Sitting of 30 October 2001

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  PRIVATE BUSINESS
    BARCLAYS BANK REORGANISATION BILL [LORDS]
      NATIONAL AUSTRALIA GROUP EUROPE BILL [LORDS]
      Read a Second time, and committed.
Oral Answers to Questions
  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

    Kashmir
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: What recent discussions he has had with the Governments of India and Pakistan about the security situation in Kashmir. [8785]
    Mr. David Crausby: What recent discussions he has had with the representatives of the Indian Government about combating terrorism. [8790]
    Mr. Henry Bellingham: If he will make a statement on the situation in Kashmir. [8796]
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw): My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I have had a number of discussions with our Indian and Pakistani counterparts. Both countries are playing important roles in the international campaign against terrorism. We have long called for an end to external support for terrorism in Kashmir, and we condemn all acts of violence there. The House was united in its revulsion of the terrorist attack on the State Assembly in Srinagar on 1 October, in which at least 38 people were killed—an act for which the terrorist organisation Jaish-i-Mohammad, linked to Osama bin Laden, claimed responsibility. We have continued to urge both countries to act with restraint, to respect human rights and to look constructively at ways to resolve the issues between them.
    Mr. Prentice: Our eyes are fixed on Afghanistan, but the real powder keg is next door, in Kashmir. Only today, the Pakistan Government accused the Indians of state-sponsored terrorism, after 22 Kashmiris were killed and 26 properties were torched. I despair. Where will it all end? This has been happening for more than 50 years.
    736
    General Musharraf has accepted an invitation to speak to the United Nations General Assembly on 10 November. Is there not a case for trying yet again to involve the UN in brokering a settlement? The issue has been festering for a long time, but a settlement seems as far away as ever.
    Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend is right to say that the situation in Kashmir is serious, and he asked where it will end. The hopes of all of us are that it will end with a peaceful resolution.
    My hon. Friend asked about the role of the UN, which I have thought about carefully. However, I doubt that there is a role for the UN in this matter, unless it is at the request of both Pakistan and India. In our judgment, the best hope for a peaceful future for Kashmir lies in a continuation of the talks that were started in Agra in July, but which then, sadly, stalled.
    Mr. Crausby: My right hon. Friend will know that India, the largest democracy in the world, has suffered more than most countries from acts of terror over the past 20 years. Will he therefore support India in its efforts to persuade the UN to adopt a comprehensive convention against terrorism?
    Mr. Straw: Not only do we support India's proposed comprehensive convention on terrorism, but we have been working actively with the Indian Government on its text. I discussed it in some detail with India's Foreign Minister, Jaswant Singh, when he was here a couple of weeks ago. We are both working hard to ensure that key sections of the text, which some member states want to be removed, are retained in order to ensure that the convention is effective.
    Mr. Bellingham: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the Government should take account of the various communities in this country, which may have a different perspective on this difficult problem? Will he undertake to avoid the mistakes of his predecessor who, every time he looked at the matter, managed to upset people on every side?
    Mr. Straw: I shall leave that second point to one side, as I do not believe that my right hon. Friend the previous Foreign Secretary did upset people on every side. The truth is that the Kashmir problem is one of those issues—of which there are, sadly, too many around the world—in which emotions run high. That means that, if one departs from what are regarded as well-worn texts, it is possible for some people to take offence.
    The hon. Gentleman asked about taking account of different perspectives in this country. My constituency contains about 13,000 people of Pakistani origin, and about the same number of people of Indian origin. The hon. Gentleman will therefore understand that I have been living with the Kashmir issue for many years.
    Dr. Brian Iddon: Further to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice), does the Foreign Secretary see any future in talks between India and Pakistan without the intervention of an international mediator, as has happened

    737
    in the middle east? Does he agree that the views of the people of Kashmir on both sides of the line of control should be taken into account?
    Mr. Straw: Yes. The views of the people, wherever the final line is drawn, will need to be taken into account. However, with regard to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice), it is worth bearing in mind that in recent years more than 200,000 people of the Hindu religion have been forced out of Jammu and Kashmir and many of them are now in refugee camps. It is a complicated situation.
    Our judgment is that the United Nations or an external mediator will be able to have a constructive role only if it, he or she is asked to exercise that role by the two countries overwhelmingly concerned in this, namely Pakistan and India.
    Mr. John Wilkinson: Is the Foreign Secretary saying that the UN resolution on Kashmir which followed the 1948 war, as a consequence of which the UN observers were set up in the line of control, is no longer valid? If that is the case, does he have any confidence that an enduring solution can be found? Is it not true that the major powers ought to bring pressure to bear to ensure that opportunism does not occur at this critical time of crisis in south-west Asia?
    Mr. Straw: Of course we take account of the resolution passed in 1948. However, one difficulty is that India claims that the terms of the 1948 resolution were superseded by the Simla agreement of the early 1970s, and Pakistan disagrees. Simply exchanging arguments about previous texts will not resolve the situation. It can be resolved only by direct discussion between India and Pakistan. That is why we greatly welcomed the Lahore declaration of two years ago—sadly followed by a resumption of violence—and the talks in Agra, near Delhi, in July. We look forward to a resumption of those discussions. A peaceful future for all the peoples of the area can come about only as a result of discussion and agreement.

    Gibraltar
    Mr. Andrew Rosindell: If he will make a statement on the Government's policy on the sovereignty of Gibraltar. [8786]
    The Minister for Europe (Peter Hain): The Government stand by their commitment to the people of Gibraltar set out in the preamble to the 1969 constitution, which enshrines the principle of consent of the people of Gibraltar to any change in sovereignty. Through the dialogue in the recently resumed Brussels process, we aim to build a better future for Gibraltarians, including normalising relations with Spain.
    Mr. Rosindell: The Minister will have seen recent press reports suggesting that the Government propose holding a referendum in Gibraltar. Will he confirm that the Government will respect the result of any such
    738
    referendum? Can he also confirm that the Spanish Government will respect the result of a referendum put to the people of Gibraltar?
    Peter Hain: The answer to that is yes. That is it. The hon. Gentleman may have been referring to a report that appeared in The Guardian. I am sure that he reads it avidly and is a great fan. It said that a secret deal was being hatched over Gibraltar. It was so secret that the Foreign Secretary told the House on 22 June that dialogue with Spain had resumed, I told the House on 10 July that the formal process of Brussels meetings was taking place, on 19 July I told the House that the first meeting in the process had been fixed for 26 July, and on 26 July the Foreign Secretary and Spain's Foreign Minister, Mr. Piqué, held a press conference. Big deal. If The Guardian had said that the story was four months old, it would not have made the front pages.
    Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: I think that the point of the article was that a leak from the Foreign Office suggested that Gibraltar was to be handed over to Spain. I am glad that the Minister can confirm that he will respect and abide by the decision of the people of Gibraltar. I hope that he will put Gibraltar's case to Europe as well.
    Peter Hain: We will abide by and respect the law, because it is enshrined in the 1969 legislation. My hon. Friend speaks on this issue, and I discuss it with him. I ask him and the people of Gibraltar not to take any notice of scaremongering and political posturing. Our objective is to improve life on the Rock and give Gibraltar a better future. To make progress, we need to unfreeze frozen minds in this House, in Spain and in Gibraltar. Then I think a better future will await the people of Gibraltar.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: We understand the problem of frozen minds. We recognise that there has been no question of secrecy, but when meetings are fixed other things can be fixed, and the Minister will be aware that Ministers and other members of the Council in Gibraltar have written expressing their concern about the continual failure of Her Majesty's Government in negotiations with Spain to clear the airways and allow the people of Gibraltar, who are part of the European Community, the rights of other citizens in that Community.
    Peter Hain: It is precisely such issues that we are discussing with Spain, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, who represents a Northern Ireland constituency, will agree that talking is the best way to solve these intractable problems, dating back many centuries. I believe that there is the best prospect of making real progress on this matter—the Foreign Secretary has taken a lead on it—that we have seen for many a long year. The people of Gibraltar and the House should welcome that prospect.
    Margaret Moran: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is an anachronism that in 2001 we still effectively have an outpost colony within a major European Union partner? What deadline has he set for

    739
    building a sustainable future for Gibraltar and better relations between Gibraltar, the United Kingdom and Spain?
    Peter Hain: That is our objective in these discussions. Spain is an important ally of this country. It is a modern, democratic power in Europe and in the world, and we attach great importance to our relationship with Spain and the close friendship between our two Prime Ministers. It is precisely in order to move forward our relationship with Spain, to which my hon. Friend alluded, and to enable the people of Gibraltar to normalise relations with Spain, that we are engaged upon these discussions—discussions that the Opposition also had when they were in government. They embarked on a similar process of dialogue, and they might need to be reminded about that if they get too uppity on the issue.
    Mr. Richard Spring: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm the right of the people of Gibraltar to vote in European elections, and will he tell us when a decision will be taken as to where and how they will vote?
    Peter Hain: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman got uppity and asked an important question, and I am grateful to him for the opportunity to reply to it. Yesterday, I had discussions on that matter with Minister de Miguel in the margins of the General Affairs Council in Luxembourg and I think that there will be progress. It is important that the Court judgment giving the Gibraltarians the right to vote in the next European elections is honoured and implemented, and we intend to do so, with Spain's agreement as well.

    International Terrorism
    Angus Robertson: What role the United Kingdom Government are promoting for the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe in the campaign against international terrorism. [8787]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Denis MacShane): The OSCE has an important role to play in tackling the social, economic and political conditions in which terrorist groups win support and are able to recruit their followers. The UK is supporting and helping finance an OSCE conference in Kyrgyzstan in December on strengthening comprehensive efforts to counter terrorism.
    Angus Robertson: When I met Secretary-General Jan Kubis of the OSCE several weeks ago, he emphasised the importance of the OSCE because it includes the former Soviet republics that border Afghanistan. Is the Minister not concerned by the recent reports of clampdowns on free media, and political arrests, in a number of those republics, which run contrary to the democracy-building efforts undertaken by the OSCE? Will the UK Government press for enhanced democratic standards in the plan of action on terrorism that is set to be agreed at the OSCE ministerial conference in December?
    Mr. MacShane: The hon. Gentleman raises important points, which I discussed last week in Bucharest with the Foreign Minister of Romania, currently chairing the
    740
    OSCE. It is an advantage that the former Soviet republics are members of the OSCE and it is the Government's position that terrorism should be countered in a way that does not result in a diminution of human democratic rights in those republics.
    Mrs. Louise Ellman: Does my hon. Friend's opposition to international terrorism include opposition to terrorism conducted by Iran and Syria in contravention of United Nations resolution 1373? Is he concerned that those countries are supporting and funding terrorist groups such as Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad and Hamas? What steps is he taking to oppose that in Europe and elsewhere?
    Mr. MacShane: As my hon. Friend is aware, this Government have taken the lead in banning in this country many of the organisations that she lists. The clear position of the Government and the House against international terrorism is well known.
    Sir Peter Tapsell: May I welcome the implicit assurance already given by the Minister that Her Majesty's Government will not support disreputable, oppressive or even tyrannical Governments, who may seek to use the tragic events of 11 September as an excuse to crush justifiable political dissent?
    Mr. MacShane: We on the Treasury Bench are implacably opposed to tyrannical Governments and oppressive parties of any sort, anywhere in the world. The hon. Gentleman is right to draw our attention to the fact that the fight against terrorism must extend and promote democracy, not diminish it.
    Mr. George Howarth: Does my hon. Friend agree, however, that it is important that any organisation or forum where we have influence concentrates in the coming months and, indeed, years on the need to bring about circumstances in which the laundering of money, either from terrorist organisations or from organised crime, is leant on very heavily indeed, especially as they are often two sides of the same coin?
    Mr. MacShane: My hon. Friend is right. As the Minister with responsibility for the Balkans and Latin America, in which capacity I visited Colombia two weeks ago, I know that money laundering and the financial flows that help terrorists and drug dealers are one of the keys to solving those scourges. Since 11 September, there has been a new willingness to co-operate, and the Government and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor have taken the lead internationally in putting before banks their responsibility no longer to provide the conduit for money that promotes violence and criminality.

    NATO
    Mr. Peter Viggers: If he will make a statement on the dialogue with Russia about the expansion of NATO. [8788]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Ben Bradshaw): NATO and Russia regularly discuss a wide range of issues, including NATO enlargement. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will visit Moscow tomorrow for talks on the campaign against terrorism and on other issues including co-operation between NATO and Russia.
    Mr. Viggers: Does the Minister agree that the relationship with Russia seems to have moved on to a new and better footing recently, but that there is much scope for co-operation, not least in restructuring the Russian armed forces, which is much appreciated by Russia? Does he agree that it is in Russia's interest for its neighbours to be democratic, prosperous and members of NATO, and that the present preoccupation with terrorist concerns should not delay the expansion of NATO, but rather that it should be the basis of a new initiative?
    Mr. Bradshaw: Yes, I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Gentleman. There has been a sea change in relationships between NATO and Russia since 11 September. Some productive talks have taken place between the Secretary-General of NATO, Lord Robertson, and President Putin, and we hope that that will help to ease Russian concerns about NATO enlargement.
    Mr. John McFall: Does the Minister agree that the events post-11 September have shown Russia in a positive and encouraging light, particularly in areas such as terrorism and security? On NATO expansion, will he keep in mind the comments that the Russian ambassador made in this Palace last night, when he said that unilateral decisions do not make for long-term security, so the need for co-operation and contact with Russia on such issues is extremely important?
    Mr. Bradshaw: Yes, that is why we are engaging in the dialogue. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Long before 11 September, Russia had suffered from some horrendous examples of terrorism against its own civilians, but Russia should not have a veto over the enlargement of NATO.
    Mr. David Heath: Will the Foreign Secretary raise with the Russian Government recent events in Abkhazia? Will he especially point out that, although armed conflicts on the Russian borders, particularly involving Chechens, as such events apparently did, are deeply unwelcome, a repressive response from Russia would be equally unwelcome and might cause a serious conflagration across the Caucasus and trans-Caucasus?
    Mr. Bradshaw: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary tells me that he will be happy to raise that matter when he goes to Moscow tomorrow. We are well aware of the problems that Russia has to face in Chechnya. We talk to the Russians at every opportunity about human rights, but we recognise that they have a legitimate right to protect their citizens against a terrorist threat which we know is linked to Osama bin Laden.

    Middle East
    Richard Burden: If he will make a statement on the prospects for peace in the middle east. [8789]
    Mr. Mark Francois: When he next plans to meet his Israeli counterpart to discuss the middle east peace process. [8793]
    Mr. Andrew Lansley: When he last met representatives of the Israeli Government to discuss the middle east peace process; and if he will make a statement. [8794]
    Mr. John Lyons: What role he plans for the United Kingdom in pursuing the middle east peace process. [8798]
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw): The situation in the middle east is extremely serious and fraught with danger, not only for the parties themselves, but for the wider world. The United Kingdom, like its European partners and the United States, is committed to the path for peace set out in the Mitchell plan. I am sure that I speak for the whole House in repeating my utter condemnation of the murder of Israeli Tourism Minister Ze'evy on 17 October.
    We want restraint to be exercised on both sides; effective action by the Palestinian National Authority to detain and hold the extremists implicated in the murder of Minister Ze'evy and of many other Israelis; withdrawal by the Israeli defence force from Palestinian-controlled areas; and an end to extra-judicial killings. In our view, there can be stability only when there is full recognition of the state of Israel and the right of its people to live in peace with security, and the establishment of a viable Palestinian state.
    Richard Burden: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. He will be aware, I think, that in the past 24 hours I returned from the west bank and Gaza, and on Friday was able to get into Bethlehem to see the aftermath of the destruction of homes and shops and of the shelling of the university and a maternity hospital by Israeli forces. I welcome what the international community has done to secure a partial withdrawal of Israeli forces from Palestinian towns, but we need to go further and demand, without pre-conditions, the immediate withdrawal of all Israeli forces from Palestinian areas. We must also respond to the requests put to me by the mayors of Beit Jala, Beit Sahur and Bethlehem for an international observer force, so that the world can see what is going on in that part of the world.
    Mr. Straw: I understand the strength of feeling on both sides of the issue, which my hon. Friend reflects in part having visited the west bank and Gaza and seen, among the suffering of many other peoples, the suffering of Palestinian people in the occupied territories and elsewhere. I do not think that a huge purpose would be served by making demands without pre-conditions. We must support the parties in getting back on the track of the very clear agenda set out by Tenet and Mitchell in their reports and in the Mitchell plan. Meanwhile, together

    743
    with the American Administration, we continue to play our part to try to reduce tension and to get that process back on track. There has long been a case for international observers, and that has been underlined by resolutions of the European Union General Affairs Council.
    Mr. Francois: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that both the Palestinians and the Israelis originally accepted the Mitchell plan? Does he acknowledge that the Mitchell plan calls in the first instance for the Palestinians to halt violence in order to facilitate dialogue? Will he urge the Prime Minister to seek assurances once again from Chairman Arafat that he will make every possible effort to halt the current violence so that there is a chance for meaningful talks?
    Mr. Straw: We know from the current grave situation that unless there is restraint and understanding on both sides—movement by the Palestinian Authority and President Yasser Arafat to ensure a 100 per cent. effort by them to restrain violence, movement by the Israeli Government to withdraw from areas A, which are exclusively run by the Palestinian Authority, and to end extra-judicial killings and exercise proper respect for human rights, despite the difficulties under which those involved work—the Mitchell plan will not get back on track. However, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that Mitchell was accepted by both sides and remains the best agenda for peace in the middle east.
    Mr. Lansley: I have listened carefully to the Foreign Secretary. Does he share with the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw), a recognition of the legitimate right of a state to protect its citizens from terrorism? Will he and his colleagues avoid trying to equate exercising that right with terrorism? Will he therefore make it clear to the Israeli authorities that we do not seek to equate their actions with terrorism? Will he also make it clear that we will urge the Palestinian authorities to act against the terrorists, whose activities are the starting point of the Israeli lack of security and, as such, need to be dealt with before Israel can de-escalate violence?
    Mr. Straw: Where we can help is to have a balanced approach and avoid being partisan. It is true that a large number of Israelis have lost their lives as a result of action by Palestinian extremists and others in the region, and they were almost entirely innocent civilians. It is also true that an even larger number of Palestinians have lost their lives, almost all of whom were innocent civilians. We need a de-escalation of the conflict.
    As for a definition of terrorism, according to international law it does not include acts by states, so it is not relevant to the state of Israel. However, states are capable of acts that are outside international law in other respects, as we well know. We need both sides to exercise restraint, respect international law and get back to the Mitchell process.
    Mr. Lyons: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the present escalation of violence, caused by the assassination of Israel's Tourism Minister, to which he referred, and the disproportionate occupation of Palestinian towns and
    744
    villages, has again underlined the need for the United Kingdom to be at the forefront of attempts to get the peace talks back on track?
    Mr. Straw: Yes. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has been tireless in his efforts to do that, as have I and many others in this Administration. However, we will get the peace process back on track only if we work closely in concert with our European partners and the United States Administration. The history of the conflict shows that if we work together, it is possible to achieve proper success, but if Europe adopts a different agenda to that of the US, it is extremely unlikely for success to arise.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: I welcome the fact that the Foreign Secretary began by asserting the right of the people of Israel to live within secure boundaries, which is no more and no less than was given to them by United Nations Security Council resolution 242. Does he agree that the Palestinians see the continued expansion of settlements by the Israeli Government as highly provocative and that it makes the peaceful resolution of the problems very difficult? When Mr. Sharon visits London in a few weeks, will the right hon. Gentleman repeat, as successive Foreign Secretaries have at the Dispatch Box, that it is the opinion of the British Government that the settlements policy is illegal and contrary to international law?
    Mr. Straw: I do not think that we need a visit by Prime Minister Sharon to this country for him to appreciate the position of Her Majesty's Government, which is, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman says, that the settlements in the occupied territories are illegal according to international law. We have asked as a minimum for them to be frozen and, in time, for them to be reduced as part of an overall settlement.
    Mr. Jim Murphy: It is clear that one of the most effective actions by the international coalition against terrorism is to seize terrorist assets and freeze their bank accounts. My right hon. Friend will be aware that as part of the wider tragedy in the middle east, the suicide bombers of Hamas, Islamic Jihad and others continue to cause enormous bloodshed. In conversations, meetings and discussions with the Governments of Iran and Syria and elsewhere, will he urge them to stop harbouring those terrorists and terrorist organisations and, instead, to join the international coalition throughout the world in seizing their assets and freezing their bank accounts?
    Mr. Straw: I am happy to tell my hon. Friend that I have already done that. I underlined that message at a press conference that I held with my Iranian counterpart in Teheran during my visit there. The Iranians have publicly thanked me, as a former Home Secretary, for proscribing—banning—the Iranian terrorist organisation Mujaheddin e Khalq. The British embassy in Teheran has received 40,000 letters of thanks for that from members of the Iranian public. At that press conference and in private I pointed out that on the same list I had proscribed—and the House had approved the ban—the military wings of Hamas, Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad,

