
Looking at the wording of the Bill, if I were inclined to pick a legal fight with a group I disliked, it would not be that difficult to produce evidence of the intention and likelihood of stirring up religious hatred that would require the police to investigate my claim. It would only be after the police had investigated that the safeguards of the DPP and my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General having to decide whether to bring charges would kick-in. Although I have every confidence in the judgment of my noble and learned friend, we would be unleashing a number of fruitless police inquiries and unpredictable inter-religious disputes that would be meat and drink to the media.
If I thought Part 5 of the Bill would protect us against terrorism I would have more sympathy with it. But I cannot see that it will. It seems to me more likely to bring Parliament, the courts and the police inappropriately into the territory of religious belief, requiring them to arbitrate on acceptable and unacceptable expressions of those beliefs.
I have considerable concerns about the likelihood of the unintended adverse consequences that would flow from Part 5 of the Bill. I ask my noble friend the Minister and my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General to think again about the value of including these provisions in the Bill. If we are thought to need further legislation aimed at protecting religious beliefs and their expression, I would hope that this could be a free-standing Bill following a proper public debate and a careful weighing of the options. I do not necessarily agree with my noble friend Lord Ahmed about legislation on religious discrimination, but I do agree with him that if there is to be such legislation, that would be a better vehicle for the territory that is covered in Part 5.
11.25 p.m.
Lord Neill of Bladen: My Lords, perhaps I may take advantage of the gap to make a few brief observations on three topics. The first two relate to Parts 12 and 13, and I want to add my voice to those of others who have said that these provisions should find no place in the Bill. Perhaps I may address Part 12 first, dealing with corruption and the bribery of foreign officials.
Anyone who knows about the criminal law of bribery will know that it is almost a standing joke that reforms have been called for for anything up to 40 years in this field and nothing has been done. The earliest unimplemented recommendations known to me are those of Lord Salmon, whose committee followed the Poulson affair. More recently, there have been reports from the Law Commission on the topic of bribery and corruption. The committee of which I had the honour to be chairman, the Committee on Standards in Public Life, endorsed some of the earlier recommendations. Then, in 1997, there was an OECD
266
convention on the bribery of foreign public officials. To put it in a nutshell, there is a whole area of law here that needs to be reviewed and looked at as a whole subject, and properly reformed. What we are given in the Bill is just a few snippets aimed at foreign types of corruption. It contains a limited number of provisions dealing with a confined aspect of corruption. It is a major topic, which should be tackled and introduced in either a separate Bill or in different conditions, without the haste that we have here.
In passing, perhaps I may say a word about the argument advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. If I heard him correctly, he was saying that we want to go a bit easy on this recommendation about no bribes to get a foreign contract, because if our businessmen do not pay bribes there will be others overseas who will be perfectly willing to do so. It may be that I did not hear the noble Lord very well. Perhaps he had his tongue in his cheek. But it seems to me that that is not a message that ought to go out from this House. That is all that I want to say on corruption. It is a big topic and it should be looked at seriously.
Secondly, as regards Clauses 110 and 111 providing for the implementation of the third pillar via delegated legislation, I urge on the House the view that we do not want to proceed in this hugger-mugger way of altering our law. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, mentioned by way of example that there may be three conventions that ought to be implemented and this would be a way of doing it. But what we are doing is signing a blank cheque for all kinds of possible new provisions, including, if we read Clause 110(7), certain criminal offences. I find it extremely difficult to make out what the definition of them is, but undoubtedly the power to create new provisions by secondary legislation extends to criminal offences. It occurred to me that there may be issues here that are fit for consideration by the Select Committee on the European Union which could warn us and tell us what is the full scope of the words relating to the third pillar and the scope of what might be introduced. I do not believe that anyone in this House has the slightest idea of the width of the provision. There is no time to go into the definition of the third pillar, but that in itself is a complicated matter.
The third matter I want to address is the ousting of judicial review. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, said that Queen's Counsel will be wishing to preserve their playground. I hope that he was not wishing to incite hatred against a class or sub-class of the community. But the effect of the provisions in Clause 30(1) and Clause 34(8) is quite serious. The clauses provide for no form of judicial review.
Why has streamlined review not been thought about? The idea seems to be that we should have the full process. I read a report in the newspaper of an extradition case that has taken three years to come to the House of Lords. If it decides aversely against the applicant, the case will go back to the Minister, and then there can be another round of judicial review possibly lasting a further three years. One has only to tell that to the man in the street for him to say, "That is scandalous. It is absurd". Is not it time that we got a

267
grip on our procedures for appeal? We can have swift, expedited appeals before an ordinary court. It is difficult to understand why this should be some closed community. I shall return to that point in a moment.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell—I am sorry he is not present—referred to the case of Anisminit. I am sure in his scholarly review of the case he noticed the names of counsel. I happened to be one of the counsel; I declare an interest in it. In that case, we were lucky to find a way by which the court could get round an ouster clause. Generally speaking, a clause which says that the court shall not review such-and-such a decision is a complete bar. Unless you can find some abuse, such as abuse of natural justice or some evident illegality by the tribunal, you have no hope of getting round it. The noble Earl was too optimistic in thinking that the courts would find ways round it. It is very difficult. You have to be very lucky with the evidence you manage to obtain.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I rise only to remind the noble Lord that there is a convention in the House that speeches in the gap should be limited to no longer than four minutes.
Lord Neill of Bladen: My Lords, I say no more.
11.32 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, we are at last on the home stretch. I declare an interest. I am vice-chairman of the council of Justice, an organisation which among other things has produced what I regard as an extremely valuable briefing paper for this debate.
We have had a wide debate which has crossed party lines. I have found myself in agreement not only with my noble friend Lord Maclennan in his distinguished maiden speech, and other noble friends, but also with many speakers on other Benches. I hope that other noble Lords will forgive me if I single out in particular the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, and the noble Lord, Lord Brennan. I noted that of eight speakers from the Government Back Benches only the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, gave anything like full support to his Government. I await with interest the reply of the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General. The Government may recognise that if one has a bad case one needs to get the best advocate one can buy. Advocates do not come better than the Attorney-General.
I recognise that the 11th September changed the world. Those people who planned and carried out the atrocities demonstrated an organisational skill, fanaticism and rejection of all the norms of human behaviour which was breathtaking. We have therefore supported the Government's actions and their support of the US in the destruction of the Al'Qaeda network and the removal of the Taliban tyranny. Those who commit or sponsor terrorism must, wherever they may be and as soon as possible, be brought to justice.