    745
    and that there was therefore an agenda that we could discuss based on our unambiguous determination to eliminate terrorism wherever it arose in the world.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: When Mr. Sharon comes to London, will the Foreign Secretary take the opportunity to tell him that there are many right hon. and hon. Members who count themselves friends of Israel and who are totally committed to the continued existence of an independent state of Israel, but who nevertheless feel that many of Mr. Sharon's actions and words have been distinctly unhelpful? Will the right hon. Gentleman tell him specifically that to compare President Bush with Neville Chamberlain in the aftermath of 11 September was a crass thing to do?
    Mr. Straw: I cannot say that I was especially impressed by the comparison either. I am happy to pass on the hon. Gentleman's views.
    Mr. Ernie Ross: While I agree with my right hon. Friend that the way forward is to get both sides around the table, does he agree that it does not help when Opposition Members demand that the Palestinians exercise control over anyone, given that control in the west bank and Gaza is exercised by the only military force in the area—Israeli defence forces? Unless and until security is handed back to the Palestinians, it is daft to ask them to exercise such a role.
    Mr. Straw: I am genuinely sorry to depart slightly from what my hon. Friend has said, but I think that it is reasonable of us to expect the Palestinian Authority to exercise effective constraint in the occupied territories. It is not reasonable of the Israeli defence force to mount incursions into areas A. It must be borne in mind that the Palestinian Authority security forces have some 60,000 members. As we have repeatedly told President Arafat and his colleagues, we look to them to exercise 100 per cent. effort to restrain terrorism arising from the Palestinian Authority's areas. We do not and cannot expect—any more than we have in Northern Ireland—such organisations to achieve a 100 per cent. result where the results are wholly outside their control; however, we continue to expect the authority to show 100 per cent. effort.
    Mr. Alan Duncan: Further to the Foreign Secretary's answer a moment ago, I applaud his initiative in visiting Iran. I know that he faced some criticism afterwards, but I think that his visit was an important milestone and absolutely the right thing to do.
    If we are to take the sting out of Muslim opinion both at home and abroad, the Arab-Israeli peace process must be seen to be making progress. Will the right hon. Gentleman therefore welcome the recent restraint shown by Israel in the face of some provocation, and its continuing withdrawal from Palestinian territory? Clearly, that is crucial to events elsewhere. To give new momentum to the peace process, should not the inconclusive negotiations at Taba be revisited and the objectives set out there be explored once again as a serious agenda for progress?
    Mr. Straw: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his opening remarks, which I greatly appreciate. I congratulate him on what I believe is his first appearance at the Dispatch Box as an Opposition spokesman at Foreign Office questions.
    The hon. Gentleman is right to say that one of the effects of the middle east conflict is to undermine support in many parts of the Islamic world for the wider coalition against terrorism—although, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister told the Welsh Assembly today, that is still holding up. There is no doubt about the linkage in people's minds, and that is one of the reasons why we have to work extremely hard for restraint on both sides and to get people back on to the path to peace.
    We welcome the restraint shown this week by the Israeli Government. One of the many tragedies about Minister Ze'evy's assassination was that for 10 days—from 7 to 17 October—before that, there was, I think I am right in saying, no Israeli civilian killed—which given the short and dismal time scales in which people on both sides of the divide live in the middle east, was a relatively long period. We must try to return to that relatively benign path.
    As for the agenda at Taba, it is crucial to return the parties to implementing the Mitchell plan, which is then an agenda for a wider peace settlement.

    European Union
    Mike Gapes: If he will make a statement on progress towards enlargement of the European Union. [8791]
    The Minister for Europe (Peter Hain): The Government are a champion of early and successful enlargement and of sticking to the agreed timetable of concluding negotiations by the end of 2002 with the most advanced candidates so that they can participate in the next European Parliament elections in 2004 as members of the European Union.
    Mike Gapes: I am pleased with that reply. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the enlargement of the European Union, especially to bring in the countries of central and eastern Europe, will lead to an historic change in relationships after so many years of division? Does he also agree that it is strange that those who say that they are in favour of enlargement voted against the Nice treaty, which makes enlargement possible?
    Peter Hain: I agree with my hon. Friend. Candidate countries, including long-standing friends of the United Kingdom—for example, Cyprus, Malta, the Czech Republic, Poland and Hungary—are puzzled by the Opposition's opposition to the Nice treaty. They are seeking to stop the enlargement process in its tracks and to prevent our friends from joining the rest of Europe and reuniting the continent, which we all want to see.
    Mr. Michael Fabricant: The whole House will know that Ireland voted against the Nice treaty yet it too, like the Opposition, supports expansion in Europe. However, does the Minister agree that that cannot be at

    747
    any cost? For example, the common agricultural policy will have to be reformed. Does he accept that the British taxpayer cannot be expected to pick up the tab?
    Peter Hain: I agree that the CAP needs to be reformed. The Government have done more to take forward that agenda than anything that was done during 18 miserable years of Tory rule. The 1999 agreement—I think at Berlin—initiated a series of reforms and discussions that will result in time in the reform of agricultural policy in the EU. That will become even more urgent after enlargement.
    Ms Gisela Stuart: Does my right hon. Friend accept that for many of the accession states EU membership is a spur for economic security? However, at the same time they wish to have membership of NATO for military security. The two processes are distinctly different, but will my right hon. Friend accept that they have much in common and that they should be taken forward in similar time scales?
    Peter Hain: I agree that both processes should go ahead in parallel. I welcome the contribution that my hon. Friend is making to discussions with countries such as Lithuania and Estonia to bring the agenda forward. It is valuable for Members to engage with applicant countries. I hope that Opposition Members will undertake similar work. It is important that Britain is seen to be standing shoulder to shoulder with countries that we want in the European family, not seeking to keep them out.
    Chris Grayling: The Minister is aware that not all members of the European Union are as good as others at maintaining cross-border security. What reassurances can he and his right hon. Friend give the House about the negotiation process for enlargement, and the steps that will be taken to ensure that cross-border security throughout the EU is as strong as it possibly can be in these difficult times?
    Peter Hain: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that important point—it will be of concern to him, the whole House and, I guess, our constituents. We are ensuring that stringent border controls are placed along the external borders of the new applicant countries. In some instances—for example, between the Czech Republic and Germany—the existing border controls will remain for a period to ensure that there is a phasing in of the process, otherwise we could unlock many migration problems that we do not want.

    International Terrorism
    Mr. Clive Betts: What discussions he has had with representatives of the member states of the European Union following the terrorist attacks in the USA on 11 September. [8792]
    The Minister for Europe (Peter Hain): We have had regular discussions with our European Union colleagues, helping to achieve unprecedented solidarity with the United States of America and the international coalition against terrorism, as well as an EU action plan for a
    748
    common definition of terrorism, a European arrest warrant, the freezing of assets, intelligence sharing and enhanced airline safety measures.
    Mr. Betts: I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer. When I met with Muslim constituents after the horrific events of 11 September, they recognised that European Union Ministers were working much more closely together on all the issues that he mentioned. They asked me what else the EU could do regarding the peace process in the middle east. Quite frankly, their perception is that when the Americans alone are seen to lead on those issues, their approach is not necessarily even-handed. They believe that if the EU had a closer and more detailed involvement, equal pressure would be applied on the Israelis and the Palestinians to reach a long-term settlement. That is their perception of those issues. What role does my right hon. Friend therefore see for the EU in those matters in future? Does he see it playing a greater role, both as individual states and together in the EU, and can he say how the matter will be progressed in future?
    Peter Hain: I agree with my hon. Friend—the EU has a most important and growing role, not just in seeking to find a peace process in the middle east, but in a wider global context, to make sure that the world is rid of terrorism and that international stability and peace are progressed. Some specific things have been achieved. Yesterday, the General Affairs Council, which my right hon. Friend and I attended, issued a detailed statement on advancing a number of initiatives. Of course, Commissioner Patten, special representative Solana and Foreign Minister Michel for the presidency visited Islamabad, Teheran, Riyadh, Cairo and Damascus only a few weeks ago precisely to engage on that agenda and other matters. We will continue to develop that.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman will know that the borders of southern Europe are porous. Does he therefore agree that it is important that the Governments of the EU have urgent discussions with the Governments of, for example, Albania and the Mahgreb, to prevent the flow into southern Europe of people who may well be terrorist supporters?
    Peter Hain: Again, the right hon. and learned Gentleman makes an important point. It is something that is very much on our minds, and we are pursuing it. I am happy to give him the assurances that he wants.
    Mr. Harry Barnes: The security of the EU from terrorism rests very much on intelligence information. A lot of our intelligence information is drawn from nations of the Islamic world. Is it not felt within Europe that the bombing is creating a situation in which that intelligence begins to be at risk?
    Peter Hain: The answer is no. Intelligence sharing is important and my hon. Friend is right to pinpoint it, but we have not found that that has been a problem so far. I remind him and others that the bombing, as he puts it, is designed to take out military installations and create air safety so that the forces involved can go out, track down Osama bin Laden and his terrorist network and destroy

    749
    their capability ever to mount a repeat action. It will also ensure that the Taliban forces that provide shelter for him are not able to do so.
    Mr. Michael Ancram: Will the Minister join me in welcoming the way in which our European partners have been able, despite differences of emphasis, to adopt a firmly supportive position on the current international crisis and the coalition gathered against it? Does he agree, however, that that support would have been much more difficult to achieve, or would at least have been substantially diluted, if every member of the EU had been required by a common defence or foreign policy to sign up to identical levels of participation and action? Does not the current layered approach to the international crisis within the EU underline the benefits of a flexible Europe of nations and the dangers of further integration?
    Peter Hain: That question started well but, disappointingly, tailed off rather badly. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that nothing at all in the European security and defence policy initiative will bring about the dangers that he foresees. On the contrary, we have seen an almost embryonic security and defence policy initiative from the EU in the way in which it responded with unprecedented solidarity and offers of practical support for the international coalition. A series of countries—France, Germany and others—have offered practical military support and co-operation. That is a good step forward. Of course, the ESDP is designed to provide a peacekeeping and humanitarian capability, not to seek to rival or outwit NATO, on which we will depend in our ability to mount necessary operations in areas like the Balkans, where, so far, we have not been able do so.

    Afghanistan
    Mr. Chris Mullin: What recent discussions he has had with the US Secretary of State regarding the situation in Afghanistan; and if he will make a statement. [8795]
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw): I visited Washington last week to hold discussions with Vice-President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Colin Powell, other members of the United States Administration and senior Members of Congress on the military situation in Afghanistan, the work of the United Nations, the future of Afghanistan and the middle east.
    Mr. Mullin: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the growing revulsion at the increasing number of civilian casualties arising from the bombing of Kabul and Kandahar, including the other day the slaughter of seven children and their father? Is he aware that the moral high ground in the dispute is rapidly being eroded by such mistakes? What are we bombing around Kabul and Kandahar, given that the Americans have said repeatedly that they are running out of things to bomb there? If that is so, would it not be best if we stopped?
    Mr. Straw: The whole House seriously regrets civilian casualties in any military action. However, great care has been taken in targeting. I understand that across more than 3,000 targets, there have been misses in respect of five.
    750
    That is five too many, but it indicates the care that has been taken. The death of any innocent civilian should diminish all of us, but while we are working to minimise civilian casualties the Taliban and the al-Qaeda organisation are working to maximise civilian casualties. It is precisely because of the appalling threats that they pose and the overwhelming truth that, unless we take military action, they will carry out those threats in the future, that we must take such military action.
    Mr. Alex Salmond: Will the Foreign Secretary address directly the question that he was asked? It is more than three weeks since the allies claimed air superiority, so why is there continued bombing of military targets in population centres, which carries a huge risk of mistakes and civilian casualties? Has he read the article by Abdul Haq published posthumously four days after he was murdered by the Taliban, in which he warns the allies that the bombing of civilian centres in Afghanistan is likely to strengthen rather than weaken the Taliban hold on the country? Has he read the article and understood it, and does he intend to do anything about it?
    Mr. Straw: On the latter point, I regret that I have not read the article. I am certainly familiar with the arguments, which we heard at this stage in the Kosovo campaign, as well. In respect of Kosovo, it was argued here and elsewhere that the military action was only strengthening Milosevic. We heard that repeatedly and we are hearing the same argument now.
    Bombing has had to be undertaken in order to take out the air capacity of the Taliban, and also to destroy the terrorist training camps of the al-Qaeda organisation and to degrade the overall military capability of the Taliban. Of course, there will not be bombing of targets that are not there or where the targeting has already worked, but the hon. Gentleman should be sufficiently aware of the nature and complexity of the terrain and the density of the Taliban's military operations in many parts of Afghanistan to understand that three weeks is a relatively short period, not a long period. We have said repeatedly—and the Prime Minister underlined it again in a speech to the Welsh Assembly earlier today—that we must be in for the long haul.
    I say to the hon. Gentleman, as I say to others who are concerned about the military action, that I have yet to hear any serious alternative to counter the threat posed by the al-Qaeda organisation. Of course we would have preferred a peaceful answer. One was offered by President Bush in his speech to Congress on 20 September, when a clear ultimatum was issued to the Taliban to deliver Osama bin Laden and his key associates, to wind up the al-Qaeda terrorist organisation, and to allow international verification of that.
    All those things could have happened without a further drop of blood being spilt. The fact that, sadly, they have not happened is the responsibility of the Taliban. Our responsibility is to keep the world safe from this kind of continuing threat, and, although I regret the fact that we must carry out the military campaign, it is none the less a necessity.
    David Winnick: Do not all the indicators show that the appalling massacre of Christian worshippers in Pakistan was, in effect, carried out by

    751
    close allies of the regime in Afghanistan? If that is indeed so—and, as I have said, all the evidence seems to point to it—does it not, like 11 September, illustrate the nature of the enemy we are facing? In my view, to give in virtually before this has even started would be the worst kind of appeasement of tyranny.
    Mr. Straw: I share my hon. Friend's opinion. Along with many other Members in all parts of the House, he has been steadfast in his resolution in support of the necessity of the military action.
    What we need to understand is that, well before 11 September, the Taliban were marked out as one of the most inhuman and brutal regimes in human history. Their actions led, for instance—well before 11 September—to more than 4.5 million refugees having to flee their native land because of the brutality of that regime.
    Mr. Michael Ancram: It must be right that the Prime Minister reminded us today of the horrors and evils of the events of 11 September, as the cause of the current crisis and, indeed, the justification for the military action. Is it not also essential, however, to remind us all continually of the clear objectives that flowed from that atrocity, and which are the basis for Conservative Members' support for the action being taken in pursuit of them?
    Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that there has been no change in, or dilution of, the objectives published on 16 October, and that they still include the bringing to justice of bin Laden and the destruction of al-Qaeda, the changing of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, the alleviation of the humanitarian disaster facing so many people in that country and, in the longer term, the elimination of the threat of international terrorism wherever it occurs?
    Mr. Straw: I can confirm all those objectives, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister did in his speech
    752
    today. We have just been speaking more about the military campaign, but a huge effort is being undertaken to get humanitarian aid into Afghanistan.
    Last Saturday, when asked whether there should be a pause in the military action to allow food to get in, Mr. Kenzo Oshima, the United Nations Under-Secretary in charge of humanitarian affairs, said on Radio 4:
    "The military strikes as such have not hampered in any significant way the delivery of humanitarian assistance."
    The simple fact is that if we are to save Afghanistan for the people of that country, we must continue a military campaign that is targeted and focused; we must continue giving humanitarian aid; and we must continue our efforts to build a better future for Afghanistan under the auspices of the United Nations.
    Mr. Ancram: Does the Foreign Secretary accept that, as well as sustaining political and international support—which is being done successfully—we must sustain the confidence of the British public in the actions that are being taken? Is not the greatest enemy of confidence uncertainty, and has the Foreign Secretary noticed, as I have, a growing public perception of uncertainty about the immediate relationship between the declared objectives and the current bombing campaign? Should not the Government move urgently to dispel that uncertainty by clearly and continuously setting out the specific reasons for the bombing, and—without, of course, disclosing sensitive strategic information—explaining how it is directly linked to the achievement of the vital objectives to which we all remain committed?
    Mr. Straw: What is remarkable, but also heartwarming is the extent of the support in this country and abroad for the international coalition against terrorism and for military action. Notwithstanding that, I accept that we should continue to explain why we are doing these things and continue to explain to the public and to the wider world how the action is proportionate, targeted and. consistent with international law.

Speaker's Statement
3.30 pm
Mr. Speaker: I have a short statement to make. Following the Home Secretary's statement yesterday, I made a comment from the Chair which some observers have interpreted as a political statement. I wish to assure the House that I am wholly committed to maintaining the long-standing tradition that the Speaker stands aside from politics. The remark I made yesterday stemmed from my personal experience with constituents in my Glasgow, Springburn constituency, particularly in the community of Sighthill. Members may be aware that there was a particularly tragic murder of a young asylum seeker in that area during the summer recess. If, contrary to my intention, my remark was subject to the interpretation that has been placed on it, I seek the indulgence of the House.
Sir Patrick Cormack: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would it be in order to thank you very much for what you have just said, to express sympathy with you as a constituency Member, but most of all to thank you for upholding the impartiality of the Chair?
Mr. Speaker: I thank the hon. Gentleman.

BILL PRESENTED
  ANIMAL HEALTH BILL
  Secretary Margaret Beckett, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary Prescott, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Blunkett, Mr. Secretary Milburn, Mr. Secretary Murphy, Mr. Michael Wills and Mr. Elliot Morley, presented a Bill to amend the Animal Health Act 1981: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. Explanatory notes to be printed [Bill 39].

Firearms (Replica Weapons)
3.31 pm
Mr. David Atkinson: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to restrict the availability and use of ball bearing guns and similar replica weapons.
Last year, two girl constituents of mine who are sisters aged 12 and 15 were hit by ball-bearings fired from a gun while out walking in a public place. The experience traumatised both of them, especially the younger, whose quality of life suffered mentally for many weeks after. Fortunately, only their legs were hit. It could have been their heads, or, even worse, their eyes.
Since then, I have read all too many reports of local people being similarly targeted in public places, including children. In August, the Bournemouth Daily Echo reported a seven-year-old boy covered in blood having been shot in the forehead by a bullet from a BB gun. Such reports are frequently accompanied by the repeated warnings of the police about the carrying and use of BB guns and similar replica weapons in public. They are all too often called out in response to reports of the use of real handguns that turn out to be toys or replicas.
Last July in Bournemouth, a Dorset police helicopter was called out to lead a ground patrol to respond to a situation where a member of the public saw a 15-year-old boy with what appeared to be a real firearm. It was a BB gun. Of course, the police have no choice but to take such reports seriously, assuming that real weapons are being used. It represents a time-consuming waste of scarce police manpower.
I have no doubt that many hon. Members have read of similar experiences in their constituencies. That is the position that my Bill seeks to address. The guns that I seek to restrict are exact replicas, many made under licences issued by the major gun manufacturers: Colt, Smith and Wesson, Beretta, Uzi, Walther and so forth. Some are so-called soft air guns that shoot plastic bullets. Others shoot pellets or ball-bearings. They are marketed for fun gunning, whatever that is. They are freely available in toy, camping and gun shops, in markets, by mail order and on the internet. There are almost no restrictions on their purchase and use. As a result, they are widely used by children and young people, and criminals.
There is no doubt that the 1997 ban on handguns has contributed to the sharp reduction in the use of handguns in armed robbery. However, the legislation is being undermined by the alarming growth in the market for replica guns, estimated at more than 50 per cent. in the last two years alone.
This growing interest by children and young people, as well as criminals, should be a major concern to the House. It is creating insecurity and fear in our local communities. As I have said, it puts the police under pressure in the deployment of armed response to reports of replica incidents, which undoubtedly put the users at risk because the police must assume that the guns are real—and that could spark a tragedy, as indeed it has. The House will recall last July's tragedy when Metropolitan police officers shot dead a man in Brixton after he threatened them with what looked like a pistol but was in fact a novelty lighter. That strengthens the arguments for the police to be routinely armed, and may make it more difficult to recruit and retain quality police officers.

755
Dorset police regularly repeat warnings about BB guns and similar replica weapons ahead of school holidays, which see a rise in the number of such incidents. Officers talk to pupils at local schools and warn of the potential dangers. Regrettably, such warnings are proving unsuccessful in reducing such incidents. The fact is that some young people today want replica guns as fashion accessories to give them power and status. There are children who play with BB guns that shoot ball-bearings as if they are toys.
In response to this situation, countries such as France, Belgium and Japan have banned uncertified lookalikes and toys. Soft air weapons and other replicas are required to be brightly coloured and to look obviously different from real guns. My Bill could provide the vehicle for such a practical measure to be introduced here. It would not, however, deal with the firing of ball-bearings at people in public, which is the prime motivation behind my Bill.
The House will be aware that the Select Committee on Home Affairs gave detailed consideration to this issue last year. Its report "Controls over Firearms" was published in April 2000. The evidence given to the Committee by the Association of Chief Police Officers was very clear. I shall quote for the record what it said in support of my Bill. It stated:
"The police view the availability of replica and imitation firearms as a real risk to public safety. Replica and imitation firearms are regularly (at least 25–30 per cent. of cases) used in crime to threaten victims. It is not an offence to carry a replica or imitation firearm in a public place in circumstances which might cause alarm or distress. Police are often called to incidents where a person has deliberately or recklessly displayed a 'firearm'. Apart from the waste of police resources this represents a risk to the person concerned whilst armed police officers carry out an investigation. A number of fatal shootings have occurred because police officers believed they were facing a real firearm only to discover later the weapon was in fact an imitation. The police believe these weapons should be subject to strict controls or banned."
In its report, the Committee recommended that the purchase or sale of any imitation firearm by or to persons under 18 by telephone, mail order or on the internet should be prohibited. The Government have accepted that and propose to extend it to include sales through any outlet, including face to face.
756
Paragraph 54 of the Committee's report said:
"We recommend that when toy guns are offered for sale they must be clearly described and identified as toys".
It is that recommendation that the Government have accepted in principle. They want to consider whether it is possible to devise a clear distinction between imitation guns that might be properly sold as toys and the more realistic replica guns of the kind suitable for film and theatrical work.
That is where the matter rests. However, the then Home Office Minister, now the Minister without Portfolio, the right hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), confirmed the Government's continuing commitment to banning replica weapons on Budget day in March this year when he opened an exhibition in the House by the Gun Control Network. It is now clear that the Home Office is concentrating on even more serious issues in response to international terrorism. It is unlikely to produce any such legislation for some time to come, so my Bill provides the House with the opportunity to demonstrate its concern that legislation be introduced to address the irresponsible use of BB guns and other replica weapons. Should the House allow my Bill to proceed, it could also provide a vehicle for the Government's intended legislation, should they be so minded.
My Bill to restrict the availability and use of ball-bearing guns and similar replica weapons has all-party support and I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. David Atkinson, Mr. David Amess, Mrs. Annette L. Brooke, Sir Sydney Chapman, Mr. Tom Cox, Mrs. Ann Cryer, Mr. Bill Etherington, Mr. Mike Hancock, Rev. Martin Smyth, Bob Spink, Adam Price and Mr. John Wilkinson.

Firearms (Replica Weapons)
  FIREARMS (REPLICA WEAPONS)
  Mr. David Atkinson accordingly presented a Bill to restrict the availability and use of ball bearing guns and similar replica weapons: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 30 November, and to be printed [Bill 41].

Proceeds of Crime Bill
Order for Second Reading read.
3.41 pm
The Minister for Police, Courts and Drugs (Mr. John Denham): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The last Bill that I introduced on Second Reading, the Football Disorder (Amendment) Bill, completed its Committee stage in less than one full Committee sitting. I very much doubt that we shall have so much good fortune with this Bill, which has more than 400 clauses, but it is a very important measure.
The Bill is about taking the profit out of crime. The proceeds of crime have a corrosive effect on society and our economy. The wealth is flaunted and the message seems to be that crime pays. Such wealth is offensive to our hard-working and law-abiding constituents and establishes harmful role models for our young people. Moreover, businesses whose profits are inflated by criminal proceeds can gain an unfair advantage over honest competitors. The proceeds of crime also provide the working capital for future criminal enterprise. Recovering the money is therefore essential for crime reduction.
Traditionally, however, the criminal justice system has been much better at convicting criminals than at depriving them of their wealth. Far too many defendants pass through the criminal justice system with little or no effort being made to deprive them of the benefit that they have derived from their crimes. The Bill says that people should not be able to enjoy the proceeds of criminal activity. They should not enjoy the trappings of wealth when that wealth is built on the misery of victims or activities that damage and exploit society.
Organised crime is big business and the sums involved are huge. The value of drugs seized last year exceeded £735 million, and the value of illegal drugs transactions has been estimated at up to £1.5 billion annually. Cigarette smuggling annually costs the Exchequer almost £3 billion and loose tobacco smuggling about £900 million. The assets derived from organised crime represent about 2 per cent. of the United Kingdom's gross domestic product. Globally, the profits of some drug cartels are comparable to those of some of the world's major companies.
Like legitimate business, organised crime sets out to maximise profits and minimise risk. It forms strategic alliances. It continually diversifies into different commodities and services, depending on the market. The criminals concerned are cash-rich, and it is easier for them to dispose of the proceeds of their crime by investing in other criminal enterprises than to invest them in the conventional way. None the less, some of them use dirty money to buy and run legitimate businesses. They employ bankers, lawyers and accountants and they operate across international borders.
I believe that with this Bill, we shall be able to cut into the profits that are made from crime and increase the risk to those who indulge in criminal activities. We have to follow the commodity, as we do when we set out to seize drugs. We need to target people, as we do when we go after persistent offenders in the criminal community. We also need, however, to follow the money. The police and customs experts believe that following the money is an
758
effective route in identifying major criminals, disrupting criminal organisations and, of course, relieving crooks of the proceeds of their crimes.
Money laundering is consistently given prominence in the annual threat assessment of the National Criminal Intelligence Service. That is why customs and the National Crime Squad now consider the financial aspects in every criminal investigation and why the detention and seizure of drug-related cash at the border is now a top enforcement activity for customs.
Mrs. Helen Clark: I understand that it has been hard in the past for police to define where laundered money has come from—from crime, drugs or indeed terrorism. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that the Bill will remove that anomaly?
Mr. Denham: Certainly it is our intention to remove a number of anomalies that have prevented effective measures to recover the proceeds of crime. The different treatment of different types of criminal offence, including drug trafficking and money laundering, is one of the problems that it is designed to tackle.
The Government's view of the importance of tackling crime through its finances is one that is increasingly shared in other countries, leading other Governments to review their own laws on dealing with the proceeds of crime. To go further, which is the aim of the Bill, we need to put in place an effective legal framework and legal powers. The Bill will do that, and I shall explain its role and structure presently.
This important Bill needs to be supported by other action. First, resources and a new priority for financial investigation and the recovery of criminal assets are needed. That is why we have ensured that more than £45 million will be available in the current settlement period to strengthen asset recovery arrangements and we have recently announced funding for 86 additional financial investigators for the police service in England and Wales.
Secondly, we need expertise. The work is complex and it needs skilled people, more financial investigators trained to common high standards and prosecutors and judges equipped to deal with difficult cases. We are preparing for that now. We have recently announced the appointment of a development manager to plan a new centre of excellence in financial investigation, and to help us begin delivering improved training in advance of legislation.
Thirdly, we need international co-operation. Criminals use national boundaries to protect both themselves and their money. The United Kingdom is in the forefront of moves to establish common standards on money laundering and arrangements for cross-border co-operation in the European Union, the G8, the United Nations and the Financial Action Task Force. Improvements made by the Bill will apply to the recovery of money generated by crime overseas as they will to domestic crime.
There are major developments in the financial sector itself. The Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 established the Financial Services Authority as the single regulatory body for financial business in the United Kingdom. Earlier this year, the FSA published a hard-hitting report on allegations that UK banks had laundered funds on behalf of General Abacha, the former

759
President of Nigeria, and his family and associates. The report made it clear that 15 of 23 banks identified had significant weaknesses in their anti-money laundering controls.
Under its existing powers, the FSA was able to order immediate action to rectify the deficiencies, but when the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 comes fully into force on 30 November, the authority will acquire tough new powers to make rules on money laundering, penalise breaches and mount criminal prosecutions, and it has stated publicly that those powers will be rigorously applied.
The Government have set a target of doubling receipts from the proceeds of crime by 2004. In real money, that is a target of just under £60 million. The Government and the law enforcement and prosecution agencies have drawn up a strategy for achieving this, which we will publish shortly.
The increased focus on asset recovery must be accompanied by a comprehensive updating of the legislation. I shall set out what we see as the problems in the current legislation. The confiscation and forfeiture powers and the money laundering offences are set out in the Drug Trafficking Act 1994 and the Criminal Justice Act 1988, as amended by the Proceeds of Crime Act 1995. Frankly, the legislation has failed to keep pace with the increasingly sophisticated measures used for hiding and laundering criminal assets.
For a start, the separate treatment of drug trafficking and other criminal activity makes the legislation ineffective against today's versatile criminal entrepreneurs. When dealing with criminal groups, it is often in practice impossible to distinguish between the proceeds of their drug trafficking and those of other activities. The courts have called for the abolition of this distinction in the criminal law on money laundering.
Secondly, to prosecute money laundering and confiscate criminal proceeds, it is necessary to find them. The law at present does not give the police and customs enough help; a search warrant on its own is of little use if they do not know where to search. With modern technology, money can be transferred from one bank account to another at the touch of a button. We need new investigative powers to facilitate the tracing of assets.
Thirdly, even if investigators find the assets, they have no powers to freeze them. Restraint orders, which prohibit defendants and their associates from disposing of assets, are not available until the defendant is about to be charged. That is far too late. By that time, the defendant will often have realised that he or she is under investigation and will have placed their assets beyond reach. Moreover, the restraint procedures themselves are costly and inaccessible, which is why last year fewer than 300 such orders were made.
The complexity of the confiscation system deters the courts and the practitioners. The system produces only about 1,200 confiscation orders each year, compared with over 65,000 defendants found guilty of offences in the Crown court, most of which are for acquisitive crime.
Mr. David Kidney: I fully support the Bill, but the Home Office commentary says that there will be
760
protection for innocent third parties. Does that mean that the investigative and restraint procedures will be time-limited?
Mr. Denham: It is difficult to impose specific time limits. That is a matter for the court's discretion. The court has a wide power to vary the discharge of any restraint order if there is an application by the person affected by it. If a court were dissatisfied by the progress of an investigation, it would be able to discharge the restraint order. However, to put a time limit in the Bill would not be the right way forward.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: On third parties, where a legitimate bill is owed—to a builder. say—and cannot be paid because there is a freezing order on the assets of a suspected person, who will protect the interests of the innocent third party, namely the builder? Is there some mechanism whereby the builder can get protection and at least some of the money that he is owed in good faith?
Mr. Denham: There is provision for the freeing up of assets to enable the continuation of the conduct of legitimate business. The right hon. and learned Gentleman makes a not unreasonable point, but the provision that he seeks will be available to the court under those circumstances.
In addition to there being relatively few confiscation orders, they are poorly enforced. Each year, receipts amount to only 40 to 50 per cent. of the value of orders made. Enforcement procedures need to be strengthened.
The institutional arrangements of the criminal justice system are stacked against asset recovery. The police and prosecution agencies have historically focused—understandably, perhaps—on detecting and prosecuting the criminal. Magistrates courts find it difficult to give priority to confiscation orders in their enforcement of a wider range of court orders and sentences.
There is a further problem. Except where drug or terrorist cash is discovered at the border, current legislation provides no means of recovering criminal proceeds other than after a conviction. However, many major criminal figures have become untouchable by criminal prosecution. They organise or finance the criminal activity of others and profit from the results, but remain remote from the commission of particular crimes. That often makes it impossible for law enforcement authorities to build a case against them.
Criminal proceedings may be impossible for other reasons, for example where the suspect is abroad and cannot be extradited, or where the suspect has died. In many of these cases, law enforcement has compelling evidence that assets were derived from unlawful activity, and this is often supplemented by evidence that property has been concealed and that no legitimate explanation for the property exists.
The law enforcement agencies regularly encounter cases such as those I have outlined, and a survey last year identified 400 individuals or groups with estimated combined assets of £440 million who potentially fell into this category.
I emphasise that the prosecution of criminals must always take priority, and will continue to do so. However, I do not believe that it is acceptable that ownership of the

761
proceeds of crime should remain immune from any form of legal challenge where criminal proceedings are not available.
Mr. David Tredinnick: Will not the test of the Bill be the word "potential"? Have the Government thought through carefully how to overcome the degree of potentiality when it comes to assets? Although it might be easy to estimate the amount of assets involved in a case, has the Minister any plans to define and clarify the word "potential" in that context when the Bill is being considered in Committee?
Mr. Denham: Given that the Bill has more than 430 clauses, I am sure that the Standing Committee will have many opportunities to scrutinise many aspects of the Bill. However, as I shall make clear in a moment, the civil recovery of the proceeds of crime will take place by civil test, but in the courts. The civil test has degrees or scales of weight, and we expect that the recovery of the proceeds of crime will be a matter near the upper end of the civil test. We must remember that we are talking not about an executive or administrative process but about a court-based process. That process will be at the heart of what we are doing, but the Bill sets out in some detail the legal framework through which we can seek to recover the proceeds of crime.
Mr. Norman Baker: Will the Minister explain the Government's thinking with regard to a person who has been subject to a criminal prosecution and acquitted? Will it still be permissible or appropriate for civil proceedings to be taken against the assets of a person in that situation?
Mr. Denham: Certainly, there could be circumstances in 'which such action could be appropriate because the action will concern the property, not the individual. Civil recovery is a matter not of finding a person guilty of a crime but of recovering the proceeds of crime, if that can be established to the satisfaction of the courts and according to the tests laid out in the Bill. It is clearly conceivable, therefore, that there could be circumstances in which a person's assets could be recovered even though his conviction on a specific offence had failed.
There is no moral right to enjoy the proceeds of crime. Given the corrosive effect that retention of such assets can have on society, and the vital importance for crime reduction and public morale of preventing their use to finance new criminal activity, the absence of any remedy represents a gap in the legislation that it is increasingly important to fill.
I shall briefly run through the Bill's main sections.
First, the Bill will establish the Assets Recovery Agency, which will share the confiscation functions of the law enforcement and prosecution authorities. In a criminal case, those authorities will be able to ask the agency to handle the financial investigation and confiscation aspects, while they concentrate on the criminal investigation and proceedings.
Secondly, the agency will have sole authority to operate the civil recovery and taxation functions that the Bill creates. I shall return to those functions in a moment.
Thirdly, the agency will train and accredit financial investigators, who will then be able to apply their skills in their own organisations.
762
Finally, the agency's director will advise the Secretary of State on matters relating to asset recovery. The director will play a leading role in the development and implementation of the asset recovery strategy.
The agency will operate in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, and in Scotland for its taxation functions. It will be a champion for and raise the profile of asset recovery.
The Bill will remove obstacles faced by the authorities when they try to trace or freeze a suspect's assets and to obtain a confiscation order after conviction. The power to restrain the suspect's assets will be made more accessible. Restraint orders will be available at an earlier stage, from the start of the criminal investigation, and applications will be heard by the Crown court instead of the High Court.
Confiscation powers will be extended. A single conviction for drug trafficking, money laundering or any of a list of other offences to be specified by order by the Home Secretary will trigger the assumptions procedure. Under that procedure, the court will assume that all the defendant's assets are derived from criminal activity unless he can show to the contrary. Multiple convictions and offences committed over an extended period will also attract the assumptions procedure—that is, the convicted defendant will he treated as having a criminal lifestyle.
Mr. Edward Garnier: Under clause 11, four assumptions are set out. Am I right in assuming that all four have to be made by the court if it is to move on? I guess that they are to be based on statements of information, covered in clause 17. Does the prosecutor or the director have to give the grounds for his belief or merely make a bald statement that he believes such and such? I am puzzled as to how this mechanism will work.
Mr. Denham: The test is objective and factual, based on the nature of the offences of which the defendant has been found guilty. I do not have clause 11 in front of me, but certain offences, such as money laundering and drug trafficking, attract an automatic assumption. I think that it is a question of four offences over six years or an offence committed over an extended period of time. We have tried to make the test for the courts objective rather than subjective.
Mr. Garnier: The Minister is not doing himself justice. Perhaps he could have a look at clause 11 and come back to me later in his remarks, because I am not sure that he has answered my point. I do not expect him to know the detail of the Bill off by heart, even though it is his Bill, but perhaps he could take instructions from his officials during the afternoon and then advise the House.
Mr. Denham: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for his advice on how to handle this part of the Bill. If there are any outstanding points, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth) can deal with them in the winding-up speech.
We have clearly set out the tests that we wish to be applied. Their application will be mandatory, on application from the director of the Assets Recovery

763
Agency. If any further ambiguity remains, I will ask my hon. Friend to return to it during the winding-up speech. It may, of course, come up during the debate.
Mr. Oliver Letwin: I apologise for detaining the Minister, but I hope that he will ask the Under-Secretary to take advice on this point. It seems clear from subsections (1) and (7) of clause 11 that all four assumptions must be made except where an exception is specifically registered by the court. They are not tests but wide-ranging assumptions about what has gone on or is purported to have gone on. This is not a detail; it is highly material and we need an explicit answer.
Mr. Denham: I should be happy to clarify the point if necessary in the course of the debate, although I believe that the hon. Gentleman and I may be slightly at cross-purposes about the nature of the tests that then require the courts to apply the assumptions. Perhaps I may make progress, but if the opportunity arises to develop the point further I shall be happy to do so.
In the circumstances that I have set out—multiple applications, offences committed over an extended period, convictions for drug trafficking or money laundering or any of a list of other offences to be specified by the Home Secretary—the convicted defendant will be treated as having a criminal lifestyle. The assumption will then be that all the defendant's assets are derived from criminal activity unless he can show to the contrary. I believe that the use of assumptions in such cases is justified and a vital ingredient of the legislation. Their use has been upheld by the European Court of Human Rights as well as the Court of Appeal and Privy Council.
The procedure will not be available if the court considers that applying the assumption would give rise to a serious risk of injustice and the assumption will of course be rebuttable by the convicted defendant's demonstrating the legitimate origin of his assets.
Part 5 empowers the director of the agency to sue people in the High Court for the recovery of property that is derived from unlawful activity. That is a civil action to which civil rules and procedures will apply. In Scotland, Scottish Ministers will be responsible for civil recovery.
Civil recovery gets to the heart of the problem of criminal assets which currently remain beyond reach when criminal proceedings are not available.
Mr. Ian Davidson: I seek clarification of the way in which the process will operate. As I understand it, the Government wish to seize the assets of criminals, and lawyers wish to help the criminals to keep those assets. Let us assume that there is a process of search and certain assets are recovered, identified and seized. What will happen if other assets, which have successfully been hidden by lawyers and accountants on behalf of the criminal, are subsequently discovered? Will the Government be able to pursue those also or is it a one-shot gun, which gives only one chance to identify and seize the assets?
Mr. Denham: With the safeguard that assets must be the proceeds of crime, it will be possible to revisit, should further assets be identified as proceeds of crime. However, there is a distinction between the confiscation
764
procedure on conviction and civil recovery. In the conviction-based approach, the assumption could be said to be that the assets are the product of criminal activity. On the civil side, the search is for those assets that are the proceeds of crime, which of course would include property that had been bought using cash that had been obtained by converting the proceeds of crime into cash. However, the broad answer to my hon. Friend's question is yes.
The director will have access to civil investigation powers. Where necessary, and if the court is satisfied that he has a good arguable case, he will be able to seek an interim receiving order that freezes the property pending the outcome of the case and places it under the control of a court-appointed receiver.
Civil recovery will not seek to establish guilt or innocence but will focus on whether particular property is or represents the proceeds of crime. Civil recovery will not be an alternative to prosecution, which will remain the preferred course wherever possible. The law enforcement and prosecution authorities will apply their normal evidential and public interest tests in deciding whether to pursue criminal proceedings. They will refer cases to the director for possible civil recovery only where prosecution is not available.
The scheme contains substantial safeguards. The burden of proof will be on the director. The civil standard of proof will apply, but the court will be able to require a high standard in practice, as is usual where allegations of unlawful conduct are made in civil proceedings. There will be a financial threshold below which proceedings will not be initiated and we expect to set that at not less than £10,000. Civil legal aid will be available, subject to appropriate tests, and where the director loses the court will be able to order him to compensate respondents for any financial loss that they have incurred. Any victim who has been unlawfully deprived of the property will be able to join the proceedings and the court will give their claim priority over the director's. There is substantial and detailed protection for people who show that they purchased property in good faith for full value and without notice of its tainted origins, and for other innocent interests. Similar schemes operate successfully in Ireland and the USA, and the Australian Government have recently introduced a Bill that includes such a scheme.
Mr. Letwin: I am doubly grateful to the Minister for his courtesy in giving way, but will he explain whether the Government think that the serious default provision in that compensation scheme will be effective?
Mr. Denham: Yes, we do. There has to be a scheme for those who are seriously wronged by the way in which the director goes about his business. The detail of how the scheme is intended to operate and the tests that will be applied are matters that will be considered in detail in Committee. We have given some care and thought to getting the matter right, and I look forward to discussing it further in detail, but it is important that the scheme exists as one of the protections under part 5.
Part 5 also provides for the forfeiture of cash in magistrates court proceedings. Under the Drug Trafficking Act 1994, provision already exists for the seizure and forfeiture of cash discovered at the border and suspected to be the proceeds of, or intended for use in,