We cannot say that an 11th September atrocity can never happen in this country. I agree with the analysis of the risk by the noble and learned Lord, Lord
268
Mayhew. As the closest allies of the US. we are, next to them, a prime target. We can and do support all proper steps that can be taken to defend the people of the United Kingdom against tyranny. Had the Government introduced a short and focused Bill, limited specifically to the essential measures to deal with the heightened threat of terrorism, we would have supported it. However, the Government have introduced a vast Bill going far beyond the immediate problem. I remember the furore when Jo Moore sent an e-mail on 11th September saying that it was a good opportunity to release stories that her department wished to bury. What the Government have done with this Bill is to use llth September to resurrect bits and pieces of legislation which have little or nothing to do with terrorism and to tack them on to what is supposed to be an emergency Bill. That is not so different in principle from Jo Moore's action.
In principle, we support Parts 1 and 2 on terrorist property and freezing orders. I was interested by the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, that those parts do not go far enough. He may be right. We support Part 6 on weapons of mass destruction; Part 7 on pathogens and toxins; Part 8 on the security of the nuclear industry; and Part 9 on aviation security. We have concerns about some issues—such as the role of the Atomic Energy Authority Police, to which my noble friend Lady Harris of Richmond referred.
We support also Part 12, which deals with bribery and corruption outside the United Kingdom. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker. We understood that Part 12 had all-party support. Although we agree that it is technically out of place in an emergency Bill, it does not require much further debate and is unlikely to take up much time. Like the noble Lord, Lord Neill of Bladen, I was concerned at the attitude of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith: "Everybody does it, so we must go on doing it too'. Corruption is an enormous evil that contributes greatly to poverty in much of the developing world.
Part 12 implements the OECD convention that was ratified by this country in 1998. We have been criticised for our continuing failure to implement that convention. I suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, looks at the House of Commons research paper on Part 12 that is available in the Library.
I refer to parts of the Bill that are not targeted at terrorism or matters of urgency outside the context of terrorism and need much fuller discussion than they will receive here. Part 3 deals with the use of information held by public authorities for the purposes of criminal investigation and proceedings. It is not concerned with just terrorist crimes but with any crimes. My noble friend Lord Phillips spoke strongly on that subject and I agree with him.
Schedule 4 lists no fewer than 53 UK statutes and 13 pieces of Northern Ireland legislation. Information that is given to public authorities under those statutes will be made available to those investigating and proceeding against crime—including overseas authorities. Part 3 raises serious questions under data

269
protection laws, the right not to incriminate oneself and the right to privacy under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It is not appropriate for inclusion in the Bill.
Part 5 deals with religious hatred. We regret that reports that the Government were intending to omit the new crime of incitement to religious hatred have turned out to be untrue. We already have a crime of incitement to racial hatred. Many support the extension of that offence to cover religious hatred—including the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, and my noble friend Lord Dholakia. I agree that provision should be contained in a separate Bill. There are many issues to debate. Can we be sure that the new crime would not interfere unduly with freedom of speech? People must remain free to criticise and even ridicule others' beliefs. We cannot ban Monty Python's "Life of Brian", which caused offence to many Christians, or impose our own fatwah on "The Satanic Verses".
Should such a measure stop at race and religion or extend to other hate crimes, such as homophobia? Should we couple the introduction of the crime of incitement to religious hatred with the abolition of the outdated crime of blasphemy? There are mixed views on the merits of the new crime. The noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, speaks for many Muslims who support it but some Muslim groups fear that the new crime may be targeted not at protecting them but at being against them. They should be consulted. It is wrong to introduce such a new crime without full consultation or any consultation.
Parts 10 and 11 give the police extended powers to search, examine, fingerprint and photograph suspects without their consent and to insist on the removal of disguises. Those powers are not limited to terrorist suspects. This is not the time to go into the merits of such proposals. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester spoke powerfully, as did the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed. They are plainly a major extension of police powers going far beyond terrorism and are wholly inappropriate for rushed legislation such as this.
Part 11 is similar. The retention of communication data is useful for terrorist investigation, but Part 11 goes far beyond terrorism. Again, this is a contentious issue. Unless Part 11 is limited to terrorist crimes, it should not be in the Bill.
Clauses 110 and 111 enable agreements on third pillar matters to be enacted by secondary legislation. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, of which I am a member, has published a highly critical report. I agree with the noble Lords, Lord Waddington and Lord Brennan, on the subject. Third pillar agreements can include matters of great public importance that are obviously inappropriate for secondary legislation.
As everybody knows, we on these Benches are strong supporters of the European Union. But we do not support those clauses. They do not extend the powers of the European Union over the United
270
Kingdom. They could not do that. because all third pillar agreements require the unanimous consent of member states. The clauses extend the powers of the executive over Parliament because they deprive Parliament of the right to consider new legislation by the normal parliamentary processes. The comparison with Section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972 is flawed and unsound. The clauses should be removed from the Bill.
Part 4 is the most controversial aspect of the Bill. It is unquestionably targeted on terrorism. I understand the Government's problem. There is a small group of people who have no right to be in the United Kingdom and whose presence may be a danger to national security. They cannot be deported or extradited to a country that may execute or torture them. Let us assume that it is also not possible to find a third country that is willing to accept them and to which they are willing to go. In a few cases, I do not think that we should rule out detention as a possible option, but the controls on that must be extremely strict. They are far from strict enough in the Bill.
At least four necessary safeguards do not appear in the Bill. First, I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, and the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, and many other speakers that judicial review must not be excluded. It may be that the right of appeal to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission provides sufficient legal protection to the detainee. If the courts believe that, any application to the ordinary courts for judicial review will be rejected. However, the possibility of judicial review should never be excluded. This is an extremely bad precedent, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, said. If the Government get away with it this time, they will be tempted to try again. Judicial review must be retained as an essential element.
Secondly, cases should be reviewed at intervals of not more than three months, as opposed to the six-month period proposed. Thirdly, the sunset clause for Part 4 should not have to wait for five years. The period should be one year so that we can reconsider the whole matter as soon as possible as part of new primary legislation if the Government wish to continue with it. A year is twice as long as was provided for in the Act passed by my noble friend Lord Jenkins in 1974.
Fourthly, wherever possible a detainee should be charged and tried in the United Kingdom rather than kept in detention without trial. This is a very important consideration. I believe that the United Kingdom courts should be given jurisdiction to try all terrorist offences wherever they are committed, whoever commits them and whoever the victims are.
The present law is a patchwork of jurisdictions. The United Kingdom courts have universal jurisdiction over some terrorist offences; for example, under Section 62 of the Terrorism Act 2000 over acts of terrorism involving the use of explosives or biological or chemical weapons. But the courts do not have jurisdiction over all terrorist offences. The United Kingdom courts probably would not have jurisdiction

271
to try anyone who planned or assisted the 11th September atrocities unless that assistance had been given in the United Kingdom. I believe that terrorist offences should be crimes of universal jurisdiction as piracy has long been and as other crimes such as torture now are. None of these safeguards would endanger national security. We shall be unable to give support to Part 4 of the Bill unless those safeguards are added. I also agree with my noble friends Lord Dholakia and Lord Russell that it is wrong to deny access to the asylum procedures for people who are suspected of terrorism and that Clauses 34 and 35 should go from the Bill.