765
drug trafficking. In 1999–2000, £4.4 million was forfeited in the magistrates courts under that procedure, but it is available only in relation to drug trafficking and cash discovered at external borders. Those restrictions are no longer defensible, so we propose that the police and customs should be empowered to seize cash that they reasonably suspect to be derived from, or intended for use in, crime, and to seek its recovery in civil proceedings. That power will apply to cash discovered anywhere in the United Kingdom.
To ensure that the powers can be exercised effectively, the law enforcement authorities will need to be able to search for suspect cash, where they believe that it is being carried by an individual or that it is on premises where they are lawfully present, so the Bill will establish a new search power for that purpose, with appropriate and substantial checks and safeguards. Like the existing cash forfeiture scheme, that power will only be available where a substantial sum of cash is discovered, perhaps similar to the existing minimum threshold of £10,000.
Part 6 will give the director taxation powers. Experience here and abroad has shown that taxation is a powerful tool for recovering criminal assets. Criminals and their associates are often unknown to the tax authorities and would be liable to heavy payments if their tax position were examined. Of course, current tax law does not exempt income and gains from tax liability simply because they are derived from an illegal business. So if the director concludes that civil recovery proceedings are not viable or should not be pursued, but has reasonable grounds to suspect a person of having received income or gains derived from unlawful activity, he will be able to assess the person's tax position and, if necessary, issue a tax demand.
The director will, with one exception, apply normal Inland Revenue rules and policies. The exception is that, unlike the Inland Revenue, the director will be able to raise an income tax assessment where he cannot identify the source from which the income has derived. Taxpayers dealt with by the director will have an avenue of appeal to the special commissioners and of complaint to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration. The director will be required to treat tax information with the same confidentiality as the Revenue.
Neither part 5 nor part 6 will have any impact on the ordinary taxpayer, who will continue to be dealt with by the Inland Revenue. Evasion of tax payable on legitimate income or gains will not fall within the purview of the director.
Under the Bill, the distinction between the offence of laundering drug proceeds and the offence of laundering other criminal proceeds will be removed. The need under present law for the prosecution to prove whether the proceeds derive from drug or non-drug offences is one reason for the small number of prosecutions brought. It will be an offence for a person working in regulated sectors such as banking to fail to report money laundering. The offence will be committed if the defendant had reasonable grounds to know or suspect that money laundering was taking place, but the court will be required
766
to take account of whether a defendant complied with industry guidelines. Under the Bill, those guidelines will need to be endorsed by the Treasury.
Mr. Tom Harris: My right hon. Friend mentioned the provisions in relation to bankers. He may be aware that, earlier this year, the Government introduced the Financial Investigations (Northern Ireland) Order 2001 to combat money laundering in Northern Ireland, and that article 6 created a power to issue a general solicitors circular under which solicitors are obliged to provide limited information about clients who are under investigation. Can he confirm that a similar provision will be included in the Bill?
Mr. Denham: As it stands, the Bill applies to the regulated sector of the financial services industry. However, as some right hon. and hon. Members know, a European directive is going through the system which may change the boundaries of the regulated sector. If it does, it will be necessary to consider whether the legislation requires any changes.
At the moment, the law makes it too easy for people to turn a blind eye to money laundering. The prosecution must prove that the defendant knew or suspected that there was money laundering. It is reasonable to expect people working in professions such as banking and handling high-value business to work to certain standards of competence and vigilance.
Part 8 provides powers for tracing and investigating suspected criminal assets. That will include a new customer information order requiring banks to inform the investigator if they hold an account for a person under investigation, and an account-monitoring order requiring banks to inform the investigator of movements of such an account over a period.
Civilian staff working for the police and customs services will for the first time have access to investigation powers, provided that they have been accredited as financial investigators by the agency. That will make it easier for police and customs to expand their financial investigation capacity. The Home Secretary will have power by order to list other law enforcement agencies and departments whose accredited financial investigators are to have access to the investigation powers.
The Bill also makes provision to extend investigation powers to the director of the new agency. The director will not have a law enforcement role, so will not carry out money-laundering investigations. He will, however. have access to the investigative powers for the purpose of carrying out either a confiscation or a civil recovery investigation. The additional power of a disclosure order, which is not provided for other agencies, will be available to the director, under which the director will be able to require persons to answer questions and provide information. That power is based on a similar power to that of the director of the Serious Fraud Office.
The Bill is innovative and strengthens the law substantially. I know that it will be the subject of much detailed scrutiny in Committee, and I am sure that many points of principle and substance will be raised in this debate. However, the Bill is fair and proportionate to the problem that it addresses—a major one for our society and our economy. The Bill forms part of a wider strategy. It will be backed by resources and expertise. Importantly,

767
the recovered assets fund, which we established earlier this month, will enable us to plough back a significant proportion of the receipts that the Bill generates into the fight against crime and the use of measures in the local community. That will help step up the battle against crime and to reduce crime. I commend the Bill to the House.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: I remind the House that Back-Bench speeches are restricted to 15 minutes.
4.18 pm
Mr. Oliver Letwin: We on the Conservative Benches share the Government's desire to deprive people who profit hugely from very evil acts, but who cannot directly be related to some of those evil acts, of the ill-gotten gains on which they subsist. I suspect that that is common ground among members of all parties, and certainly between the Government and ourselves. For that reason, I shall not recommend that my hon. Friends oppose the Bill.
However, some of the provisions of at least two parts of this immense Bill—parts 2 and 5—give rise to serious concerns about the balance between the state and the individual, and about civil liberties. I shall explain in a moment why it is evident from the Minister's comments that the Bill has not wholly been absorbed by the Government Front-Bench team. Therefore, before I recommend that my hon. Friends vote for the Bill on Third Reading, we will need to be convinced in Committee that those concerns have been adequately handled.
The Minister, reading from a script all too familiar to those of us who are used to Whitehall briefings, described the contents of part 2 but did not give its flavour. The Minister and I first encountered: one another on the Standing Committee that considered the Social Security Bill in 1997. Although I have a high regard for him and his sense of balance between the state and the individual, I am not convinced that the Bill's flavour has been conveyed to him, let alone to the House.
The purpose of part 2 is to allow the confiscation in criminal proceedings of property from prospectively evil individuals, but that is not how it is structured. Clauses 6(2)(c) and 70(1) are based on what can only be described as an Al Capone method. The House will recall that when Al Capone was rightly being pursued by the law enforcement agencies in Chicago, it proved impossible to secure a conviction for the many appalling murders that he committed. A successful effort was made instead to entrap him for tax evasion; broadly the same method is envisaged in part 2.
Clauses 6(2)(c) and 70(1) allow the process of confiscation to be triggered by a summary offence, such as the absence of a tachograph in a cab. So if our prospective villain owns a cab that does not contain a tachograph and is convicted of that offence in a magistrates court, clauses 6(2)(c) and 70(1) can be used to trigger the process leading to confiscation. The Minister might not believe me, but he needs to attend to the details. The Bill might not reflect his intentions, but it is how it is. I do not want to overstate the case. It is not true that that conviction alone would suffice to bring about confiscation, but it could trigger the process. That is an
768
important consideration. As I describe the rest of the process, I hope that the House will remember that it can originate from a minor event that has nothing to do with a serious criminal action.
The next stage in the process is, I think, unknown to English law hitherto, and we have not had time to investigate how far it is known in other jurisdictions. The departure from English law should have merited a considerable description in the Minister's speech. The court has to decide whether the person—in this case, the individual responsible for the tachograph offence—also has a criminal lifestyle. That is the key feature of part 2. According to clauses 6(4) and 75(2)(c), a criminal lifestyle has the remarkable feature—I do not know whether the Minister was fully aware of what he accurately said—of consisting of any set of offences defined without limit by the Secretary of State in regulations that we have not seen.
We are dealing with a process that can be triggered by a minor summary offence that leads to an individual being reported to a Crown court by a prosecutor for an investigation into the possibility of confiscation. The court has to decide whether that person has engaged in a criminal lifestyle, which is defined without limit by the Secretary of State in regulations that we have not seen. [Interruption.] That is worrying.
Mr. Denham: Keen though he is to patronise me this afternoon, I do not think that the hon. Gentleman should persist in articulating such a distorted view of the procedure. First, in any case the prosecutor or the director of the new agency would have to decide whether to pursue the matter. Secondly, it is clear that the court must not make an assumption if it is shown to be incorrect or if there would be a serious risk of injustice if the assumption were made. That is an important part of the process, to which the hon. Gentleman does not appear to want to draw the House's attention.
Mr. Letwin: I apologise for the patronising tone—I meant my comments to be an outright attack. I was trying to be polite, but it seems to have been a gross error.
The Minister is about one quarter right—just to continue the patronising tone—
The Minister of State, Scotland Office (Mr. George Foulkes): You will be giving him marks out of 10 next.
Mr. Letwin: I shall do so shortly, but they will not be high.
The Minister is right to say that the court is required by the Bill to act in a manner that seeks to prevent injustice—I am sure that any English court would act in such a manner in any case. However, the court also has to engage in statutory construction—it has to look at the legislation and the regulations produced by the Secretary of State. The Bill specifically allows the Secretary of State to define in regulations anything that he chooses—the House has not seen the proposed regulations—as a basis for a criminal lifestyle. As the Bill contains no other definition than the definition that includes the provision. for the Secretary of State to produce such regulations, no court will know what to do if it does not happen to like the Secretary of State's choices, because they will be the definitions in the regulations. Therefore, I fear that the Minister is three quarters wrong.

769
Things get worse, because once the court has decided that the individual hypothetically first convicted of a tachograph offence also has a criminal lifestyle—perhaps because he has fallen foul of items in the regulations that we have not seen—the court then has to make assumptions.
Mr. Stephen McCabe: Is the hon. Gentleman's difficulty that he has such a sacred regard for the value of money that he is unable to recognise tainted money? Is that why Conservative Members did not recognise that Asil Nadir had a criminal lifestyle?
Mr. Letwin: No, I have a sacred regard for the preservation of the rights of innocent individuals in the face of the state, and I suspect that the hon. Gentleman and the rest of the House share that regard. In our joint earnest desire to pursue criminals, we should not throw overboard the entire structure of our common law and traditions, which were created to protect innocent individuals against an overmighty state. I should have thought that that was common ground between Members on both sides of the House. The question is whether the Bill adequately achieves that balance. My argument is that in the parts that I am discussing, the Bill does not, as yet, do so.
Mr. Denham: The hon. Gentleman is confused. He persistently talks about innocent individuals, but the parts of the Bill to which he refers deal with people who have been convicted. To alleviate my confusion, it would be helpful if the hon. Gentleman stated from which crimes he thinks individuals should be able to retain the proceeds. He clearly has in mind a series of crimes in respect of which individuals should be free from any threat of recovery, and I should be interested to hear his list.
Mr. Letwin: I beg the Minister to calm himself a little and attend to the problem that he is creating. I believe that if he thinks about it, he will not want to do what he is here doing.
We are not talking about the proceeds of particular crimes. The point about the assumptions under clause 11—which the Minister muddled up hopelessly—is that they ask the court to look not at the proceeds of the crime of which the individual has been convicted, nor at the proceeds of the crimes specified in the regulations, but at the entirety of the assets gained by that individual over a six-year period.
If the individual has committed a tachograph offence and has committed three offences specified in regulations that we have not seen, it does not automatically follow—we should not allow ourselves to be dragged into prejudging the matter—that that individual should be arraigned for all of his proceeds over six years. To make that connection, the person in question has to be a villain. The question is whether we have a structure that will adequately differentiate between villains and people who are merely believed by the prosecutor to be villains.
The assumptions in question are not tests. They are assumptions that the court is to be asked to make, and the broad assumption is that if the person has a criminal lifestyle everything that he gained over the preceding six years is part of that criminal lifestyle.
The Parliamentary Under -Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Bob Ainsworth): It must be the proceeds of crime.
Mr. Letwin: If the hon. Gentleman attends to clause 11, he will find that it does not have to be shown that the items in question are the proceeds of crime. It merely needs to be shown that they are in the hands of someone who has a criminal lifestyle—a critical distinction. I am astonished to be having this debate with the Minister.
Mr. Ainsworth: There are two relevant provisions: first, that the recoverable items are the proceeds of crime and, secondly, that there is no risk of injustice. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that both defences would be acceptable?
Mr. Letwin: I will be happy to eat my words if I am wrong, but I think that the recovery of which the Minister speaks in the first part of his remarks refers to part 5 and not part 2.
Mr. Ainsworth indicated dissent.
Mr. Letwin: If I am wrong about that, I apologise. I would like to see the relevant provision.
I have already accepted that courts will try to achieve justice, but they are guided by what is in the law and in regulations. If a court is told that someone has a criminal lifestyle and that they have committed three offences specified in the regulations, it will so decide. It will not have discretion to do otherwise.
The matter goes further. The authorities have a duty to confiscate not merely items that are in the hands of the person who has been shown to have a criminal lifestyle. Others who bought the items—perhaps honestly; perhaps at a discount store—could be brought within the provisions of clauses 41 to 46. As the Law Society has forcefully stated, their assets could be confiscated, too.
It is true that there is provision for compensation if, at the end of the process, the effort by the public prosecutor fails. However, when I asked the Minister about the serious default provisions, it became clear that he was not aware that compensation can be obtained only if the persons or authorities pursuing the matter have engaged in a serious default. They do not need merely to have gone wrong. [Interruption.] If the Minister knows that, I am astonished that he is as relaxed about it as he is.
An innocent third party who has bought something from someone against whom a rather rickety chain of actions has been taken, and that action has failed, could find themselves unable to obtain compensation for having been bankrupted because there was not a serious default, in the legal sense of the term, by the authorities that made the mistake and prosecuted. If that is not an imbalance between state and individual, I do not know what is.
I think that there is a serious practical problem. I apologise for adopting a tone that has riled the Minister. The Bill is the great work of the Home Office—it has 440 clauses, and I do not know how long it took to write instructions and draft the Bill, probably for the previous set of Ministers—yet relatively little attention has been paid to whether the fine balance between the individual and the state is being maintained. Notwithstanding the banter between us now, I hope that in Committee we can

771
go through these issues seriously to try to iron out some of the difficulties. Let us try to tighten the rules so that part 2 permits the confiscation of assets from real villains without exposing us to the risk that innocent individuals may be harmed quite unfairly. I feel confident that the Bill as drafted will expose us to that risk.
Mr. Davidson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that when he speaks of the fine balance between the state and the individual he creates the impression that he and his party are soft on crime and are more interested in the civil liberties of drug dealers and criminals than in helping the Government to defend communities such as my own, which suffers considerably from the curse of drugs and criminals who, for a long period, have been virtually untouchable? If he is serious about supporting the general thrust of the Government's actions, could he not concentrate more on ways in which he could be helpful, rather than simply nit-pick and make derogatory remarks about the Minister?
Mr. Letwin: The hon. Gentleman and I differ about the purpose of this place. I do not think that it is a congratulations society for Ministers or Governments; its purpose is to ensure that we enact good law. We shall not have that if, in the justified pursuit of appalling villains who have destroyed thousands, probably millions, of lives around the country, we allow ourselves to be inveigled into establishing law that permits the state wrongly to pursue innocent individuals. I should have thought that that was common ground. I am genuinely surprised, as I thought that when those things were pointed out, Government Members would reflect on them, allow us to debate them in Committee and try to correct them. I had no intention of making a political onslaught; if I had, I would have adopted a different tone of voice.
Before turning to part 5, I want to mention a practical difficulty. I beg Ministers and Government Members not to regard this as a political attack, as my intention is serious. The practical difficulty arises from an item much loved by Ministers—the European convention on human rights, especially article 6(2). I do not maintain that the fact that there might be an incompatibility between the Bill and the convention means that the Bill is wrong and the convention right. That is not necessarily the position of Conservative Members, but the convention is in existence and, under the Human Rights Act 1998, Ministers have legislated for its incorporation in our legislation. A possible incompatibility is therefore a practical consideration. I know that the Home Secretary has signed the declaration that the Bill is compatible with the convention and I am sure that he has taken serious advice about that. I do not want to overstate my case, as he may well turn out to be right, but I wish to raise the matter because we shall need a clear exposition in Committee. An investigation must be conducted by the Joint Committee on Human Rights to ensure that none of us can pass legislation that is rapidly invalidated by the judges.
Article 6(2) of the ECHR states that everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent. That is a cardinal article of the ECHR. The exchange between my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) and the Minister was important, because the presumption in clause 11 is that the court must make an assumption, as the Under-Secretary himself acknowledged,
772
that the party involved is, so to speak, guilty; all of his assets, as the Under-Secretary confirmed from a sedentary position, are assumed to come from criminal activity. That is the only way in which the articulation in clause 11 can work. It is obviously wrong to confiscate the assets of someone with a criminal lifestyle, unless they have come from criminal activity. Clause 11 assumes that the person involved has gained his assets through criminal activity; that is a presumption of guilt, as the Under-Secretary confirmed when he said that the individual can rebut that. I agree; of course he can. However, guilt is presumed if an individual is allowed to rebut the charge and demonstrate his innocence. That is a very different pattern of activity from that envisaged by article 6(2). I suspect that legal advice to the Home Office put a lot of weight on the difference between criminal proceedings and ancillary proceedings under clause 11. I am not a lawyer, but I believe that there is a jurisprudential trail, which shows that difference to be not incompatible with article 6(2).
That is to say, I believe that there is a jurisprudential trail in which judges have decided that, in ancillary proceedings rather than criminal proceedings, it is reasonable in some cases to presume guilt. However, it may be rather difficult to put that amount of weight on that difference in the context of an action which seeks to deprive an individual of six years' worth of his entire assets, so we need to know whether the measure is compatible.
Mr. Garnier: Is not the force of my hon. Friend's argument all the greater when one considers that convention jurisprudence looks to the effect of the confiscation order and treats a confiscation order, whether it comes about through civil or criminal proceedings, as criminal? It is a penalty. My hon. Friend's point therefore needs to be dealt with rather more cogently than it is currently being dealt with by the Minister.
Mr. Letwin: That is a good point from a distinguished lawyer, unlike myself. If the case is as my hon. and learned Friend describes, the position is probably worse than I painted it. In any event, there is no substitute for the Joint Committee on Human Rights considering the matter carefully. None of us would wish to carry the Bill through Committee and discover that clause 11 invalidates the entire procedure.
Mr. Denham: Can the hon. Gentleman clarify his view of the use of assumptions in recovery proceedings under the existing legislation, which I believe was enacted under a Conservative Government, and his view of the fact that three challenges to the use of those assumptions under the European convention on human rights have all failed? He speaks as though neither assumptions nor tests of the ECHR have been a point at issue in the past. Indeed they have, and the finding was in favour of the use of assumptions.
Mr. Letwin: There is a difference between evidential assumptions and probity assumptions. In the present case, the assumption is not about evidence. The assumption is that there is a train of activity for which no proof needs to be adduced. It never needs to be shown by the prosecution that the six years' worth of assets were acquired illegally. There is not so much an assumption as a leap of faith.

773
I repeat: these are matters of legal fact. To our minds, although perhaps not to Ministers', whether the measure is compatible with the European convention on human rights is not a cast-iron argument for or against this part of the Bill. In practice, it needs to be compatible in order to be effective. That is clearly common ground. All that I am doing is to raise the point, which needs investigation by the Joint Committee, which I should have thought would also be common ground.
Stephen Hesford: I am struggling to understand the hon. Gentleman's point, and I may not be alone in that. For my benefit, if no one else's, can he say whether he has taken advice from the shadow Attorney-General on the matter? If he has, that might explain why we are getting into such a mess.
Mr. Letwin: I find it pretty surprising that Labour Members think that a point raised by three major outside bodies—Justice, Liberty and the Law Society—should be the subject of political banter. We are discussing the liberties of the subject and the effectiveness of legislation that is intended to cure a great social evil. That should not be the subject of banter.
Mr. Bill Tynan: Will the hon. Gentleman comment on the case of Phillips v. the United Kingdom, in which Phillips alleged that the statutory assumption made against him in relation to his financial situation for the previous six years had violated article 6(2) of the convention? Will the hon. Gentleman comment on the fact that the European Court of Human Rights did not uphold that allegation?
Mr. Letwin: I have already tried to make the distinction between evidential assumptions and probity assumptions. I do not know why we are labouring the point. [Interruption.] The Minister of State, Scotland Office says from a sedentary position that I am labouring it. All I am doing is recommending that the matter be examined by a Joint Select Committee that was established by the Government under legislation on which the Government insisted. That seems reasonable.
Mr. Denham: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman knows that the same assumptions are made under existing statute in the case of those convicted of drug dealing. He seems to be under the misapprehension that some fundamentally new principle is being introduced. If there was some confusion in the earlier discussion, it was, I think, because we did not understand what the Minister did not understand.
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the principle is already enshrined in legislation? The Bill undoubtedly broadens its application—that, after all, is the point of it—but will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge at least that the central principle already exists?
Mr. Letwin: It depends on what is meant by the central principle. It is true that if someone is convicted of a heinous offence—in this case, drug dealing—the assumption is made. What we are talking about here is someone who, prospectively, has been convicted of a
774
tachograph offence, been reported to a Crown court and then been found guilty of offences specified in regulations that we have not seen, which may have nothing to do with the matters in hand. That is a critical difference, and I cannot understand why it is not evident to Labour Members. If the measure is referred to a Joint Select Committee, however, we shall see whether it considers it to be compatible. I should have thought Ministers would have agreed to do that by now.
Let me turn, at last, to pan 5. I apologise for this, but we have rather more fundamental doubts about part 5 than about part 2. The overall aroma surrounding the agency that it establishes is remarkably similar to that of an agency well known to every Member, as we have all had to deal with the effects of it over the years. I remind Members that it was supported by every one of us, in all parts of the House—yes, I mean the Child Support Agency.
When the Bill creating the agency went through the House, no one squeaked. We have all since regretted that, have we not? It seems to me reasonable for us to say things about this agency, which has a remarkably similar role in some respects although in others it is very different, that at least mean we have a serious debate about it. That, surely, will be common ground.
Under part 5, we are setting up an agency that will have to act if, under clause 248(1), the agency "thinks"—not "reasonably judges"; and nothing in the clause forces it to take a series of steps to ensure that it has been duly diligent—that a person holds unlawfully gained property. This is a remarkable part of the Bill. The first step, or link in the chain, has parallels with the Al Capone case in part 2. There is a very wide—consciously wide, I assume—definition allowing the agency, if it has the merest thought that someone has unlawfully gained property, to institute proceedings.
What is much worse, however, or at any rate much more questionable, is that under clause 246(3)—the Minister was very clear about this—what the agency will then need to show in court is not that, beyond all reasonable doubt, there has been conduct which is unlawful, but that on the balance of probabilities such conduct has taken place.
Mr. Foulkes: That is the whole point.
Mr. Letwin: As the Minister says—he is keeping up a running commentary from a sedentary position—that is the whole point of part 5 as it is currently constructed.
The hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) asked the Minister a very acute question.
Mr. Bob Ainsworth: He got a straight answer.
Mr. Letwin: He did not get a straight answer; that was the problem.
When asked whether someone could be acquitted of an offence and then have his assets seized because, on a lesser test—the balance of probability test—the court had found in favour of the recovery agency, the Minister said, as I think the record will show, that someone could be acquitted of a specific offence and nevertheless be pursued on the lesser case. However, someone could be innocent of every offence. Someone could be wholly innocent according to the standards of proof required in

775
criminal law, yet be subject to pursuit on the balance of probabilities. That is a significant point. Thinking that someone is in possession of unlawfully gained property, the agency will have the power, and indeed the duty, to take that person, possibly after acquittal of any charge, to court and to recover their property on the balance of probability.
I accept—
Mr. Ian Lucas: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that part 5 relates to civil proceedings, not criminal proceedings, and proceeds upon the civil standard of proof? Therefore, we are talking not about convictions and the criminal standard of proof, but about the civil standard of proof. In those circumstances, it may be entirely appropriate that someone be acquitted on the criminal standard, yet still be held responsible under a civil standard of proof, repaying money that was ill gotten—the proceeds of crime.
Mr. Letwin: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I was about to say—in fact, I said the first two words of the sentence—that I accept it will be argued that it is a civil proceeding and that the balance of probabilities is therefore an appropriate test. That is the argument in favour of the clause. However, the state is not another person in any ordinary sense. The state is not in the position of someone who has been adversely affected in a commercial transaction, for example. The state is in a very special position in relation to the individual.
When civil proceedings are to be taken, there are huge inhibitions on individuals' pursuing one another through the courts. Some of us believe some of the time that those inhibitions may even be too great. They may prove insuperable in cases where people should have the right to pursue the matter through the civil courts.
It is the agency's sole duty to find this money. If I remember the figure correctly, the agency is being given £45 million a year by the Minister to pursue it. That should be sufficient for about 300 executives, assuming two thirds of the payments of the agency are on salaries and that the salary cost of an executive and associated staff is about £100,000—[Interruption.] If it is not 300, we need to look at the efficiency of the agency, but let us leave that aside. The agency should have about 300 staff.
Those 300 staff, or however many the Minister can squeeze out of the inefficiencies of the bureaucracy of this country, will be charged solely with pursuing people, will have all the money at their disposal and all the other law enforcement agencies on their side. Pursuing someone whom it thinks has unlawful property who has been acquitted of any offence, it can show on the balance of probabilities that that person's property should be forfeit. I do not say that this is a compelling argument by itself, but if the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) cannot see a difference between that and normal civil proceedings between two individuals, I do not share his view of the relationship between state and individual.
What we are doing is taking civil proceedings and moving them into a quasi-criminal context. That is a huge and important shift. We are not doing it on the basis of allowing the ordinary proceedings of the state to occur, or of allowing the Director of Public Prosecutions or the Inland Revenue to take on a special role. Given the experience with the Child Support Agency, we are creating an agency that has the sole purpose of making the provision effective.
776
I grant that what Ministers are trying to achieve is a noble thing. They are trying to enable the agency to pursue people who are evil. They are trying to get their profits. I accept entirely the Minister's opening remarks about altering the risk-reward balance of crime. Of course, that is common ground between us, but I beg Labour Members to attend to the question: have we not begun to alter the balance between individual and state to an extent that may give rise to serious concerns later?
Mr. Kidney: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to correct his comments en passant about the agency? The £45 million is for its setting up and operational costs from now until 2004, so it will not pay for 300 staff. However, the estimate is that there will be 100 staff.
Mr. Letwin: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. If that is the case, I made a mistake—[Interruption.] It is undoubtedly the case that, like other human beings, I do make mistakes. If there are to be only 100 staff, there will be fewer people doing the pursuing. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is right that if that is the figure up to 2004—that was not clear from the Minister's remarks—100 staff would be about right if one divides by three.
Ian Lucas: What does the hon. Gentleman believe will be the difference between the Assets Recovery Agency and the present position of the Inland Revenue or Customs and Excise when pursuing civil proceedings against individuals?
Mr. Letwin: I assume that there will be a difference because I cannot imagine that Ministers would have gone to the bother of creating an agency if there were not. Ministers have presumably created a separate agency because they believe that in using its powers, which they have established by taking the trouble to produce an enormous Bill, it will be more effective. We welcome that. It follows, however, that the danger to civil liberties will be greater. That which is more effective is more to be concerned about. I am simply arguing that we have to achieve an adequate balance between effectiveness and the protection of liberties.
Mr. Bob Ainsworth: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is making his case deliberately or whether he is genuinely confused, as he was over the money that the agency will have and the staff that it will be able to employ. Does he accept that the agency will not be pursuing criminal matters against individuals, but will be pursuing the proceeds of crime under civil litigation? It will not be obliged to act if it thinks that somebody has committed a criminal offence. It will have to take into account regulations under the European convention on human rights and will have to report to Parliament. Guidance will be issued about how it should conduct its business. It will pursue the proceeds of crime on behalf of the citizens of this country. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that that is wrong in principle?
Mr. Letwin: No, I am not saying that it is wrong in principle. It is not wrong in principle that the proceeds of crime should be pursued. It is right in principle. The question is how it will affect people's rights. When Maitland said that freedom lies at the interstices of the law, he was never more right than in a case like this.

777
The Minister said that the agency will not be obliged to act simply because it thinks that someone has committed a criminal offence. Clause 248(1) states:
"Proceedings for a recovery order may be taken by the enforcement authority in the High Court against any person who the authority thinks holds recoverable property."
I accept that there is not a duty to pursue everybody, but the agency has a duty to act and the power to act if it "thinks" that someone holds recoverable property. That is a wide scope of power. The Minister is chuntering about the ECHR. I accept that the agency will be constrained by the ECHR, by the prospect of judicial review and by much else. Why then could not the clause be more tightly drafted? Why not incorporate references to those sorts of things? United Kingdom legislation is riddled with clauses about reasonableness, so why is it not here in this instance?
Part 5 of the Bill involves a series of issues, as does part 2, but this is probably more serious, and we need to consider them in detail in Committee. I am not arguing—[Interruption.] To respond to the Minister's further sedentary intervention, I have been speaking for 40 minutes because I have replied to about 15 interventions from Labour Members.
The Bill needs to be considered carefully in Committee, particularly parts 2 and 5. If we can cure the problems there, we will support the Bill. If we cannot, we will not support the Bill. I hope that in seeking to cure these problems we will have co-operation rather than adversarial banter from Ministers.
4.59 pm
Tony Worthington: I welcome the Bill. In fact, it is overdue because it seeks to increase the powers against money laundering, which is a great social evil. It was disappointing that the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) spent no time at all speaking about the enemy that we all must overcome, but seemed instead to be concerned simply about the defence. Although the defence is an important issue, let us spell out what the Bill is seeking to tackle.
I have some reservations about the Bill, and I seek some reassurances from the Minister. One of my concerns is that we are told that the Treasury, perhaps in another Bill, is to take further action on money laundering and terrorism because of the events of 11 September, so we are not seeing the whole picture in our consideration of this Bill. Many of my comments and questions are related to the links between this Bill and what the Treasury may eventually do.
My first question is whether we have genuinely joined-up government. How are we to judge this important measure when other important activity is to follow it? I do not accept the argument that the financial and anti-crime measures required to combat terrorism are separate from the measures needed to combat other types of crime such as the drugs trade. For example, the income that bin Laden allegedly obtains from the drug trade will be tackled by this Bill.
The provisions of this brand-new Bill were judged to be necessary and adequate before the events of 11 September, but subsequently they have been judged by
778
some to be inadequate. Some people believe that extra provisions are necessary. I should like to have Ministers' thoughts on that issue. The events of 11 September were simply horrific, but the Bill should have sought before that date to achieve the objective of recovering money from criminals and terrorists.
I should also like to know how the House feels about addressing money laundering. I am gratified by the large number of hon. Members present, because such issues do not usually attract so many. The Bill was mentioned in the Queen's Speech, but I do not remember it being mentioned by anyone, other than Ministers, in the debate on the Loyal Address. The House will react to the events of 11 September and to the need for money-laundering measures, and we shall consider the Bill tonight and in Committee, but that response is inadequate to deal with the complexities raised by this type of issue.
The House should consider establishing a body such as a Joint Select Committee, which may have to operate for years, to consider action on money-laundering issues and to ensure that our procedures are up to scratch. We have allowed our relevant procedures to become completely inadequate through lack of parliamentary scrutiny.
I am strengthened in that view by the statement of the incoming president of the Financial Action Task Force, which is seen as the key international body on the issue, who believes that that organisation will need a serious overhaul to tackle the financial flows from terrorism. I do not believe this, and perhaps the Minister will be able to convince me that it is true, but according to the Financial Times, the Financial Action Task Force—that key body—has a staff of five and an annual budget of just over £500,000. How is it possible for the body that is supposed to lead the world in tackling money laundering to operate with such resources?
I approach these issues from the viewpoint of the Select Committee on International Development, which in the previous Session produced a report on corruption that certainly changed my views on the issue. We conducted an inquiry on that because we had been convinced that it was a major obstacle to development in poorer countries. We believed that if there was corruption in those countries, the developed world would not invest in them. However, our focus increasingly shifted as we continued our inquiry, and we began to realise just how important it was for us to tighten up our own act if we were to help the developing world succeed in the fight against corruption.
Let us consider the most celebrated example. We invited the Nigerian Government to tell us what they had found when they came to office and needed to clear up the country. They, in turn, asked us what we were doing to help them get back the money that had been looted from the country. According to last year's Department for International Development report, we put about £15 million of bilateral aid into Nigeria. However, the Nigerian Government are trying to find £4 billion that the Abacha family took out of Nigeria and invested in the outside world. For every £1 that we put in to cure poverty, one Nigerian family took out £200. That is the scale of the problem.
There is not only a severe shortage of investment in Nigeria and other sub-Saharan countries but their own wealth is, albeit illicitly, invested in countries such as ours. We have to tackle money laundering for many reasons, and the problem of international development is

779
one of them. All the evidence, as the International Development Committee concluded, is that London is attractive to money launderers and is used by them.
The current approach does not do enough to recognise the importance of tackling money laundering, and that makes the City of London extremely vulnerable. We must protect its good name. When the Nigerian Government asked us to freeze the Abacha assets, we could not do it. Governments famous for their transparency—Switzerland, Liechtenstein—managed to freeze Abacha accounts, but it was only this month, two or three years later, that the courts in London said that the accounts should be frozen. The British Government said that they could freeze only when charges had been laid, but the evidence could be obtained only when the assets had been frozen.
I want assurances from the Government that that problem has been seriously tackled and that we will be proactive. All my life, Nigerian regimes such as those of Abubakar, Babangida and Abacha have been famed for their corruption—Nigeria was in Transparency International's league table of corrupt regimes—but we could not be proactive. We did not have the means whereby we could step in. Will that now change?
To take a contemporary example, the Prime Minister told us that Afghanistan was the source of 90 per cent. of the heroin on Britain's streets. What proactive steps were taken? What investigations have been undertaken to deal with the situation? To take another example, it was announced a few weeks ago that there were to be new regulations for bureaux de change. Apparently, we are the only country in the European Union that has not regulated them, even though the newspapers inform us that 65 per cent. of their trade involves money that is being laundered. How long has this been going on? How long has it been known?
In 1996, the Financial Action Task Force, the key international body, of which we are a member, said that bureaux de change are an important link in the money-laundering chain, since it is difficult to trace the origin of the money once it has gone through them. It recommended that they should be dealt with in the same way as banks. Why are the Government responding only now? I seek an assurance that every one of the 40 recommendations made by the FATF in 1996 is now being acted on.
Other countries in Europe—countries not famed for being at the forefront of financial management—have acted. On 3 December 1998, the Government of Zimbabwe acted on the matter and, in December 2000, the Bank of Zambia did likewise. Many hon. Members will have received a newsletter from the Sri Lankan high commissioner pointing out that in the view of the Sri Lankan Government, bureaux de change in this country have been responsible for years for financing the activities of the Tamil Tigers. There has been knowledge about the activities of some bureaux de change. Why did we not act? This is an area of great concern upon which we must act seriously to protect the City of London.
The Select Committee was very critical of the lack of resources in the Home Office for dealing with cases such as Abacha, including the case in which the Government of Pakistan wanted inquiries about money to be brought back to that country. Jeremy Carver, a distinguished member of Clifford Chance—the largest legal firm in the
780
world—said that there was a real problem in the Home Office in that things went into it and did not appear to come out. In terms of action on money laundering, he described the Home Office as "a swamp". Will some of the extra resources go to the Home Office to make sure that the swamp is cleared, so that there will be prompt action on money laundering next time the Nigerian or Pakistani Government ask for it?
This is a very important Bill because the resources involved are considerable. The most recent book on the subject was written by someone called Peter Lilley—not the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley). He talked about the importance of the UK as a major laundering centre, stating that Russian and eastern European crime groups favoured London properties and were active in the vice trade, the London metal market, the art world and financial fraud. Hong Kong and Chinese triads and Turkish and Kurdish gangs were active, he said, adding that there was increasing evidence of Colombian groups using Heathrow airport as a gateway to mainland Europe; Nigerian criminal gangs were also active here.
The Bill is much needed and it will receive good scrutiny in Committee. However, I hope that we will not only deal with money laundering through this Bill, but take a continuing interest in it because, directly or indirectly, it is important to everybody in this country.
5.13 pm
Mr. Norman Baker: This is a welcome Bill. It is a sensible measure that closes loopholes and makes the law more effective in tackling crime—an objective that all of us will share. That is why the Liberal Democrats will support the Bill tonight if there is a Division.
That is not to say that there are not a number of details about which we have concerns and legitimately want to raise issues. I will refer to some briefly now and look forward to discussing them in detail in Committee. I hope that we can proceed on the basis of all-party support. Some hon. Members were a little harsh about the Conservative spokesman, the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), who has now disappeared from the Chamber. He tried to be constructive—he may have been a little wrong on one or two issues—but he made a thoughtful speech. I hope that we will not have unnecessary confrontation on the Bill, either tonight or in Committee.
It is right that, as a nation and as a Parliament, we turn our attention to the financial aspects of crime. As the Government have said, some two-thirds of crime is motivated by profit. It follows that if we can significantly depress the likelihood of financial gain, the incentive to commit crime in the first place will be reduced. A precedent will be set for those thinking of following suit: the role models will be less attractive if there are no financial benefits to enjoy at the end. We must take away the status symbols—the fast cars, the luxurious swimming pools, the affluent lifestyle—that are so often built on foundations of crime, corruption and misery.
Incidentally, that may present a problem for the head of the asset confiscation unit that the Government propose. Judging by the experience in the United States and Ireland, that person may have difficulty in offloading casinos, racehorses and lap-dancing clubs. There is a limited market for those assets, but I am sure that the person concerned will do their best to ensure that they are sold off and the proceeds used for proper purposes.

781
It is good to see the Government tackling the big fish in this way. It is easy to concentrate on what I would call simple criminals—the ones who rob banks and commit traditional crimes, who are often from the poorer elements of society—while more sophisticated criminals are allowed to get away with it. Such is the wealth and status that those criminals accumulate, and so extensive is their knowledge of the law, that they often become pillars of society, enjoying a respectability that is built on a foundation of corruption.
Mr. Foulkes: They could even be members of the Liberal Democrat party.
Norman Baker: I do not think that that is true, but you never know.
Criminals want respectability. Parliament should work to deny them that respectability, and to take it away from those who already have it. Hon. Members should work together to make sure that that happens, and that the Bill and the House send out the message that crime really does not pay.
The Bill will also prevent criminals from funding further criminal activities. I was struck that the brief from the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth), stated that, in the period 1990–2000, confiscation orders worth £20.5 million were made against drug traffickers. The brief rightly says that that is equivalent to 1,000 kg of heroin. We all know the links between drug money and crime. The National Crime Squad has said that 1 kg of heroin is equivalent to stolen property worth £220,000, or the proceeds of 220 burglaries. Therefore, it is not simply a matter of pulling in criminals or those using money for improper purposes: we must also protect the population at large from the consequences of that activity.
The Bill's detailed powers will allow better tracing and securing of assets, and they include the power to seize suspect cash. It is right to close the loophole that allows some cash but not other cash to be seized. The Bill will also allow restraint orders to be made available at the start of an investigation, rather than at a later stage. That is worthy of support in principle, as these days assets can be moved out of reach, quickly and without much effort, by pressing a button or clicking a mouse. We need to even up the battle between the law enforcement authorities and the criminals, as the latter may have gained the edge in recent years.
The Bill also facilitates criminal confiscation, by establishing a new basis that covers all crimes. Again, that will affect the most versatile criminals, whose fiefdoms cross the boundaries between crimes involving, for example, drugs, prostitution or tobacco smuggling. The civil recovery scheme, as set out by the Minister in his introductory remarks, will make it easier to track down those criminals, to bring them to justice and to seize their assets.
The Bill also contains new taxation arrangements. Who can disagree that it is right in principle that undeclared or otherwise inexplicable income should be taxed? That seems to me uncontroversial. Other hon. Members have noted also that the provision will strengthen existing money-laundering arrangements.
782
I have one or two questions for the Minister. First, there is now a range of options for dealing with people and their assets. They include criminal prosecution, civil action to recover assets from people who have not been convicted of a crime, and the taxation of assets. Will the Minister clarify whether that range of options amounts to a strict hierarchy that will be applied? I see that the Minister is nodding. My colleague Jim Wallace, the Scottish Justice Minister, has said that prosecution of criminals must always take priority, and that it will continue to do so, adding:
"Civil recovery and taxation will not be soft options. They will only be used where prosecution and civil recovery respectively are not viable."—[Scottish Parliament Official Report, 24 October 2001; c. 3249–50.]
I am pleased that the Minister endorses the hierarchy identified by the Scottish Parliament.
How will it be decided which avenue to pursue? There will have to be an assessment of whether criminal proceedings can be sustained. I guess that the normal test will apply, but sometimes such decisions are borderline. Can two avenues be pursued simultaneously or, if criminal proceedings have been started, will that prevent civil proceedings from taking place until the criminal proceedings have concluded? Can two such procedures take place in parallel, and do the Government regard that as a good or a bad idea? Some clarification would be helpful.
I understand from my Scottish colleagues that in Scotland both criminal and civil proceedings are initiated by the Lord Advocate, but in England initiation proceedings will be divided between the Crown Prosecution Service and the director of the Assets Recovery Agency. What mechanism will exist between the two bodies in England to ensure that appropriate action is taken at the appropriate level and that there is no overlap? Will the Minister also confirm that no conflicting action will be taken?
In an earlier intervention, I referred to a person who has been subject to criminal proceedings and has been acquitted. The Minister said in response that such a person could be subject to civil action. That was a clear answer, for which I am grateful. I understand that the test for criminal proceedings is different from the one which applies to civil proceedings. That is clearly set out in the legislation. To the person in the street, however, it may look rather odd if someone who has been subject to high-profile criminal proceedings has been acquitted and then the same information is used for a further action against that person, which may or may not be successful. If it is not successful, taxation action can presumably be taken. That will look a little odd unless there is a very good explanation for it. There is a potential problem here, at least in presentational terms. I draw it to the Minister's attention as I know that the Government are interested in presentational points.
Simon Hughes: Surely not.
Norman Baker: My hon. Friend says, "Surely not." Perhaps I am wrong and the Government are not interested in spin after all.
I am concerned that the new arrangements could effectively be akin to plea bargaining. Despite evidence against someone for dangerous driving, for example,