I add this: the idea that the European Convention on Human Rights is something which we can leave and return to at will, as suggested by the noble Lords, Lord Dixon-Smith and Lord Waddington, is completely unacceptable and unrealistic. That is especially so if the purpose is to allow suspects to be sent back to death or torture. That would be far worse than keeping people here in detention. I agree with what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, said on the issue.
The Government should be ashamed of this Bill. It introduces detention without trial, admittedly in special circumstances, but without enough safeguards. It extends police powers not only over terrorism but over ordinary crime. It extends the powers of the state to obtain and use information over a wide spectrum and for purposes not limited to terrorism. It gives the executive power to push important legislation through Parliament by statutory instrument. The Bill does all these things on the basis of legislation which has been considered for no more than three days in the other place and is being considered in an extreme hurry in your Lordships' House. This is not the way to deal with important legislation which is contentious and much of which does not warrant the urgency which would justify this exceptional procedure. The Government do not deserve an easy ride and I do not believe that they will get one in your Lordships' House.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, can he give an undertaking that if none of his concerns is listened to by the Government and if they argue against them the Government will be defeated, that the Liberal Democrat Party—and this applies to my noble friends on the Front Bench—will not duck from our responsibility if we do not agree with the Commons and this matter continues in the way it threatens to?
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I believe that these are extremely important issues. I very much hope that the Government will see the force of the proposals that we have made and accept them. I warn them that if they do not do so, they face a very real risk of very serious trouble.
11.49 p.m.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, in winding up this excellent and sometimes controversial debate on behalf of Her Majesty's Opposition, I shall endeavour to reflect briefly on some of the many salient points
272
raised by your Lordships and offer some additional points for the noble and learned Lord, the Attorney-General, to answer. Perhaps I may begin by joining others in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan of Rogart, on his eloquent and thoughtful maiden speech.
This Bill contains far-reaching measures, some of which have little or nothing to do with combating terrorism. If the powers contained therein were temporary, perhaps it would not matter quite so much. However, even Government Ministers seem unaware of its true implications.
The Secretary of Slate for Defence, the right honourable Geoff Hoon MP, stated on the Frost programme on 11th November 2001, when the Bill was already in draft form,
"This is a temporary measure to deal with a particular problem".
It is our duty to ensure, to the best of our ability, that measures which will not assist our fight against terrorism and which in some instances are unacceptably draconian, are exposed and opposed.
My noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew of Twysden, when speaking in the debated Motion last week to approve an order to derogate from Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights, recalled the words of Lord Atkin in the case of Liversidge v Anderson 59 years ago. Lord Atkin warned that,
"amid the clash of arms, the laws arc not silent, they may be changed but they speak the same language in war as in peace".
A fundamental difference between that time of war and now is that it was believed then that hostilities would last only a few more years.
Now we are faced with a different kind of hostility and one which may afflict us for many years to come. It is therefore all the more important that we consider with care the proposals before us. As the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, said, rushed legislation is very often not effective legislation. That point was also stressed by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. At least we have allowed ourselves some time for scrutiny, unlike our elected colleagues in another place. So much for democracy!
I turn to the Bill itself. First, with regard to terrorist property we have already heard concerns regarding the jurisdiction for dealing with these very sensitive and often complex matters. We contend that magistrates' courts are not the right place and, indeed, the Proceeds of Crime Bill currently in another place addresses that point. So please can we have some consistency?
Part 2, relating to the freezing of assets, exposes a very anti-social proposal. It seems that this Government want to freeze the assets of individuals or corporations who, by whatever means, act to the detriment of our economy, whether or not that action is unlawful. The test,
"action to the detriment of the UK economy",
will cover foreign exchange dealers operating in Frankfurt and dealing in sterling—an activity which is currently legitimate.
Taking that one step further, imagine how Germany would react if, for example, the Deutsche Bund proposed a hostile hid for the London Stock

273
Exchange, and the Treasury, thinking that a bad idea (the test is purely subjective) applied for a freezing order on the Deutsche Bund funds to stop the transaction taking place. Can the Attorney-General tell us tonight whether that is part of the Prime Minister's positive vision for Europe?
Turning to Part 3, at first glance I thought it all looked familiar and quickly realised that these very same proposals were, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, dropped at our insistence from the Criminal Justice and Police Bill earlier this year, because the Government had not allowed Parliament enough time to scrutinise them properly. Indeed, those proposals were not scrutinised at all in another place last time and nor in consideration of this Bill. Incidentally, when the proposals were presented to us in the Criminal Justice and Police Bill, I do not recall any mention of terrorism.
We would not mind so much if the effect of these clauses was to fight terrorism. That is our purpose and should be the purpose of this Bill.
So will the Attorney-General answer concerns that have been expressed both in the media and in another place with regard to these proposals that provide for the disclosure of confidential information across an enormously wide range of government agencies? It is our contention that these proposals will enable all government agencies to share information with police forces from anywhere in the world. That raises concerns in respect of the need for a process to approve the provision of information, especially where the criminal investigation is taking place in a country where there is inadequate data protection legislation.
In addition, Clauses 17 and 19 allow police to trawl through files to consider whether a crime has been committed, even when there is no evidence that a crime has been committed. Also, Part 3 treats all data in the same manner, with no regard to whether it is personal, possibly sensitive data, confidential business information or information requiring less stringent protection.
Moving to Part 4, will the noble and learned Lord explain to your Lordships tonight why someone who seeks to terrorise UK citizens by means of bombs or otherwise on account of some alleged grievance arising in the UK or against its government should not be treated the same as someone who does so on account of an overseas problem? How can the Government even begin to talk tough on terrorism if they are afraid of upsetting known terrorists who have plagued the lives of all of us on these shores for the past 30 years and more?
In support of my noble friend Lord Selsdon, I ask what gives this Government the moral standing imperiously to demand that other countries should take tough action against terrorists when those terrorists affect us, if we are not prepared to treat all known terrorists on an equal footing in this country.
Much has been said about internment. We on these Benches will endeavour to persuade the Government that there is a viable alternative, that we can achieve a
274
better balance between protecting our safety—safety that experience warns us will be undermined if we intern without trial—and protecting the very fabric of our liberties. We urge the Government to consider, pursuant to Articles 57 and 58 of the European Convention on Human Rights, removing ourselves from the convention for one brief moment and then reentering with a reservation parallel to, although more restrictive than, the reservation that the French have entered into in respect of a deemed national emergency.
The Home Secretary would then have two ways of attacking the problem instead of just one when the one (currently proposed in the Bill) has serious drawbacks concerning the safety of the citizens of the United Kingdom.
We understand the reluctance to deport those who may as a result be in fear of their lives. However, as we speak, the double standards currently entertained by this Government are breathtaking. Let me quote my honourable friend Oliver Letwin, MP, who said last week in another place:
"f cannot understand how it can be right to refuse to extradite a gentleman whom we are trying to kill elsewhere".—[Official Report, Commons, 19/11/01; co1.51.]
As my noble friend Lord Waddington said this evening, the Government are asking us to bow to a situation whereby if Osama bin Laden comes here claiming asylum, not only would we have to admit him to this country, but we could not extradite him to the United States if the Americans decided that they wanted to apply the death penalty. In that case, are the Government against him being bombed to death or even killed by one of our own troops in Afghanistan? In essence, are the Government willing to accept the consequential risk to all our lives of detaining without trial either bin Laden or any of his associates because that is just one foreseeable consequence of the Bill? Deportation to a list of countries prescribed and regularly reviewed by the Home Secretary offers a sensible and safer alternative.
Turning to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC), can the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General clarify for us tonight the Secretary of State's thoughts regarding SIAC and the parameters of Clause 29? The noble and learned Lord will recall that in Committee in another place the Secretary of State undertook to examine whether or not an appeal on a point of law includes appeals on the point of SIAC failing to follow its own procedures. Incidentally, the Minister sets great store by the fact that SIAC was set up following full debate in both Houses. We accept that. However, as has already been said this evening, it was set up for a very different purpose and we find it hard to accept that it is—with respect I quote the words of the Minister this evening—the "best instrument we could fashion".
I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General will heed the words of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway that these measures fail the minimum test of natural justice, or in the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, fly in the face of natural justice.

275
With regard to Part 5, in short, although we believe that the provisions are well intended, it is our belief that they are unworkable and may cause more injustice and misery by default. To confuse the protection of any minority, but particularly Muslim minorities, with counter-terrorism creates an association which in itself is dangerous and derogatory. And because the provisions fail in the noble attempt to address difficult issues, we suggest that, rather than tinker in haste, we should all have the opportunity to consult more widely and then to consider carefully, in a separate Bill. how we can outlaw violence caused by religious hatred without compromising our coveted rights to freedom of speech.
The noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, spoke with passion about the Muslim experience in this country. I noted that he would rather see these matters considered in a separate Bill than accept the carrot-and-stick approach. The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, said that it was patronising to suggest that measures are necessary as a result of 11th September—as if the acts that the Bill seeks to outlaw are something new. Let us also recall the prediction of the noble Lord, Lord Desai, that this will be seen as a special concession to the Muslim community. As he said, such a move will not help that community.
It is not at all clear what emergency need is met by inclusion of the provisions relating to police powers. Police powers are extended in several ways which appear to be unrelated to the investigation of terrorist activities. Further, it is hard to see how clauses relating to powers to insist upon the removal of head coverings in certain instances and the removal of any garment thought to he a disguise when in a pre-designated area or time are justified unless they are aimed at those wearing turbans or veils. Surely that move is in conflict with the principle behind creating a religiously aggravated offence. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord can reassure us on that point.
We have been told to expect a police reform Bill later in this Session. We believe that these provisions would be better placed in such a Bill, with more time for consultation and scrutiny.
I turn to the subject of the retention of communications data. Compliance with a code of practice or agreement would be no guarantee of compliance with the Data Protection Act 1998. As my noble friend Lord Northesk said, rapid access to focused intelligence is required. We question whether the broad data protection measures proposed achieve that objective or whether they simply create overload. Following on from what my noble friend Lord Northesk asked in relation to Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, can the noble and learned Lord confirm that these proposals comply? We also have real doubts about the need to extend the period for which data is required.
With regard to the third pillar, the provisions enable a wide range of EU measures relating to police and judicial co-operation on criminal matters, whether concerned with terrorism or not, to be brought into effect in the United Kingdom by means of secondary
276
legislation. That point was pressed eloquently by noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Goodhart, Lord Brennan and Lord Hylton, my noble friends Lord Waddington and Lord Campbell of Alloway and my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew. They asked how such serious criminal offences could be dealt with in this way. In the light of what the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform has reported in relation to this part of the Bill, in all authority how can the Minister justify retaining these clauses in the Bill?
In conclusion, there will be much to consider in the coming days. It is our hope that the Government will respectfully listen to our concerns. As the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, said, the Government must justify each and every encroachment upon our freedoms. They must listen and respond in the knowledge that we want this Bill to have the practical effect of combating terrorism in a number of ways—no more or less than that. We shall not accept any suggestion that criticism of some aspects of the Bill means that we are soft on terrorism.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, will she also give the undertaking that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. gave on behalf of the Liberal Democrats? I suspect that that was only 60 per cent of what I should have liked to hear. Will she give the undertaking from our Front Bench, too, that we shall go as far as possible, including forcing the Government to use the Parliament Act if that is considered necessary, to ensure that we protect the liberties and freedoms of our people? The dangers that the Bill produces have been pointed out from all sides of the House. Can she give us such an undertaking?
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, it is our hope and belief that through the power of argument in this place we shall have the opportunity to persuade the Government to move in several important areas. I am reluctant to commit to more than that tonight.
12.4 a.m.
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, this has been a long debate in which many important points have been raised. It is right that it has been long: the length is justified by the importance of the issues—the protection of the people of this country from terrorist attack—and by the significance of the measures that the Government propose to deal with that threat.
The quality of the debate would have been high in any event but it has been enhanced by the reports of the Joint Committee on Human Rights and the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. Both of the reports were produced in very short time, for which we are grateful. Several noble Lords have referred to those reports, and I shall return to the points that they raised.
I add my congratulations to those extended to the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, who made his maiden speech. I had the pleasure and privilege of serving with him on the Joint Committee on Human Rights until the general election. I am very pleased to see him in this

277
place. He asked whether a good swap was involved in his coming here and Lord Thurso going to another place. I will not be tempted down that route, save to point out that I am sure that all noble Lords very much welcome the noble Lord here and look forward to many more of his contributions.
Because of the length of the debate and the late hour, I shall do my best to deal with the main points among the many that were raised. Some of those points—this was very helpful—were made to indicate matters that would be covered in Committee. I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I do not reply to those points at this stage.
There has been at least a large measure of agreement around the House on one critical issue it was described by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, as the reality that the Government have set about dealing with. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, quoted—with, as I understood it, approval—United States commentators who suggested that there was a clear and present danger, and I believe that he, too, supported the Government in seeking to tackle that.
There is a large measure of agreement on this issue. With chilling words, the noble Lord, Lord McNally, pointed out the ease with which terrorists could, with little difficulty, bring death and suffering to thousands of innocent people on September 11th. That clear and present danger required the Government to act to protect the people of this country.