783
it may be decided that a prosecution cannot be guaranteed to be successful. Under those circumstances, a guilty plea would be agreed for the lesser charge of driving without due care and attention. If criminal proceedings might not be successful and assets can be returned or accumulated as a consequence of civil action, there might be a mechanism to guarantee—perhaps with the agreement of the person who holds the assets—that criminal proceedings will not go ahead. It is important to clarify that because that could be a dangerous road to go down—fewer criminal proceedings could take place if lesser actions were guaranteed to be successful. I am keen to understand the Government's thinking on that.
The shadow Home Secretary, the hon. Member for West Dorset, who is not yet back in the Chamber, referred to the important point about third parties. Those who are aware of the legislation will doubtless seek to ensure that even at the initial stage they take action to prevent their assets from being frozen. They may seek to transfer assets elsewhere—to another member of the family or to bank accounts in countries where the Government's writ does not apply. If there is no agreement between the two nations, the Government will not be able to retrieve the assets. How will the Government ensure that the law is not circumvented by such manoeuvres at that early stage.
Innocent third parties could be affected by assets being frozen. What about innocent family members, who may not be aware of illegal or improper activities undertaken by another family member or by a business partner? What about someone whose income may result from someone else's criminal activity but who has been at arm's length and unaware of that activity? Why should they be penalised in those circumstances? How will the Government seek to establish motives, and what safeguards will exist to protect innocent third parties without weakening the proper measures taken against those against whom the Government wish to proceed?
Mr. McCabe: I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's argument, but I was intrigued by the reference to innocent third parties. Could a member of a family who is benefiting from clearly ill-gotten gains be described as an innocent third party? Is that the hon. Gentleman's view?
Norman Baker: It is, because it is a question of motive. For example, a third party who has benefited without any knowledge that illegal activities have been taking place may have decided to take a course of action that involves a financial commitment based on what they believe to be sound money only to find themselves very exposed as a consequence of action taken to recover that money.
Mr. Dominic Grieve: Does the hon. Gentleman also agree that part 2 might give rise to the following extraordinary state of affairs? Let us suppose that a confiscation order was eventually set aside. Although innocent third parties from whom assets had been removed might recover those assets, the consequential losses that could flow to them from that removal would be recoverable only in the case of a serious default in having brought the proceedings in the first place.
Norman Baker: That is a valid point for discussion, which was raised in the Law Society briefing. It is
784
possible that assets will be frozen, and that innocent third parties—not builders, as in the example raised by the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg)—against whom action is taken that eventually proves unsuccessful, could in the meantime lose significant amounts of money as a consequence of the inability to use those assets, and, in extreme circumstances, go bankrupt. I am keen to know what safeguards are in place and what compensation will be available if action of a very serious nature is taken against an individual that subsequently turns out to be unjustified, or if the action taken in the courts is not upheld. That is bound to happen, and I have not heard a Minister deal with that point today.
Heavy weapons are being used in the Bill. I do not oppose the use of those heavy weapons because we are dealing with a sophisticated and difficult enemy, but heavy weapons need a stout remedy if they are improperly applied. We have not heard much about that today and I hope that the Minister will pick up that issue at the end of the debate.
What is the impact on the rights of a person who is accused, or whose assets are under investigation and have been frozen, to use those assets while they are frozen? Obviously they cannot be used for that person's financial gain, but can the person who holds those assets, or held the assets before they were frozen, gain access to them? If those assets concern company records, will it be possible to consult them for the purposes of financial dealings, or will they be off limits? If the latter, what happens to the people employed by that company? They, too, will be subject to possible unwanted consequences.
I shall not deal at length with retrospectivity, but I want to return to the subject in Committee. The Government appear to be moving closer and closer to the use of retrospective legislation, which as a principle is not welcome. Not too long ago, the Home Secretary suggested that he would introduce retrospective legislation to deal with hoax telephone callers. The legislation provided for a six-month penalty, which he proposed to increase to seven years retrospectively. It was wholly unnecessary to do it in that way. I suggest that, had the matter been that urgent, he could have obtained agreement from all parties in the House to railroad the legislation through Parliament in a day or less. The Government's increasing tendency to accept that retrospective legislation is justified represents a dangerous step, so I hope that we shall have a chance to consider that issue in Committee and to determine whether it is justified and consistent with human rights legislation—a point made by several people who have written to us.
As a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights I feel that it is important to have an opportunity to consider whether the Home Secretary's statement, which appears on the Bill's cover, that it is compatible with the European convention, is justified. In fact, it would be helpful to see the advice that enabled the Home Secretary to take that decision. I hope that the Government will publish that advice, so that we can see why he has reached that conclusion.
Lastly, there is an opportunity, perhaps even a need, to tighten up the organisational approach to such issues. A number of bodies are now involved in law enforcement—such as the police, the National Criminal Intelligence Service, Interpol, Europol, Customs and Excise, the Inland Revenue and now the Assets Recovery

785
Agency—and although each has a specific brief, they could overlap, perhaps like concentric circles, and we should perhaps take the opportunity provided by the Bill to discover whether there is a chance to rationalise how those bodies interact with one another to ensure that no unnecessary duplication or contradiction occurs. We might even consider a common force for borders, for example.
None of that diminishes the support that my colleagues and I are very happy to give, in principle, to the Bill. We want the Bill to be as robust as possible. We think that it contains some very good provisions, but we want it to be as fair as possible, and I am confident that we can propose amendments in Committee that will help to achieve that aim.
5.31 pm
Mr. John MacDougall: May I say how grateful I am to the House for allowing me to make my maiden speech this evening? I feel particularly honoured and privileged to be a Member of the House and especially to represent my constituency. I am interested in the Bill, and I shall explain how it could represent a positive aspect of life in Fife and to my constituents in particular.
I have to say, however, that it is not the happiest of times to make a maiden speech in the House. Only yesterday, I visited a local company in Glenrothes, which is in my constituency, to be confronted with the fact that four of its employees had been killed during the atrocities of 11 September in New York, in that deliberate, callous and calculated attack on innocent people. Of course, my condolences go to those people and their families.
The people of Fife and I welcome the spirit of the Bill, which is intended to tackle drug trafficking. Of course, drug trafficking had a big influence on the terrorists' ability to carry out that atrocity, but let us not forget that many young people are continually getting caught up in the drugs culture and are losing their lives because of drugs. I shall allude to how we can continue to educate young people to discourage them from entering the drugs culture, but at the same time let us not forget the loss of life caused by terrorism.
My predecessor as Member of Parliament for Central Fife, Henry McLeish, was clearly a tireless, dedicated and committed Member of Parliament. He was well respected in the constituency. I thank him for all his dedication and hard work; I hope that I can carry on his good work.
Most hon. Members may or may not find this interesting, but I seem destined to follow my predecessor in many ways. When he left Fife regional council, I became its leader and held that position for nine years. Lo and behold, he went to the Scottish Parliament and here I am following him again. It is important to point out that there was no design or plan behind that action. I reassure hon. Members and, more importantly, Henry McLeish that I have no ambition other than to serve the people of my constituency in this House. I look forward to that challenge, which is quite a sufficient one.
Members who are not familiar with my constituency might not know that it lies between the city of Dundee, which is divided by the River Tay, and the city of Edinburgh, which is divided by the River Forth. It is
786
within the ancient kingdom of Fife. It is a very proud and passionate part of Scotland and, indeed, the United Kingdom. It has been and is home to many famous people—none more famous to hon. Members than my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in whose capable hands the economy rests.
I should like to tell the House something about the traditions and heritage of my constituency. As a former coal mining area, it is steeped in the history of that proud industry. Like so many coal mining areas, it suffered greatly from the industry's quick demise. Unfortunately, with that came high unemployment. Despite the Government's best efforts since taking office, which have been appreciated, they have managed only to reduce rather than make a severe impact on the very high figure. I assure the House that, in hoping to create the necessary opportunities, particularly for young people in the area, I will do everything on behalf of my constituents to tackle that problem.
With high unemployment comes the great influence of drugs—hence I felt it important to speak in this debate, and I appreciate the opportunity to do so. With high unemployment and a drugs culture comes a high incidence of crime. An average heroin addict, I am advised, requires about £30,000 a year to feed their habit. To someone who is unemployed but requires £30,000. there is only one way to acquire such resources. Therefore, not surprisingly, drugs, unemployment and crime rise similarly. My constituency suffers badly from the scourge of the drugs industry, so there is little doubt that the Bill will be welcomed in principle by my constituents as a means of beginning the process of tackling such challenges.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) quoted the interesting and enlightening figures of £220,000 and 220 burglaries. I picked up from the Bill that the value added by illegal drugs transactions amounts to an amazing 1 per cent. of gross domestic product. I also noticed that the confiscation figure for 1999–2000 was £25 million, which is startling. Clearly, if such efforts can be intensified, we can make a greater impact on the drugs culture.
The challenges that we face in Fife require the Bill's provisions, although we have already done much to support the principles behind it. We have considered the rehabilitation process and introduced methods to discourage young people from entering the drugs culture—through education and by offering support services in the community. I should like to give the House two good examples of that.
The Fife youth drugs team deals with 14 to 16-year-olds who have committed offences and are involved in drugs. The initiative is a partnership between Fife council and Fife constabulary. We are rightly proud of the strategic benefits of that multi-agency approach, to which the Bill refers. Working in that way can produce results.
The second example is the drug treatment testing order, as established in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. It is a partnership between the health service and social services and, importantly, has strict criteria attached to it. People who are caught up in drugs have the option of rehabilitation and random testing instead of immediately being taken through the prosecution process. Not only does that help to keep them out of the prosecution system

787
and to reform them, but it rightly helps to release services, which otherwise would be overburdened, to provide a much needed back-up. We are proud of that.
The ability to use the orders has allowed us to produce figures, and they are given strict consideration. There have been 78 orders since July and 273 referrals, which shows that they can make a difference. Unfortunately, there has been a 100 per cent. increase in new drug users in Fife among 15 to 24-year-olds. I believe that there is an increasing awareness that help is available. That gives us a better chance to influence young people at an earlier age and make a difference by preventing them from being drawn into the serious drug culture.
According to reports to the services that we set up, heroin is the main drug used, although cannabis is the most widely used drug by people aged between 13 and 21. The problem for the support services is that my constituency is predominantly rural. Trying to offer a wide range of services to rural communities—other hon. Members may suffer from the same difficulty—is challenging. Nevertheless, we all appreciate that drugs have a wide-ranging impact. They do not affect simply the user, but everyone in the community—next-door neighbours, sons, daughters, employees and, unfortunately, school chums. Many people are affected by drugs.
I emphasise—this is reflected in the Bill—that strategic working produces great benefits. I have witnessed that happening in a small way in Fife. I should like to share my experiences with other hon. Members during my time here and, I hope, gain from their experiences so that we can make an even greater difference.
I am grateful for the opportunity to make my maiden speech. In offering support, many hon. Members reassured me that it is not a daunting experience. I can assure everyone that it is. Each and every hon. Member remembers that, but no one wanted to tell me. The support is appreciated and I look forward to serving in the House. I also look forward more proudly and passionately to serving my constituents in Central Fife.
5.43 pm
Mr. Andrew Mitchell: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Central Fife (Mr. MacDougall), who made an excellent maiden speech. He told us about his constituency and, in particular. that Fife was an ancient kingdom. I empathise with him. Sutton Coldfield is a royal town, so we have something in common. He spoke about the ramifications of the dreadful events of 11 September and the fact that they had been visited on his constituency. He mentioned the menace of drugs and said, with expertise and wisdom, how we should ensure that young people in particular do not enter the drugs culture.
The hon. Gentleman spoke eloquently about his predecessor, who was greatly respected in the House and a friend of many of us. At one point, he wondered whether the House would find his speech interesting. I can assure him on behalf of everyone present that we certainly found what he said interesting. We look forward to his future contributions to our proceedings. The only reservation that I would put to him is that he referred to the Liberal Front-Bench spokesman as his hon. Friend. He will discover that the one thing that unites his party and mine is the belief that the Liberals are not our hon. Friends.
788
I should at this stage declare an indirect interest, which will of course appear in the Register of Members' Interests. I am a director of Lazard and some of its subsidiaries, although my role is minor. Lazard is not a retail bank, so the interest is indirect.
The Bill is important and I am glad that it commands general support throughout the House. It builds on the approach adopted in the 1990s by the Government of which I was a member. I hope that Ministers will listen with care to the words uttered by my hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary, as his speech was an important one. He strove to support the Government, but made several important points that will have to be discussed in Committee. The words that should have caused a tremor to run down the spines of Ministers was his likening the new agency to the Child Support Agency. The Minister of State, Scotland Office will recall that I had ministerial responsibility for that agency from 1995 to 1997, when I left the House. The Government should pay heed to my hon. Friend's comments on that point.
The Bill consolidates and reforms existing money-laundering provisions to create a single regime for offenders. That is an extremely important development. When in 1997 I returned to the City, having lost my seat, I was struck by the change in attitudes that had occurred, especially the vast amount of new regulations that had been introduced. It is not generally known that people who want to work in the City have to take an examination, which I found challenging. Although I cannot recall every tenet of what I learned for that examination, I do remember that the maximum penalty for being involved in money laundering is 14 years in jail. There has been a huge change in the way in which the regulatory framework and the administrative back-up that accompanies it is implemented in the City.
I apologise in advance to both Front-Bench teams for the fact that a long-standing and unbreakable commitment might result in my being a few minutes late for the winding-up speeches. I have only three points to make, and I hope that they will be helpful.
The first relates loosely to clause 324, which deals with the offence of failing to disclose. Previously, the terms applied to drugs and terrorism offences, but they are now to apply to money laundering. My understanding is that if a relatively junior employee of, for example, a finance house turns out to be a rotten apple and is caught offending, the financial institution as a whole will be held to have committed an offence—notwithstanding the fact that it has its own rule book and has made substantial compliance efforts.
It strikes me as hard to impose criminal liability on people who should have known what was going on but did not. It is especially hard, given that the new regulatory regime—I pay tribute to the Government for having listened carefully to practitioners before N2—under civil law is not yet even up and running. It will not be operational until 1 December. Under the Bill, people will be punished and in some cases jailed under criminal procedures when the new, carefully crafted civil procedures, which were debated at length by Parliament, have yet to be introduced. In his opening remarks, the Minister dismissed that point, but I urge him to consider it in Committee.

789
Substantial powers are now vested in the Financial Services Authority. I have great faith in Sir Howard Davies, who is a fine public servant, but we must hope that his successors will wield what is a very big stick sensibly in their regulatory tasks.
Mr. Kidney: On the widening of the duty of those engaged in financial services to report suspicious transactions, I understand the concern that is being expressed about the change from an objective to a subjective test. However, did not the hon. Gentleman go a little too far in saying that a company could comply with all its procedures and still be convicted? Does not the Bill specifically state that following industry guidelines is a defence against such an allegation?
Mr. Mitchell: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is right, but that is not my understanding of the effect of the clause; nor is it the understanding of many in the City.
There is clearly a significant problem with money laundering, but no one seems to have the faintest idea how substantive it is. There is a danger in implementing or crafting a solution to a problem that is unquantified. How great a menace is money laundering? How successful are we in seeking to combat it? How does it happen? Where does it happen? Is London good, bad or indifferent in its attack on money laundering? Should not we define the problem first?
When we open a bank account, we are required to send, among other things, our passport or a number of other documents. It is an enormously burdensome and bureaucratic procedure. If it helps the process, it is necessary and we are right to do it. However, has anyone established whether it helps? Bureaucrats have mushroomed, along with departments that police us all and internal auditors. Is 90 per cent. of all this a complete waste of time? We do not know. It would be interesting to have an answer. Perhaps the Minister will be able to help us when he replies.
I know that the FSA is worried about hedge funds. It believes that they could be vehicles for money laundering. They represent the fastest growth area of investment management, and by definition they are global. They are colossal businesses. They deal with individuals rather than institutional money, and they are clearly not so well regulated as other sectors of the industry. Hedge funds are the nerve ends of capitalism, but do the authorities have any idea of the extent to which money laundering is taking place? We must not set in place a solution to an unquantified problem.
My final point was touched upon by the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), who spoke from the Liberal Democrat Front Bench. Whatever we do in Britain or in British territories overseas will be ineffective unless it is replicated elsewhere. There is no point in blocking the fox holes in London if the foxes reappear in another jurisdiction. The European Union has a major part to play. It may warm the cockles of the heart of the shadow Attorney-General, my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), if I note that this is an area where, as with macro-environmental issues, there is a role for the EU. These issues need to be dealt with on a supranational basis.
790
This is an example where the EU would not be interfering in the minutiae of national life, but would be doing a great service to the financial community world wide. It would be policing its own member states and influencing other states. For example, there is much concern about how the Swiss deal with money laundering. There was a headline in a newspaper on 19 September stating that the Swiss were to take another look at money-laundering regulations following a scathing report. There had been recent press coverage of money-laundering links between Swiss banks with hidden funds for Helmut Kohl, Sani Abacha and Slobodan Milosevic. The Swiss Minister of Finance, Kaspar Villiger, was recently quoted as saying that banking secrecy is no protection for criminals. I beg to disagree with him.
It is hard to come to a conclusion other than that the Swiss reputation for banking excellence is all too often based almost exclusively on its secrecy rules. As recently as 14 July, a journalist on The Guardian investigated the issue. He found that it took 20 minutes to hide his cash in a Swiss bank account. I pass over the advertisement which I believe appeared in The Economist for a job in a Swiss bank as "Head of money laundering". I presume that that was a misprint. In any event, that underlines the concern about these matters.
I conclude where I started. The Bill is an important measure and I hope that it will benefit from a bipartisan approach. I hope also that, in taking major powers to tackle significant problems, we can retain a degree of humour and common sense between those on the two Front Benches to enable us to get things right.
5.55 pm
Mr. Ian Davidson: I never envisaged speaking in the Chamber on an occasion when the Conservatives would be seen as the party of civil liberties, although they were only the party of civil liberties for the wealthy with no noticeable means of support. Nevertheless, it is a welcome step forward. However, it is clear that they operate in a different world from the rest of us. If someone has managed to buy a big house and has a business and several flash cars but no visible source of income, it is not usually assumed in my community that the money has merely been inherited but that it has come from somewhere else. That is the difference between us.
I was fascinated by the shadow Home Secretary. It is on such occasions that I think, "Thank you, God." His speech portrays Conservatives as the friends of criminals. They are more interested in the one or two who might be dragged through a court unnecessarily than in protecting working-class communities such as the one that I represent from criminals, including drug dealers, who prey upon them.
Mr. Grieve: I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's remarks about assumptions. He will know that in part 2 there are assumptions. Assumptions are to be made in Scotland as in England and Wales. Is he aware that in Scotland the courts are allowed not to make assumptions, whereas under the Bill courts in England and Wales will have to make them? Is he saying that the parts of the Bill that have been drafted for Scotland, a part of which he represents, should be changed so that there are mandatory assumptions there as well as in England and Wales?
Mr. Davidson: Yes, I am in favour of that change and of that assumption. It is an inappropriate anomaly.