I take the liberty of echoing the words of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, who reminded Members at the Bill's Third Reading yesterday in another place that we are engaging in the measure precisely because the bombings of the embassies in Tanzania and Kenya and the subsequent attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon were planned years in advance. The thwarted attacks in Jordan and on the US embassy in Paris were planned months, if not years, in advance. Whatever is currently taking place around us, those who are prepared to provide suicide bombers to attack others will have had their preparation—their network, funding and organisation—in place for a very long time.
Whatever the success we have in Afghanistan in freeing the people and pushing the Taliban, Al'Qaeda and bin Laden back into the mountains, we are still at risk. Those who dismiss that risk and pretend that because September 11th occurred weeks ago we can set it aside are making a grave error. I do not believe that that error is made by at least the majority of noble Lords, if not all of them.
Those events demonstrate that we now face a terrorist threat that is quite different from anything that we have previously faced. The scale of the atrocities was completely new. The attacks could not have been mounted without careful and sophisticated planning over many years. As my noble friend Lord Harris said, there was a complete change of scale. It is also right to remind ourselves of the threat restated by Osama bin Laden of a preparedness to use nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. My noble friend
278
Lady Kennedy of The Shaws drew attention to the intention to include in the Bill a provision outlawing the use of nuclear weapons. That seems to me not a matter of adverse comment but something which is entirely right to see in the Bill.
I remind noble Lords of the distinguishing feature of the attacks suffered; that is, an absence of warning. We do not know from where or at what time they may come. Some noble Lords, including those on the Opposition Front Bench, believe that the Government have not gone far enough. Others believe that we are going too far in some areas. As my noble friend Lord Rooker said, we could have put forward different measures. However, the Government believe that they have struck the right balance between individual liberties and the necessary protection of the people of and in this country, and a proportionate and appropriate response.
The Joint Committee on Human Rights recognised in its conclusions that the Government had made a sincere effort to safeguard rights while addressing the threat. Perhaps I may say to my noble friend Lady Whitaker that the Government carefully considered the comments in that report and have already responded to some.
The Bill is a sincere attempt to do no more than address the threat. Some noble Lords questioned whether certain provisions are required. It is the judgment of the responsible Ministers that they are. It must be remembered that a neat and tidy compartmentalisation into terrorism and other crime may not always be easy. The links between organised crime and terrorism can be clear. Drug money and other serious organised crime can be used to fund terrorism. As a result, in the early stages of investigation it may be hard to be sure that the crimes being planned or committed are specifically terrorist offences.
The Bill is wide ranging because it is designed to cover the new kind of terrorism which we now face. That means we have to review and, where essential, strengthen provision in many areas. It is not about dusted-off ideas, but about proposals which, in the judgment of the Government, are now needed to ensure that we are ready for this changed world and changed threat.
By way of example, several noble Lords referred to the proposed police powers relating to identifying marks or the removal of face coverings. I shall return to other observations made about those powers. How could that power be limited to cases only of a terrorist nature when, until the person is revealed and identified, his or her identity might not be clear; his or her connection with terrorist matters would not be known; nor would it be known what further investigation would need to take place?
Over the days to come noble Lords will carefully scrutinise these powers. That is why eight days have been set aside for that process. No doubt everyone would have preferred—
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. In the matter of face

279
coverings, will he consider allowing an exemption for people such as the victims of the Paddington train crash who need to wear face coverings for medical reasons?
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, what I was going to say, and I shall gladly say now in response to the question of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, is that there must plainly be sensitivity to particular aspects—not just the one referred to by the noble Earl, but also, as mentioned by my noble friend Lord Ahmed, cultural and religious issues. Those matters will be the subject of a protocol, which has been referred to in another place, as to the exercise of powers. I shall come back to that point.
We recognise that the time necessary to deal with the Bill is a burden on all noble Lords. We would have preferred that llth September had not occurred and that therefore the urgency for the Bill would not have been necessary. We very much appreciate that the noble Lords, Lord Dixon-Smith and Lord McNally, expressed appreciation for what has been done so far to help in terms of dealing with the Bill. My noble friend Lord Rooker and I and others will continue to do what we can to assist noble Lords in their consideration of it.
I shall deal first with Part 4 and Part 5 of the Bill. Those are two of the most controversial of the provisions. I shall then deal with the other provisions. The Opposition Front Bench would have us go further than we have. They would have a denunciation of the convention and what they describe as "a reservation". The suggestion was made by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, that other member states have done that. That is not the information that I have. But that can no doubt be looked at. I am proud to be part of a Government who do not want to throw aside our human rights obligations as is proposed.
It is important to set the context in which the powers in Part 4 arise. There has been, at least in some places outside this House, some lack of full understanding. The first and important point to note is that it relates to a person where there are grounds for deportation or to require that person to leave the country under existing immigration laws. For someone who is not a British citizen, who has no right to enter or remain in the United Kingdom and who is refused leave to enter, or someone in respect of whom a court makes a deportation order—again, not a British citizen—under existing immigration law there is a power to deport. There is also a power to detain such persons pending examination or removal.
That is an existing power contained in the Immigration Act 1971. Sometimes that detention can take, because of the appeal process, a significant period of time. It took some four-and-a-half years in the case of Chahal. But there can be an impediment to deportation, either practical—there is no way of getting back to the particular country—or, and more usually, the international agreement. Our obligations, particularly under Article 3 of the European
280
convention, prevent us from removing a person where it would place him at a real risk of execution, torture or inhuman or degrading treatment.
I go further. We would not want to send people to death or torture, irrespective of that obligation. But the law has gone further because both domestic law and the ECHR have said in effect that the detention with a view to deportation which is permitted under existing law could not be used if the Secretary of State knows that there is no prospect of removal.
The Bill states that a person may be detained under those existing powers even though removal for those reasons cannot be possible. The important point to make is that the Government have not taken the step of saying that we shall deport them anyway to torture or to death; rather we say that, despite the impediment on deportation, that existing power of detention will be used.
So it is a much narrower power than some people have so far depicted. It relates only to those where there is already a right to deport and to detain pending deportation, but because of our own insistence on their human rights we are prevented from so doing. The power will then be exercised only if two further conditions are met. Those are, first, that the Secretary of State reasonably believes that the person's presence is a risk to national security and, secondly, that the Secretary of State reasonably suspects that the person is an international terrorist—not, pace the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, because the person is unpopular.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord. Does the noble and learned Lord, in that context, accept that the grounds—the substance of the grounds—for suspicion and belief should be made known to the person against whom the certificate has been granted?
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I do not accept that there should be a disclosure of sensitive intelligence information if by such disclosure we prejudice and undermine our own security. If your Lordships will permit, I shall come to that in a moment.
I venture to suggest, as did the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, that most people would accept that if a person has no right to be here; if, in addition, the Secretary of State reasonably believes that he is a risk to national security; and if, in addition, the Secretary of State reasonably suspects that he is an international terrorist, it is right to find a way of preventing that person from roaming free. Indeed, many would say that it would be remiss of the Government not to find ways to do so. That was the ultimate, hard question posed by the noble and learned Lord, with which the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, agreed. Of course, I recognise that others may take a different view, but at the end of the day, that is the dry and hard question that must be considered.
We must then consider what are the safeguards. There is no intention under the Bill not to comply fully with our obligations under the Geneva Convention.

281
Although the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester is not in his place—as he said that he would not be—I can assure him of that. I draw attention to the provisions in Clause 34, which simply and accurately track the obligations that exist under the Geneva Convention. Given the time, I will not read them, but I invite noble Lords to consider Articles 1(F) and 33(2). Clause 34 contains nothing that in any way undermines our obligations under the convention.
What are the safeguards? First, and most important, the person who is detained can bring that detention to an end by leaving if he or others find a place to which he can go. Secondly, the provisions are temporary. The powers are reviewable after 15 months and then one year. The provisions return to this House and the other place. What is more, there is a sunset clause.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, before the Minister continues, can he confirm that a suspected terrorist could choose to go to a rogue state? Would that be acceptable to the Government?
Lord Goldsmith: Yes, my Lords, if they will have him, because this is not a power to detain; it is an immigration power, as the Home Secretary has made clear.
Thirdly, there will be an independent reviewer, the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew. There is also judicial scrutiny by SIAC, to which I turn.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord; I am sorry to intervene again. Under the powers, if the suspected terrorists were returned to another European Union country, would they risk being returned here under the Dublin Convention?
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, this is not a secret sending-back of people. It would be done by agreement to a country which was prepared to take the person in question. Therefore, I do not believe that the issue arises.
One of the strange things about the law is its special language. I have always appreciated the fact that a company is called a "legal person", which rather suggests that the rest of us are somehow illegal persons. But the same is true in relation to judicial review. "Judicial review" has a special and technical meaning. It is a term of art which relates to a form of judicial scrutiny which has a limited jurisdiction.
The Special Immigration Appeals Commission procedure is a judicial review in the sense of a review by a judicial body. It is, indeed, judicial scrutiny—and scrutiny, which I want to spend a moment explaining to your Lordships, which is greater than that which would exist under judicial review. First, the commission in any hearing consists of three members. Two must be members of the judiciary—one of them must be someone who has held high judicial office (in effect, a High Court judge)—and the third must be a lay member with a good knowledge of security work. Therefore, SIAC is a judicial body.
282
Secondly, the jurisdiction is wider under the Bill than judicial review. Judicial review, properly understood, is a process where the court looks at the exercise (usually of a discretionary power by a Minister) and considers whether it has been exercised, for example, for a purpose not authorised by the legislation or used in an irrational or unreasonable manner. Normally the court in judicial review is limited not to substituting its own view of the merits but to reviewing the legality of the decision in that rather narrow sense. However, that is changing a little in the light of human rights legislation.
Under the Bill, SIAC will have wider powers. Under the wording, for example, of Clauses 25 and 26, which have been amended by the Government, SIAC will ask itself whether at the time it considers the question there are reasonable grounds for believing or suspecting that the conditions are made out.
It is not the case, as was suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, that in the Rehman case the Judicial Committee of this House had placed some constraints on SIAC. What was there said, and it would have applied to any judicial decision, was that certain judgments are better taken by democratically elected governments, not by the courts.
However, if one properly considers what one is asking SIAC to do that judicial review would do, the answer is that there is nothing that judicial review would do which is not going to be done by SIAC. There is one constraint and one constraint only: that is back to the issue of sensitive intelligence information which cannot be disclosed. In those circumstances, one must find some other method of ensuring that the evidence can be reviewed by SIAC.
Contrary to the suggestions that certain noble Lords have made, the European Court of Human Rights in certain of its judgments has been approving of the idea of SIAC. Indeed, in the Chahal case, to which reference has been made—I have the judgment here—bodies such as Amnesty International, Liberty and the Air Centre drew the court's attention to a similar procedure in Canada from which the SIAC procedure was drawn. The European Court made the following comment:
"The court recognises that the use of confidential information may be unavoidable when national security is at stake … In Canada a more effective form of judicial control has been developed in cases of this type. This example illustrates that there are techniques which can be employed which both accommodate legitimate security concerns about the nature and sources of intelligence information, yet accord the individual a substantial measure of procedural justice".
That is what has been done.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, in circumstances where neither the defendant nor his counsel is able to hear the details of the case that is being put, under the SIAC proceedings will a summary of the evidence which is laid before the commission excluding the most sensitive intelligence information be made available to that individual and his chosen counsel?
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, the precise process that SIAC would use would plainly have to be resolved for this kind of case. But I anticipate that SIAC would want to ensure that, within the limits of confidential and sensitive information, the person involved knew the case with which he had to deal. Plainly, there are limits. The important procedure provided by MAC is the special advocate procedure which means that a highly experienced lawyer is engaged—not in substitution for the lawyer whom the applicant can have but in addition—to review the information and make points on behalf of the individual that he is not in a position to make himself. That demonstrates that it can certainly be done very successfully. That was why in the case of Rehman SIAC was persuaded to make an order which was, as it happens, subsequently reversed by the courts.
I respectfully invite noble Lords to consider very carefully whether they are being mesmerised by the expression "judicial review" and to consider whether the procedure for judicial scrutiny involving a High Court judge and special advocate procedure is a proper judicial scrutiny of the kind noble Lords have been raising.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, I am very grateful to the Attorney-General. I assure the noble and learned Lord that I am not being mesmerised by anything except his own skill in seeking to justify this provision. Perhaps I may ask three questions. When the Government brought forward their proposals to set up a jurisdiction for SIAC did they seek to exclude judicial review of the commission's procedures and operations? I believe that they did not. Secondly, what is the purpose of seeking in this Bill to exclude judicial review? Thirdly, is it not the case that judicial review can perfectly well handle cases that involve extreme intelligence sensitivity, and on occasions has done so?
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I draw the attention of the noble and learned Lord to Clause 31(3)(b) which makes sure that SIAC can hear proceedings which would, but for the exclusion, be brought in the High Court or Court of Session. The fundamental proposition is that once one recognises, as one must, the problem in relation to sensitive intelligence information SIAC deals with that problem and otherwise does everything that one expects from judicial scrutiny. It can substitute a decision, look at the circumstances, quash the Secretary of State's certificate and grant bail. The result is that in those circumstances the individual may be released from detention.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, is there any provision in the statute that set up SIAC which excludes judicial review? I do not believe that there is. If that is the case, why is it necessary to exclude it here?