791
I return to the remarks of the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin). It is a fair bet that our positions will change ere long. I suspect that I will be a Government Back Bencher for longer than he will be an Opposition Front Bencher. I am prepared to offer odds of 3:1 that he will not last until next Christmas. However, I digress.
It is clear that the Tories are soft on this area of crime. I was struck by the extent to which they were indulging in nit-picking rather than agreeing strongly with the Government about taking broad sweeping action against those who benefit from crime. The communities that we represent would be much happier if they thought that in principle there was unanimity in the House; we could then have some disagreements about implementing that principle. I am not certain that the Tories are committed to the principle of chasing down the gains of criminals.
I was appalled by the remarks of the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell), who seemed to speak for about 10 minutes on vested interests. His speech was all about defending our banking system and the value that flows from that. We should understand that there are people in British banking who are crooks. They have benefited from crime for a considerable period. Some of us have travelled to other jurisdictions, where we are told that Britain is good at telling them how they should improve their systems. However, they say the City is the dirtiest washing machine in the world in terms of the amount of illicit money that goes through it. Looking at the recent Abacha case in Nigeria, it is clear that ill-gotten gains acquired by that family and several others were welcomed by bankers in London with open arms because they made money out of them. We should not take too pusillanimous an attitude when dealing with that. There is a crisis in communities such as mine, and if a bit of rough justice is meted out to wealthy people, so be it. If that makes me appear new Labour to my colleagues, I am prepared to bear that burden.
The Bill is not perfect, and I wish to raise some points with Ministers so that they can pursue them. I am concerned that there is insufficient capability under the Bill to allow the system—the law—to pursue the relatives or friends of criminals who have had assets transferred into their names. It is common to find that a house cannot be seized because it is owned by someone's wife, son or daughter who has no identifiable means of support or income. Again, that is a difference between the Conservatives and me; I do not assume that it is an inheritance or a legacy from a long-lost aunt. In many cases, the dogs in the street know that it is the gains of crime. The individuals involved might not have committed criminal acts but, none the less, they are benefiting. We need to know that those assets will be pursued.
Mr. Grieve: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Davidson: Certainly, it would be a pleasure.
Mr. Grieve: The hon. Gentleman has completely misunderstood the point made by the Opposition about relatives. We are not concerned about the ability to recover assets from relatives who acquired them from criminals in the knowledge of their criminality or, indeed, recovering them from people who have acquired them and have simply got them. However, if people have obtained assets innocently and their removal will create serious
792
prejudice against them, when they are innocent of any wrongdoing or knowledge of wrongdoing, am I to understand that the hon. Gentleman feels that that is just an instance of being unable to make an omelette without breaking eggs? That would be a nice Stalinist precept, to pick up what he said earlier.
Mr. Davidson: Thank you, God. I must tell the hon. Gentleman that Stalin dealt with things more roughly; he did not simply break eggs. Then again, perhaps the hon. Gentleman had a sheltered upbringing.
I was not referring to the Opposition, but the hon. Gentleman has made a helpful point. If someone suddenly receives from his father, who has no visible means of support, an enormous sum of money, and does so entirely innocently, the natural assumption is that he would consider where it had come from. The hon. Gentleman and I obviously live in different worlds. Most people in my constituency, if they suddenly received an enormous gift from someone they knew, would start to wonder where it came from. I do not assume innocence in that regard. However, if the hon. Gentleman has some money to spare, I would be happy to see him afterwards in the bar or the venue of his choice.
Mr. Michael Connarty: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Davidson: May I carry on, as I want to make a couple of points?
Those who assist criminals are as bad as, or worse than, the criminals themselves; I refer to lawyers, accountants and bankers. Many criminals in the west of Scotland, whence I come and which I represent, would be unable to conceal their assets but for the professional help that they receive. Those individuals—accountants and lawyers—are clearly known to the police and other lawyers, which raises several issues. Not only is there the question of the inability of the Law Society and other professional associations to police their own members, but the penalties are insufficiently severe to act as a deterrent. I hope that the Bill's provisions will be applied vigorously to identify lawyers, bankers and accountants involved in concealing assets, punish them severely and send a message to others. For far too long, the only people punished for drug dealing have been people from communities such as mine at the very bottom of the tree; those who are much higher up get off scot-free. That is not fair, and not what a Labour Government should be doing.
We will apply different legislation to terrorism, drugs and crime; they will be treated as three separate issues. It has already been said that there are spillovers and tie-ins linking the three, and there are a couple of instances in the Bill where the distinction between crime and drugs is made too strongly. Perhaps there is an opportunity for loopholes to be exploited, contrary to the purpose of the Bill. I hope that Ministers will look at that.
I also seek clarification of the extent of the mechanism by which there will be an opportunity to review the Bill's operation to close loopholes, as the Chancellor does with the Budget every year when he closes tax evasion and avoidance loopholes, and deals with similar misbehaviour. We do not want to decide issues here on the assumption that they mean one thing, only for them to be reinterpreted by the courts in a way that we do not wish; we want the opportunity to step back and sort matters out without going through the full range of parliamentary procedures.

793
On the question of law and lawyers, may I mention judges? We are perhaps giving them too much discretion at several points in the Bill. They are unlikely to be as unsympathetic to the prosperous as we would wish them to be. They are frequently harsh on the little men and women but let off the prosperous. It is inappropriate for me to give examples in case they sue me when I get out. [HON. MEMBERS: "Go on."] No, I will not be tempted. There ought to be an assumption that assets will be confiscated except in exceptional circumstances; it should not be merely an option available to the court.
I agreed with the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield about overseas boltholes. As he said, it is no good stopping up boltholes in this country if places such as Guernsey, Jersey, the Isle of Man and other communities that are basically parasitic on Britain's financial community can be boltholes for people to hide ill-gotten gains. Much of the work done by the Financial Action Tax Force with overseas territories, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the G8 is helpful, but I am concerned that it does not go far enough. The same standards need to be applied across the world; if boltholes and weaknesses are discovered in certain places, the money will flow there. I agree with the hon. Gentleman's point about hedge funds and the like.
Mr. David Heath: The hon. Gentleman is making an important point about British overseas territories and the Crown dependencies. Very often, people abroad simply do not understand why the United Kingdom's jurisdiction does not seem to apply to them; people can do what they want in them, yet we are responsible for them in international law. We cannot have treaties with them, so we need equally strong legislation in the British overseas territories and the Crown dependencies.
Mr. Davidson: I am satisfied that we are making great progress on that; Bermuda, which I know well, has cleaned up its act considerably.
To follow precedent, I should have started by saying that my hon. Friend the Member for Central Fife (Mr. MacDougall) is a wonderful man and made an excellent speech. May I say so now? He is undoubtedly one of the good guys in politics and will make a great contribution to the House, as he already has to local government. I would say more wonderful things about him, but I hope that he will excuse me for rushing on to a point about incentives.
If money is to be seized, may I have some of it, on the basis that my constituency is one of those where the ill-gotten gains of drug dealing are generated? It seems reasonable that the proceeds should not disappear into the maw of the Treasury, but be hypothecated so that they go back into communities such as mine, to show that the system works on their behalf. As I raised the point, may I be guaranteed that my constituency will be among the first to receive some of that money?
6.10 pm
Mr. Howard Flight: I congratulate the hon. Member for Central Fife (Mr. MacDougall) on his useful grass-roots comments on fighting drug crime.
794
The main part of the Bill sets up the Assets Recovery Agency and the various new mechanisms for the recovery of the proceeds of crime through both civil and criminal proceedings. All hon. Members must support that in principle. The mechanisms to date have not worked well. It is wrong in principle that there should be an incentive for people to benefit from crime and, even if they are caught and sent to prison, to come back and live comfortably on the proceeds. It must therefore be right to tighten up the law in this area.
It was wrong for some hon. Members to belittle the comments on human rights made by my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin). As many outside professional bodies have pointed out, there are aspects of the Bill which may not be satisfactory from a human rights point of view. I hope that those will be addressed in detail in Committee.
The Crown Prosecution Service, the Assets Recovery Agency to be established by the Bill, the National Criminal Intelligence Service and the Financial Services Authority will all—dare I say it—have their snouts in the trough of the money recovered through the proposed initiatives. The particular roles of each body, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell) pointed out, and the costs should be examined and possibly simplified.
From conversations with members of the Crown Prosecution Service about whether it is justifiable to introduce legislation that could lead to injustice, it seems that the view of those responsible for catching crooks and finding drug money is that it does not matter too much that the law may lead to injustice. They want it so that they can go for the real crooks and argue that it will never be their intention to use the law against innocent staff or unreasonably. That is probably a fairly held view, but it sits slightly uncomfortably with the principle of Anglo-Saxon law—"the law's the law." It is not to be used only when it suits people; it is to be obeyed by everybody.
There are concerns that with the use of the civil courts to confiscate assets, people could be found not "guilty" but "probably guilty". That would trespass across the barriers of our tradition that a person is innocent until proven guilty, rather than guilty until proven innocent. The Law Society and others have pointed out that third-party businesses could be caught in the Bill's net. An independent trader could go bankrupt as a result of having assets restrained as part of a larger investigation over a protracted period. Although it is not very likely, no one would want such an injustice to occur.
On money laundering, I welcome the regulation of exchange bureaux. I have long thought it extraordinary that they were not properly regulated, although they were obvious targets for money laundering. I am somewhat concerned about the new criminal offence of failure to disclose suspicions that another person is engaged in money laundering. It is one thing to report knowledge; it is another thing to report a suspicion, but as others have pointed out, reasonable grounds for suspicion are subjective.
I should declare an indirect interest. As the register records, I am still chairman of the investment management business which I built up over 20 years. The requirements that apply to such a business are slightly different from those that apply to banking, but one of the positive aspects has been working with the police.

795
They come in with videos and teach the on-line staff what to look for. That should remind the House that it is not grandees who might suffer injustice, but ordinary junior on-line staff. When money flows through, they are the people at the coal face who must look for evidence of money laundering and who in future will have to look properly for terrorist funds. Do the Government intend to include in the Bill, through amendments in Committee, their proposals relating to terrorist finance, or will those be the subject of a separate Bill?
Mr. Connarty: I respect the hon. Gentleman's disclosure that he has some knowledge of the industry. If someone came into his business with a large sum, would he investigate where the person got it, or would he just take the money and invest it for them? If he was unhappy with the answers given, would he consider bringing in the authorities, or would he say to the person, "Take your money elsewhere. I don't want to be involved with it and I don't mind where you got it"? If the matter is not drawn to the attention of the authorities at the level of his business, how will the authorities ever have a chance of getting on to such people?
Mr. Flight: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. First, if someone came in with a large sum in cash, one would immediately report him. Failure to report is a criminal offence for which one could go to jail. Secondly, if a potential new client says, "I want you to manage some funds for me," one has to check where the funds come from, check the person's identity and get references. There is a lengthy procedure to establish the propriety of that individual. If people are investing in unit trusts, there are procedures similar to banking procedures to check that the money has come from a proper bank and who the potential investors are.
There are already at retail, so to speak, and at higher level quite demanding procedures to identify money laundering. One of the reasons why the rules have been tightened up is that some banks have no doubt been lazy. That accusation is directed at London and even more so at the United States. There are other countries where nothing at all has come to light, not so much in British dependencies, as we have heard, as in the whole of Latin America, Africa and Asia. I suspect that the proceeds of drugs are largely ending up not in bank accounts in North America or London but in assets in certain other parts of the world. That problem has not yet been effectively addressed.
Mr. Connarty: The hon. Gentleman's answer raises my estimation of his integrity. My question was whether, if someone's response to his questions did not satisfy him, he would report that person to the authorities, and whether he thought that anyone else in his position should do the same?
Mr. Flight: Absolutely yes. It is already an offence not to do so. If someone cannot answer questions in a way that allays any suspicion that they may have been involved in money laundering, it is an offence under the Proceeds of Crime Act 1995 not to report that individual.
Clause 325 is the "tipping off" clause and is extremely important. The practical collaboration between people in the financial services industry and the police is just as important as the law. When the Bank of Credit and
796
Commerce International—BCCI—applied to the UK for a banking licence, the licence was granted, but ironically, when it applied to Guernsey, the application was turned down. The Guernsey Financial Secretary had contacted the international police authorities immediately, and had been advised that the organisation had a bad name. He therefore refused to grant it a licence.
Banks need to know what businesses to look out for, and potentially even which individuals to look out for. They need to be able to open the books if inquiries follow. Such collaboration needs the backing of the law: neither banks nor investigating authorities can act illegally. I feel that there is scope for much more practical collaboration, and I welcome measures to increase the investigative powers of the police, but I fear that some parts of the Bill could be detrimental to co-operation that is already crucial and will become even more important in the pursuit of terrorist money.
Clause 325, incidentally, contains a drafting error, of which the Government may be aware. It refers to a "disclosure", in the context of a disclosure to a third person who is not a constable or an authorised person, but it does not actually say that: it also uses the term "disclosure" in a different sense from making a disclosure to a constable. That needs to be tightened up.
The Minister probably knows of the practical issues raised by the Institute of Chartered Accountants in relation to the money-laundering provisions. I am sure that they will be considered in more detail in Committee.
It is crucial for efforts to combat money laundering to be focused, and not sidetracked to other agendas. Allusion has been made to unfair treatment as between smaller and larger countries. Some activities of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development were sidetracked into what was seen as the pursuit of unfair tax competition, and the establishment of sanctions against smaller countries, mostly in the West Indies, at a time when there were arguably far greater "unfair tax advantages" in Holland and in certain American states.
I am pleased that, in May, the United States Financial Secretary reversed US policy on that front. He did not want the pursuit of money laundering and terrorist funds to be sidetracked into other political agendas. The Bill currently going through Congress, while encouraging the use of sanctions to pursue terrorist money, makes it clear that they should not be used to further political objectives such as tax harmonisation. I trust that when we get around to producing measures for the pursuit of terrorist funds we will take the same stance.
It is strange that the initiative on money laundering never took account of the problem of terrorist funds where clean money is used for filthy ends, concentrating purely on dirty money being made clean. The aspects are different: they will require different focuses and different codes of conduct if those in the finance industry are to pick up what is needed and report it duly to the right authorities.
The Bill, especially if there is practical collaboration, has the potential to tighten things up here; but we must then ensure that they are tightened up elsewhere in the world. There will be fewer problems, potentially, as a result of the tightening up that is already proceeding in the United States and is due to begin in continental Europe, which is ahead of us in some respects; but we must face the issue of how to tighten up in other parts of

797
the world if we are not to drive a problem that has been intermittent here into territories where there is little or no scope for policing.
6.24 pm
Stephen Hesford: At the risk of incurring the wrath of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson), I must confess that before entering the House I spent 16 years practising at the criminal Bar. The only saving grace is that sitting between my hon. Friend and me is another lawyer, my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas), who I am sure will come to my aid if necessary.
I have another confession that may upset my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok, who seems to have survived the first. I strongly agree with the tone and the sentiment of his speech. I want to help the system to help his and my constituents, who bear the brunt of the war against drugs.
I have practised in Manchester. I know that other Members have practised there too, and will know of cases such as those with which I have dealt. A nine-year-old on Moss Side would be delivering heroin on his BMX bike; a 12 to 16-year-old would be either forcing or cajoling him to do it. They would be armed with automatic weapons: there would be gangland warfare, with boys shooting each other. Sadly, I represented a number of those kids, and I do not believe that one of them is alive now. That is the limit to which the drug problem can take us.
Behind such tragedies were the Mr. Bigs. They lived in another part of Manchester, in the big houses to which my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok referred, with no other visible means of support. I would back any legislation intended to disrupt that chain of human misery, and I believe the Bill is intended to do precisely that.
I confessed to the shadow Home Secretary in an intervention that I was mystified about the source of his thinking. A White Paper was published in March, and there was heavy consultation on it. I see that his colleague, the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), is now deep in conversation, but I hope that we shall be told in the winding-up speech whether any of the pedantic little points made by the shadow Home Secretary filtered through during that consultation. As I think he admitted in the end, they are really points for the Committee stage rather than for a debate on the principle of a Bill. It is a shame that there cannot be a more positive approach to such important legislation. I welcome the approach of the Liberal Democrats, woolly though it was, as usual.
Mr. Grieve: I note that, like me, the hon. Gentleman is a practising member of the Bar. Does he really think it pedantic to highlight areas in which, if the Bill does not work as it is intended to work, it will cause grave injustice? Are such points merely pedantic rather than points of general principle?
Stephen Hesford: If there is a point to be made, it should be made in Committee; but, with respect, I do not agree that a point was being made.
I merely ask Opposition Members to reflect on whether they warmly welcome the Bill. I suspect that some do, but I hope that we shall hear a more positive announcement in
798
the winding-up speech. I want to know why they support a Bill to protect the communities that Labour Members want to protect.
In many ways, the Bill is a consolidating measure. It is complex—it has more than 400 clauses—so it is not surprising if there are some errors of drafting, but, again, this is not the time or place to discuss them. The debate is more about the principle.
Drug trafficking is an evil. It is a black economy. My hon. Friend the Member for Central Fife (Mr. MacDougall) said that it accounts for 1 per cent. of GDP. My understanding is that it accounts for 2 per cent. It is a disgrace if, in a civilised country in the 21st century, we cannot get our hands on that money and put it to better use. That is what the Bill is about.
Mr. Grieve: The hon. Gentleman will obviously be familiar with the way in which the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 has worked. One of the things of which he is likely to be aware, as I have been in practice, is that over the years the amounts that have been assessed for confiscation have consistently turned out to be higher than the assets available for seizure. Does anything in the Bill make that less or more likely to happen? If the Bill is to work, we will have to make assessments that lead to the money being seized, rather than, as has happened under the Drug Trafficking Offences Act, less and less money being taken year by year.
Stephen Hesford: I do not want to get bogged down, but in my experience the procedure under the Drug Trafficking Offences Act was cumbersome. No one really believed in it. This Bill has been introduced not only to consolidate measures, but to make the procedure work better. I welcome that, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman does so too. Rather than just nit-picking, Conservative Members should look forward to procedures coming into operation that will make the principle work better in practice in our courts.
The Bill will change the culture. The culture of court life, if I may put it that way, must change in two ways. The judicial culture must change. Often, half the judiciary were not interested in chasing assets, and the other half—the hon. Gentleman, in a sense, made the point—were ham-fisted in doing so. They overkilled the case and brought the procedure into disrepute.
More important, there must be a change in culture among defendants. I mainly defended when I was at the Bar. I can probably count on one hand the defendants who genuinely thought that their assets were at risk; many brought a soul-destroying smugness to the court process. I want to see the smile wiped off their faces. If the Bill, in changing the culture of the court, gets anywhere near doing that it will perform a major service.
Part 1 sets up the Assets Recovery Agency. I welcome that, but I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to deal with the following point either in his winding-up speech or in due course. The aim of the procedure is to make the recovery of criminal assets work better, but I worry whether agencies will speak to each other sufficiently clearly that they will know which one is doing what. I understand from the outline in the Bill that not only the director but the Director of Public Prosecutions, Customs and Excise and the Crown Prosecution Service can make an application. There should be clear demarcation about

799
who will make the application. The director may be the best person to do so, but in practice smaller cases may be devolved to the other agencies. I see the Minister nodding. That is helpful, but there is a potential problem: cases may fall between two stools. Otherwise, I welcome part 1.
Part 2 deals with confiscation. One of the key things is the timing of the application. Clauses 4 and 7 make an important change: confiscation orders can now be made at the beginning of the process—I welcome that emphasis—rather than at the end. That is a significant change in focus.
Some of the wording in the Bill is novel in terms of criminal legislation that I am used to dealing with, but that is not a criticism. It may be a welcome change, but I raise a question about the phrase "criminal lifestyle", which may be slightly problematic. Perhaps the concept of criminal lifestyle needs tightening. Otherwise, I welcome the principle of including the phrase "criminal lifestyle" in the Bill.
I welcome clause 29, which deals with the absconding unconvicted offender who sees the writing on the wall and, along with his assets, disappears to the "Costa del Crime". If it is properly administered, clause 29 will be a major bonus.
Mr. Grieve: I am sorry to take the hon. Gentleman back a moment, but I noted with care his comments about criminal lifestyle. Would he care to amplify what gives him cause for concern? It is defined under "Interpretation" in clause 75. Is the interpretation causing him concern or some other matter?
Stephen Hesford: It is a new concept. My concern is a general one. If we are going to introduce a new concept, let us get the thing nailed down so that it works. That is the point that I am making. I hope that that helps the House. Clause 41, which deals with restraint orders, will be particularly significant.
Part 5 deals with civil recovery of proceeds and brings us into line with jurisdictions such as the United States of America and Australia. The United States has particular expertise in going after drug cartels. If it can set up a civil recovery of proceeds procedure, it is no bad thing that we should go down the same route.
I welcome the redefinition of money-laundering offences in part 7. As other right hon. and hon. Members said, it simplifies the system, which must be a good thing in terms of getting Mr. Big.
If the Bill does work—I believe that it will if we get it right—it will change the culture and it will enable criminal proceeds to be recycled, to the benefit of us all. I look forward to that.
6.39 pm
Mr. Mark Field: I suppose we should be grateful that the Government have deigned to engage Parliament in its much heralded war against terrorism. After all, judging by the stream of policy announcements made by the Home Office to favoured newspapers in recent weeks, a stranger to House procedures might conclude that the Minister for Police, Courts and Drugs and the Home Secretary had unfettered authority over domestic affairs.
First, we have seen the nonsense of proposals for compulsory identity cards for all. It was then unilaterally announced that there will he a seven-year sentence for
800
anthrax hoaxers, and 10 days ago it was decided that incitement to religious hatred would be made a criminal offence. Perhaps this debate, and I hope others in the future, will be a timely reminder to the Home Office that we live in a parliamentary democracy.
I may be one of only 166 Members of the official Opposition, but I am certain that the people of Cities of London and Westminster sent me to this place to stand up for the ancient freedoms of the people of this country and to hold this increasingly illiberal and intolerant Government to account. [Interruption.] Hon. Members may laugh. I realise that, whatever I say today, this Bill will almost certainly become law in some form or other, but I hope that there will be careful scrutiny in Committee. I know that in the years ahead, I shall look back upon my contribution to this debate with a sense of honour, whereas I suspect that many Labour Members will feel a sense of shame when they realise how they have allowed themselves to so cravenly approve many of the measures.
I should remind the House that this legislation was originally published as long ago as March and was intended to prevent criminals from laundering the proceeds of their offences.
Stephen Hesford: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Field: No, I want to get on.
The now apparently indispensable measures that target the financiers of terror were added only as an afterthought. Last week's press release—this goes back to a point made by the hon. Member for Wirral, West (Stephen Hesford)—made it clear that the Government intend this legislation to deprive international drug barons of their ill-gotten gains. Apparently, the top five Mr. Bigs at large have illicitly amassed some £204 million in assets. On that basis, one might ask what objection any reasonable person would have to these measures.
As ever with this Government, the devil is in the detail. The proposed scope of this Bill goes considerably beyond the handful of multi-millionaire crime bosses. In effect, it allows the State virtually a free rein to investigate the financial affairs of each and every one of us, placing the burden upon the individual to explain his every economic action.
Politicians have an overriding responsibility, especially during times of international crisis, to resist taking a populist approach to appease the understandable public demand for swift action against crime. After the appalling terrorist outrages of 11 September, I entirely understand the temptation facing the Government to introduce a whole raft of new laws—part of this was drafted post-11 September—to pacify a nerve-racked population. That temptation should be firmly resisted. Equally, amid the current uncertainty surrounding our military action on foreign soil, I can appreciate the fact that the Government find themselves under intense pressure to be seen to be doing something on the home front.
I represent an inner-city seat in the centre of the capital and I accept, as I think we all do, that we will have to grow accustomed to wider surveillance of certain groups of people in our country. That may involve tougher laws on money laundering and other things. However, it does not justify the wholesale erosion of our liberties that is heralded by the Bill.