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I intended no discourtesy by not dealing with that question. The noble and learned Lord is quite right, but what value will judicial review on top of an existing judicial
284
scrutiny provide? All it will do is add time and delay unnecessarily when a perfectly good procedure is being provided, once it is accepted, as I suggest one must, that there needs to be some special procedure to deal with the fact that sensitive intelligence information is being used.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, perhaps the noble and learned Lord will give way. In how many other instances is any action of the Government excluded from judicial review?
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I would suggest that it is actually not uncommon that where there is a specific statutory right to go to a particular judicial body, it would be very unusual ever to expect that one would use the judicial review procedure in this strict sense, judicial review being the power of the administrative court to review the legality of particular actions. From SIAC the matter can then go to the Court of Appeal.
The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, asked whether or not a point of law could include the fact that SIAC failed to follow its own procedures. I believe the better view is that it could. So there is a proper judicial route. I respectfully suggest that the comments that have been made about a breach of natural justice and there not being proper judicial scrutiny are rather wide of the mark when one properly understands what is the procedure.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, as the noble and learned Lord has dealt with judicial review, will he deal with the much more ancient !provisions for applying for a writ of habeas corpus, which is an entirely different matter, where the person who has imprisoned or detained an individual has to justify that? Where does that fit in with SIAC?
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, SIAC has the ability, on application, to review the Secretary of State's certificate and to quash it if it considers that it ought to do that, as set out in the Bill. It has lo look at the case at certain set limits; and it can do that more frequently if there is a change of circumstances. Given the limitations because of sensitive intelligence information, that, I respectfully suggest, is a proper and satisfactory way of making sure that there is judicial scrutiny. There is no arbitrary use of power by the Secretary of State; it is subject to scrutiny by a proper judicial body.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord accept that I have dealt with habeas corpus applications where public interest immunity has been claimed by the Government? Where the judge has full control of all the material, he may, if he thinks it in the interests of the applicant so to do, release it to him.
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, the noble Lord referred to public interest immunity, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, but that is a means of keeping information away from a tribunal. We are

285
concerned to find a way that information can be put before the commission so that it can judge whether at that particular moment in time there are reasonable grounds for the suspicion that the Secretary of State has had. PII does not solve that problem; it keeps the information away rather than finding a method of getting it before the tribunal.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, with respect, the noble and learned Lord has not taken the point. The hour is late and we are perhaps getting tired.
The third point of my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew was not answered. I make no complaint. Will the noble and learned Lord assume that the High Court is fully capable of dealing with these security matters—it does so in other circumstances—and that therefore there is no problem of security with this material? If that is right, why on earth do the Government want to set up SIAC to deal with such matters if it can be dealt with perfectly properly in the normal courts of the land?
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, the noble Lord's premise, with respect, is quite wrong. There must be a way of dealing with sensitive intelligence information to enable the tribunal, when it is a court, to look at that material and judge it for itself. In order to do that, we have an experienced commission—which has a High Court judge, another judicial officer and a third person who is experienced in security matters—to look at that material. The one adjustment that has to be made to ordinary procedures is to find a way in which the interests of the applicant can be safeguarded without the applicant seeing information which it could be very dangerous for the security of the country for the applicant to see. The way that is done is by having a special advocate there to represent the interests of the defendant in that respect.
I respectfully suggest that once that is seen and understood, the arguments about the absence of judicial review become much narrower and finer than the arguments in the debate have so far suggested.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord forgive me for interrupting again? It is important to resolve this matter. Is not the difference between the SIAC procedure and habeas corpus or judicial review this? SIAC will see the material and may decide that it cannot be disclosed to the detainee or applicant but may still use it towards its decision. The High Court judge, on habeas corpus or judicial review, will still see the material, because it must be produced to him under a public interest immunity application, but cannot use it unless it is disclosed to the applicant in those proceedings. Is not that the distinction?
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, it is the distinction. But, with respect, that proves the point. If the commission cannot use the material, it cannot judge whether or not there are reasonable grounds for the suspicion. It has to set that material aside. The whole point of the
286
process is to make sure—I should think that noble Lords would think this the right thing to do—that there is a judicial body which is able to look at the material, even though it is sensitive intelligence material, and decide whether or not there are reasonable grounds for suspicion. That is the SIAC procedure. It involves a judge, as in judicial review; it involves a special advocate, for the special reasons that I have identified.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I am sorry to keep asking the Minister questions, but this is the nub of the debate. I, for one, am very impressed by the manner in which the Attorney-General is dealing with these matters. Is it fair to summarise the position as follows? On matters of fact, SIAC will have exclusive control and judgment over those facts, because there is no right of appeal on facts; and if it acts perversely in its consideration of the relevant facts, there will be no remedy at all for the detainee.
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I am not sure that that is right. In a judicial review, as properly understood, there would not be a review in that sense of the facts at all. That is why SIAC is the better procedure—because it enables such a review to take place.
If your Lordships will permit me, I should like to move on. That was an important point, but I am conscious of the time that I have taken. Perhaps I may turn relatively briefly to Part 5, dealing with incitement to religious hatred.
The background to the provision is clear. Over recent months, and in particular since 1lth September, we have seen that there are some people in Britain who seek to stir up hatred against members of religious groups. There have been attacks, for example, on mosques and on Muslims.
As has rightly been pointed out, the present position is that groups such as Sikhs and Jews are protected under existing legislation because, although there is a strong religious element. they are treated as constituting a racial group. That is not the present position in relation to certain other groups.
I have listened carefully to what has been said. This is an important and, for some people, difficult matter. I have listened carefully to the doubts expressed, for example, by my noble friends Lord Desai and Lord Warner. But I invite your Lordships ultimately to be particularly impressed by what was said by my noble friend Lord Ahmed and by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark, who pointed out that it is important that this matter is dealt with. The suggestion that such provision should be delayed is, with respect, simply putting off an issue that needs to be dealt with now.
Reference was made to the Home Affairs Committee in another place. I note that the chairman of that committee, having heard the debate, said yesterday in another place that he was now persuaded that it was right to introduce such a provision. Perhaps I may identify the features of the Bill that provide protection.

287
The legislation will not prevent robust and sober religious debate, let alone comedy. There must be words which are threatening, abusive or insulting. There must be an intention to stir up hatred, or a likelihood in all the circumstances that it will be stirred up. "Hatred" is a strong word. It goes beyond contempt or ridicule. It is not, as has been pointed out, hatred of a religion but of a group which is defined by reference to its religious beliefs. Perhaps I may add this. It is not unimportant. There will be no vexatious private prosecutions because the offence is subject to a provision that no such offence can be brought unless it is either by or with my consent. Ultimately it will be for the court to decide whether the offence is made out. I suggest that it is appropriate, necessary and proportionate at this time to include that provision. The alternative, which is to delay, is to deny the protection of this important provision to categories of people for what could be quite some time.
I turn to the other parts and shall try to deal with issues raised. Where time does not permit I shall ensure that correspondence is sent. The terrorist funding provisions largely achieved support from your Lordships. The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, was good enough to give me notice of his question. He particularly wanted to know whether or not the Bill would deal with the proceeds of illegal blood diamonds coming from various countries in Africa. The focus in the Bill is on terrorist financing and terrorist property provisions where the proceeds fund terrorism. In so far as the proceeds which the noble Lord cites are suspected to fund terrorism, the Bill will deal with those items.
Part 3 deals with disclosure of information and data gateways. Noble Lords well understand that the basic provision is to remove current barriers which prevent Customs and Revenue officers providing information to law-enforcement agencies in their fight against terrorism and other crime. It is appropriate to include it in the Bill because of the importance of dealing with that kind of information. A number of points were raised about the limits on disclosure and the judicial oversight. At this late hour I hope that your Lordships will consider it appropriate if I say that those points have been noted and no doubt we shall return to them in Committee.
On police powers, I say much the same. I say this to my noble friend Lord Ahmed. As I indicated, the police will be issued with guidance on the conduct of their powers. Such guidance will take into account the sensitivities and cultural issues relevant to those concerned. Other noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond, raised the same issues. They are important points. The noble Baroness raised the question of working arrangements with the police and accountability. The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, suggested that from his experience there will not be a problem in practice about the working arrangements. Greater accountability needs to go with wider powers; and steps are being put in place to deal
288
with that as regards the MoD Police and British Transport Police. Again, perhaps I may leave the detail to be considered later.
On bribery and corruption, there is all-party consensus that the provisions are right and appropriate. The Bill will outlaw acts of bribery by UK nationals and companies in the same circumstances as they are outlawed here. Corrupt and had government can be seen to be a breeding ground for terrorism. I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, nods enthusiastically at that proposition. We cannot allow our efforts to tackle global terrorism to be undermined by ignoring the development of circumstances in which it can grow and thrive. Therefore, I hope that noble Lords will be persuaded that it is right to include that provision in the Bill at this stage. In the longer term there can no doubt he consideration of further and different provisions.
My noble friend Lord Rooker will respond to specific and detailed questions about the OECD from my noble friend Lady Whitaker and to her helpful suggestions.
The noble Earl, Lord Northesk, raised a number of issues in a letter that mysteriously is not to hand, which I will also leave to be dealt with later.
I refer finally to the Part 13, third-pillar matters. The European Communities Act 1972 already pros ides for subordinate legislation to give effect to our obligations under European Community law to be introduced. Matters should be capable of being dealt with that way because if one is required to deal with them by primary legislation, that can be time-consuming and will not allow the UK to respond promptly on a European Union-wide basis.
Reinforcing police and criminal judicial operations with our EU partners is a key part of our response to international terrorism. A number of important measures have been agreed and an effective way of introducing them must be provided. I say to my noble friend Lord Brennan in particular that it is not the case that criminal offences cannot already be introduced by subordinate legislation because Section 2 of the European Communities Act permits that to be done. There is a difference between that and the current third-pillar provisions—which require unanimity between member states. We are only talking about matters that are introduced as a result of unanimous agreement.
The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, asked about the relationship between the Westminster and Scottish Parliaments. She will forgive me if I do not enter into a debate about the relationship between the two Administrations. The noble Baroness made an important point about co-operation between Ministers. I assure her that I meet regularly with the Lord Advocate, who is responsible for the prosecution system in Scotland—as I have responsibilities in England and Wales.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, will forgive me for not entering into a debate about the passport office and his national insurance number, which appears to be already the subject of detailed

289
correspondence with my noble friend Lord Rooker. It is right to trust the executive, subject to review—as is happening in this Parliament—to protect the people of this country.
I refer your Lordships to the concluding observations of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann, in the Rehman case:
"Postscript. I wrote this speech some three months before the recent events in New York and Washington. They are a reminder that in matters of national security, the cost of failure can be high. This seems to me to underline the need for the judicial arm of government to respect the decisions of ministers of the Crown on the question of whether support for terrorist activities in a foreign country constitutes a threat to national security. It is not only that the executive has access to special information and expertise in these matters. It is also that such decisions, with serious potential results for the community, require a legitimacy which can be conferred only by entrusting them to persons responsible to the community through the democratic process".
290
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, referred more than once to trusting in these circumstances. I invite your Lordships to accept that all the proposed measures are appropriate to deal with the unprecedented situation in which we find ourselves.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, will he help us in this expedited procedure by giving us a list of the concessions made in the other place? A number of times tonight, the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, has referred to amendments that are going to be brought forward. Given the short time that we have to deal with the Bill, it would be immensely helpful to have a list of those concessions.
Lord Goldsmith: Yes, of course, my Lords.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at five minutes before one o'clock.

  Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission
  Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission
  Police Service of Northern Ireland
  Police Service of Northern Ireland
  Sex Discrimination Act: "Father Christmas" Advertisements
  Sex Discrimination Act: "Father Christmas" Advertisements
  International Terrorism: Review of Government Policy
  International Terrorism: Review of Government Policy
  Adult Skills: Performance and Innovation Unit Report
  Adult Skills: Performance and Innovation Unit Report
  Decennial Census 1911
  Decennial Census 1911
  Quarry Products: Aggregates Tax
  Quarry Products: Aggregates Tax
  Redundancies
  Redundancies
  Miners: Respiratory Disease Claims
  Miners: Respiratory Disease Claims
  Challenger 2 Tank Air Filters
  Challenger 2 Tank Air Filters
  Education Action Zones
  Education Action Zones
  Special Educational Needs: Collection of Data
  Special Educational Needs: Collection of Data
  Benefit Fraud Inspectorate Report: Hastings Borough Council
  Benefit Fraud Inspectorate Report: Hastings Borough Council
  Convicted Prisoners: Disfranchisement
  Convicted Prisoners: Disfranchisement
  Millennium Dome: Sale
  Millennium Dome: Sale
  New Millennium Experience Company and English Partnerships: Legal Liability for Debts
  New Millennium Experience Company and English Partnerships: Legal Liability for Debts
  Greenwich Millennium Village
  Greenwich Millennium Village
  Insecticides
  Insecticides
  Phenols: Health and Safety Executive Advice
  Phenols: Health and Safety Executive Advice
  Mox Development: Consideration of Security Implications
  Mox Development: Consideration of Security Implications
  Meat Imports
  Meat Imports
  Waterfowl: Ban on Shooting with Lead Shot
  Waterfowl: Ban on Shooting with Lead Shot