801
The traditional values of freedom and tolerance, which were referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), have underpinned our open society. 'The implicit attack upon the presumption of innocence that is contained in the Bill will go a considerable way to dismantling those democratic freedoms, which so many of us hold close to our heart.
My party recognises the importance of fostering the values of individual responsibility and self-determination in our fellow countrymen. Many of those coming to our country from abroad do so from nations where all authority flows from a centralised state and where all too little reliance is placed on individuals having the freedom to live their life free from the demands of officialdom.
The Bill proposes to confiscate the assets of people who may have been convicted of no crime at all. As many hon. Members have said, the mechanism of the Assets Recovery Agency involves the introduction of the use of presumptions about a person's past conduct as a "criminal lifestyle". On that basis alone, an individual's assets may be confiscated on the grounds that it can safely be presumed that they must be the proceeds of crime. The presumption of innocence, which is at the centre of the rule of law, is thus replaced by the notion that the police and other authorities "know" that the accused is guilty.
Worse still, the Bill introduces into English law the entirely novel concept of "unaccountable wealth". If you or I, Mr. Deputy Speaker, cannot explain the source of our income, the state will apparently have the authority to confiscate assets, either directly or by means of punitive taxation. As if those presumptions were not bad enough—we must remember that this applies to people who may not have been convicted of anything—the ability to remove people's assets will be on the basis not of the criminal test of proof "beyond reasonable doubt", but on the civil test of the "balance of probabilities". In essence, a criminal sanction will be imposed without the normal safeguards.
As has been mentioned by a number of Labour Members, these provisions were originally directed specifically at the proceeds of drug-related crime. However, we must look carefully because, as was made clear by my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset, the civil forfeiture regime has been extended to apply to all offences.
I have the privilege of representing Cities of London and Westminster and, as had been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell), I must report to the House that there has been considerable disquiet in the financial services community as to the likely effect of the money-laundering provisions in part 7 of the Bill. Although this may stretch the incredulity of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson), under the current regulations, bankers, lawyers and accountants are already under an obligation to report to the police any suspicions they may have about someone's financial assets. That was made clear by my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight). Indeed, failure to do so amounts to an offence under various money-laundering regulations. However, the courts still have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that a financial intermediary knew of or suspected money laundering.
802
These provisions, particularly clause 324, severely dilute the burden of proof. In future, a prosecution will be upheld if a judge determines that a professional adviser should objectively have had reasonable grounds for suspecting that another person was engaged in money laundering. It strikes me that that goes to the very heart of the client-professional adviser relationship. Such relationships should be based upon mutual trust, yet these regulations put an almost impossible burden on the very scrupulous and ethical professional whom the police should be trying to engage in co-operation over the most serious and flagrant instances of criminal wrongdoing. Instead, as soon as a lawyer or accountant passes on suspicions to police—he will be guilty of an offence if he fails to do so even when there are merely reasonable grounds for suspecting that money laundering has taken place—professional ethics will prevent him from continuing to deal with that client's affairs and he will not be able to alert the client to the fact that he has made a report to the police.
As well as eroding the sense of trust that underpins any professional relationship, it is fair to say that in the sphere of financial services the Bill will create a community of informants. It will undermine the essence of professional relationships and will involve bureaucratic procedure that will not come cheap. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield pointed out, all organisations in the financial services industry will now face the enormous cost of employing an army of compliance officers and other internal regulators. That flies in the face of the City's attempts to remain highly competitive in the fast-moving global market of financial services and adds a further significant layer of regulation—there has been a significant amount of regulation recently—at a point in the economic cycle when the City is already under intense pressure over profit margins.
I realise that we are dealing with many issues, but I shall concentrate on the money-laundering provisions. There are some serious practical considerations that suggest that some of the money-laundering provisions might be unlikely to be effective against terrorists. There is a key difference between terrorism and organised crime such as that involving drug barons. Drug barons usually try to obtain their funds illegally and seek to use the banking system to conceal that fact whereas, by contrast, terrorists often acquire their funds by entirely legitimate means.
Osama bin Laden, for example, is the son of a wealthy industrialist and built up a considerable fortune not only by means of political donation but by engaging in large-scale Government contracts. There is little to suggest that the funding of his sophisticated network of international terrorism would necessarily fall foul of the Bill's money-laundering provisions.
It seems that the likely effect of many of the Bill's provisions would be to add a significant regulatory burden to our financial services industry. It would also work to dissuade potential depositors from using City of London institutions and would shroud our entire financial sector in an atmosphere of mutual distrust. It would do that while failing to have a serious impact on the funding of global terrorism.
Contrary to what the Government tell us, none of the provisions will make Britain a remotely safer place: international terrorism will continue to evade with ease the money-laundering provisions and many of the Bill's

803
other provisions. I believe also that the most prolific drug barons will continue to find the wherewithal to escape the clutches of state control.
Like many Opposition Members, I have been instinctively suspicious of many of the often self-serving arguments of civil libertarians. However much the Home Office likes to try to persuade us that this Bill which it now seeks to rush through Parliament will curtail only the legal rights of terrorists, drugs barons and their associates, I implore hon. Members on both sides of the House to consider carefully before approving this barrage of ill-thought-through and draconian measures.
One should remember that when a state adopts draconian powers against strangers today, it will use them against friends tomorrow and against oneself the day after that. In a world in which the influence of lawyers seems to be ever more intrusive—
Mr. Davidson: Hear, hear.
Mr. Field: I thought I might receive praise on that point alone from the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Davidson: No one is beyond redemption.
Mr. Field: Perhaps I should make it clear that I too am a former lawyer. All that, however, was some years ago.
In a world in which lawyers' influence seems to be ever more intrusive, it is easy to be dismissive of a highbrow defence of the rule of law. However, it is especially in times of such national crisis that the rights of the individual must be defended with particular vigour.
6.52 pm
Mr. Stephen McCabe: It is a clear comment on our parliamentary democracy that I have the good fortune to follow the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field). Although the two of us ostensibly agree on the Government's proposals in the Bill, it would be hard for anyone listening to his comments and then mine to make that connection. I make it clear from the outset that I welcome the Bill, and that I am on the side of the little person who has suffered too much at the hands of the criminal Mr. Bigs who have been getting away with it. The Bill is all about addressing that issue, and that is what we should be concerned about.
I do not know what it is like in Cities of London and Westminster—that inner-city constituency—but one thing that we have to contend with in my constituency is people selling heroin to primary school children at the school gates. They are changing the price of heroin so that it approximates to the price of school dinners to draw children into their net. I want those who are gaining from that marketing activity—the Mr. Bigs who are behind it—to lose their comfortable lifestyle.
As for those who can take over council housing tower blocks and run them as private establishments—they use a panoply of equipment usually associated with security firms for their own intimidatory purposes to operate their drugs markets—I want their equipment confiscated and their ill-gotten gains taken from them. I also want the pubs in Birmingham where people conduct drug deals in full view of the public, using mobile telephones to contact their business masters, to be prevented from carrying on
804
that trade. I want every penny that those people and their masters gain from that trade to be taken off them. That is not an unreasonable ambition.
There are other examples in our society that show how people have benefited from illegal activities to enhance their own lifestyle. Anyone who is not familiar with Northern Ireland need only drive round the Holywood area to see the lovely lifestyles maintained by some people to realise why there may be no incentive in certain quarters to ensure that the peace process succeeds. We should try to tackle those who illegally maintain such a lifestyle.
Other hon. Members will have shared my horror when, last year, a container was opened to reveal the bodies of unfortunate people who had been promised a new life but suffocated in their attempt to reach this country. Had they survived they would have been sold into a life of slavery and prostitution. We talk about illegal asylum seekers and the problem of human traffickers, but the truth is that a market and huge financial incentives drive that trade. Some people make enormous profits at the expense of those unfortunate folk. I believe that we are justified in taking any action that we can to ensure that we take that money off them.
The Bill is largely a consolidation measure and parts of it should not surprise anyone. Some earlier remarks, such as some of those of my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, West (Stephen Hesford), were lost on me as they seemed to be dealing with practices that have already been implemented. It seemed a pointless use of the time available. Nevertheless, there are one or two legitimate concerns about how the provisions will operate in practice. We can make it clear that we support the Bill's fundamental principle of going after those who enjoy a lifestyle that is far too good at the expense of others while questioning how the legislation will operate in practice.
Although I am not sure that I want to associate myself with the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), and I am sure that he would not want to associate himself with me, he drew an interesting analogy between the Child Support Agency and the Assets Recovery Agency. He is not the only Member to have had that thought. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to consider precisely how the ARA will operate. Does it have as a target the recovery of £60 million by 2004? If it does, can we be certain that it will recover that sum by going after those whom we really intend to catch in the legislation, and that we will not get the soft-touch response for which the CSA was validly criticised in its early days? I ask for his reassurance on that point.
I am also interested in how the agency director will perform his or her functions. Although I am clear that I want the director to have those powers, I do not want him or her to be able to go on fishing trips. Some years ago, when John Stalker, then deputy chief constable of Manchester, was under intense investigation, various such fishing trips were undoubtedly conducted into the business activities of some of his friends and associates, resulting in untold damage. Although I am clear that the agency that we are establishing and its director will not have such powers under the Bill, these provisions will outlive many of us. I am anxious that we make it clear that the agency and its director should not be used for such purposes.

805
The hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) and others mentioned the trade-off between the civil and the criminal route. We have had assurances that the criminal route will be pursued first, and of course that is what I want to hear, but we have not always been entirely satisfied with the performance of the Crown Prosecution Service. Will there be monitoring of which cases take which route, so that we can be clear that there is no temptation to go for the softer option because it seems too difficult to pursue the criminal route?
People will be delighted to know that we are taking away ill-gotten gains, but recovering money is no substitute for justice, which we should pursue first and foremost.
Mr. Grieve: The hon. Gentleman is making a thoughtful contribution. Does he think that there should be a target at all? Is a £60 million target appropriate, or should not we simply ask the agency to do its very best to recover assets? Arbitrary targets may have been one of the reasons why the CSA got into so much difficulty.
Mr. McCabe: I do not mind if the Government have a target based on a notion of how much money is available, but I do not want the agency to be tied to that target, in which case the way in which it is achieved might be an issue of dispute.
Mr. Bob Ainsworth: To clear up any confusion, the £60 million target is for the asset recovery strategy, which is already being introduced. It is not a target for the agency, which we will expect to target those at the top end to get the highest returns. It will not be tied to the £60 million target in any way.
Mr. McCabe: I am extremely grateful for that clarification.
I am conscious that previous Department of Trade and Industry inquiries have been alleged to have undermined subsequent prosecutions. Can we be certain that the director's powers to compel an individual to supply information and produce documents will not undermine a prosecution because the defence will be able to argue that the individual was forced to produce information under duress?
The hon. Member for Lewes seemed to insist that there would be innocent parties, and I do not doubt that, but my point is that when someone who has taken advantage of and exploited countless people decides to use the ill-gotten gains to pay for school fees, skiing holidays and finishing schools—perhaps through some carefully arranged legacy—I regard the child in those circumstances not as an innocent party but as a beneficiary who is gaining at the expense of people who have suffered a far greater hardship. I am not as concerned as some Opposition Members are to protect the interests of such so-called innocent parties. If one gains in that way, one has to accept that what has been got by unfair means can be taken away just as quickly. I see no problem with that.
To return to a hobby-horse of mine, would clause 11 enable us to recover proceeds from those whose lifestyle has been partly financed by fraudulently obtaining libel damages?
7.5 pm
Mr. Michael Weir: The SNP-Plaid Cymru group fully supports the thrust of the Bill. The system being established seems to he similar to the Criminal Assets Bureau in the Republic of Ireland, which I understand has seized assets worth £6.5 million in the past three years. By contrast, under the current legislation, confiscations in Scotland have amounted to £1.7 million since April 1999.
It is interesting to note that the vast majority of those confiscations—68 out of 81—have been for drug offences. As the hon. Members for Central Fife (Mr. MacDougall) and for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson) so eloquently stated, drugs are a major menace in all our constituencies, be they rural or urban. The Bill will go a long way towards tackling the problem of assets acquired by drug barons.
We welcome the fact that the Scottish Executive will be the enforcement agency in Scotland, although I have some doubts about the role of the Lord Advocate. We call on both the Scottish Executive and the UK Government to use funds realised under the legislation as additional resources for tackling crime, and for combating drug use in particular. It would not only be justice but poetic justice if the assets of those involved in that vile trade were used to reduce it.
Some have expressed concern about human rights. I, too, have some doubts about the human rights aspects of certain parts of the Bill. As another recent escapee from the legal profession, I raise the matter because I am concerned that we should not get into the situation that arose in Scotland after the passing of the Scotland Act 1998 and the incorporation of the European convention into Scots law. We had severe problems with temporary sheriffs, road traffic cameras and various other matters. We want to get the legislation right so that the people against whom it is targeted are caught and dealt with quickly. We must not leave loopholes that can be exploited.
I have a particular concern about disclosure orders and the role of the Lord Advocate. A person made subject to a disclosure order may be liable to self-incrimination, which might jeopardise the chance of a fair trial. As I understand the Bill, the Lord Advocate will be involved both in the criminal prosecution, should there be one, and in the civil recovery proceedings.
If the Crown Office believed that someone was using assets gained from crime to set up an apparently legitimate business but did not have sufficient evidence to gain a criminal conviction, it could serve a disclosure notice in the name of the Lord Advocate under clause 379 to obtain information for the civil recovery action. However, supposing that during that action information was disclosed that would warrant a criminal prosecution, would there not be a problem with the Lord Advocate being involved in both proceedings? That could create a problem under article 6 of the European convention on human rights. Some thought should go into the separation of the two roles.
The problem will not arise in England, where the Assets Recovery Agency will deal with the civil aspect while the Crown Prosecution Service will deal with the criminal aspect.
Mr. Harris: My understanding is that the unit in the Scottish Executive that will be entirely responsible for civil recovery will be answerable exclusively to the First Minister and not to the Lord Advocate.
Mr. Weir: My understanding was that it would be dealt with through the Crown Office and the Lord Advocate. If the hon. Gentleman is right, there may not be such a problem. However, if the matter is under the remit of the Crown Office, there may be a problem. In the Bill, there is provision for a separate director for Northern Ireland, and some thought should he given to the situation in Scotland.
Mr. Foulkes: I am grateful for the opportunity to make a standing, rather than sedentary, intervention in the debate. The First Minister will designate the Lord Advocate as the appropriate person to pursue these matters, but he will be acting as a Minister and not as a Law Officer. The hon. Gentleman will know that Lords Advocate in the past have had to separate these two roles, and have done so pretty well under different Administrations. Also, information obtained in relation to civil proceedings would not normally be disclosed in criminal actions. I hope that those two points reassure the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Weir: I am grateful to the Minister, although some thought still has to go into this matter. Given the previous problems with the human rights provisions, we do not want the Bill to get bogged down.
I wish to refer to clause 94, which is central to the confiscation process and lays down the conditions that the court must take into account in dealing with confiscation. However, it does not make the prosecutor bring before the court at that point the statement of information that is necessary under the subsequent clauses that deal with the situation where matters have to be reopened at a later date. This matter has been referred to by the Law Society of Scotland, and perhaps the provision could be brought forward to an earlier date so that all information is before the court before there is a decision to proceed.
I wish to refer also to the question of funding. The Minister talked about £45 million being set aside for the proposed Assets Recovery Agency. However, I note that the agency will not operate in Scotland, apart from on Inland Revenue matters. I hope that sufficient funding will be available in Scotland to enable the Bill to proceed. That may ultimately be a matter for the Scottish Executive, but I ask Ministers to raise the matter with the Treasury to ensure that the proposal does not fall foul of the problems of underfunding. This is not a matter that should be taken lightly.
The hon. Member for Wirral, West (Stephen Hesford) talked about drug traffickers in Liverpool. [HON. MEMBERS: "Manchester."] I apologise; I am getting my English cities mixed up. One of my colleagues in the Scottish Parliament highlighted the case of a person convicted in Scotland of heroin dealing who was sentenced to 18 years' imprisonment and made the subject of a confiscation order under the present law, which is largely to be re-enacted under the Bill. This person was reputed to be worth some £4 million but, after a brief court hearing, was reported to have punched the air with delight when he was ordered to pay just £32,000.
808
It was said at the time that the Crown Office had just two full-time staff dealing with the seizure of criminal assets and that it had neither the time nor the resources to get to the bottom of that person's finances. As has been made clear today, the finances of those involved in serious crime, particularly drug-related matters, can be complex, and sufficient funding is needed to investigate them.
Under clause 109, there is a power to reopen the matter within six years if new information comes to the attention of the prosecutor. I have to ask what chance there is realistically of matters being reinvestigated in the future if there are insufficient resources to undertake the original investigation. Funding is crucial in this matter.
Why does clause 94 give the power to make a confiscation order against someone who has been given an absolute discharge? I find it difficult to imagine a situation where a court would grant an absolute discharge and then seek to impose a confiscation order. I appreciate that the provisions on criminal lifestyle may have a bearing on that.
Mr. Grieve: The hon. Gentleman touches on an interesting point. My understanding is that, in English law—and, I suspect, in Scots law—an absolute discharge is normally given in circumstances where a person is held to be blameless, though technically guilty, of an offence. It is being used here as a device to introduce that person into the confiscatory mechanism. Does the hon. Gentleman think that that is correct in principle?
Mr. Weir: In terms of Scots law, the hon. Gentleman is slightly wrong as to whether the person is blameless. The point about an absolute discharge is that a person is guilty of the crime, but that it does not count as a criminal conviction; that is not quite the same thing. I cannot imagine anyone convicted of crimes who is given such a discharge then being subject to a confiscation order.
Mr. Davidson: Can the hon. Gentleman not envisage circumstances in which a strong prosecution case collapsed because of a mistake, because time had run out or because the evidence had been collected wrongly, but in which the accused was clearly as guilty as sin and was able to get away with it? Should the accused be allowed to keep their ill-gotten gains? I hope that that is not the position of the Scottish National party.
Mr. Weir: That was not the point I was making. The hon. Gentleman misunderstands what an absolute discharge is. The point is that a person is convicted of a crime, but the court decides that it was of such a minor nature, or that there were such special circumstances, that it does not count as a criminal conviction. In the circumstances that the hon. Gentleman sets out, there will still be civil recovery. I would have no qualms about that; the whole point of the proposal is to deal with such circumstances. The hon. Gentleman spoke earlier about problems with drugs in Pollok. Had he been here when I started my speech, he would have heard me say that that is a problem throughout Scotland, in urban and rural areas.
I support the Bill wholeheartedly, but I am anxious that we should not get bogged down in legal technicalities and allow people involved in serious drug offences or other serious crimes to get out on technicalities.
7.17 pm
Mr. Russell Brown: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Central Fife (Mr. MacDougall) on his maiden speech. I am sure that, like his predecessor, he will serve his constituents in this place to the best of his ability, and that that ability will be much to the benefit of everyone in his constituency.
Crime, especially organised crime, has the potential to affect each and every one of us, whether in this place or in our communities. We all have experience of constituents coming to our constituency offices to complain bitterly about dubious individuals who live in the same neighbourhood and seem to have a more than reasonable lifestyle. Often, we hear, "Who says that crime does not pay?" or, "Don't tell me that honesty is the best policy." Such statements have a hollow ring to them and people leave our constituency offices extremely upset and angry because of what is happening in their communities.
I very much support the Bill. At long last, we can take forward what can only be described as a battle against organised crime and the criminals who perpetrate it. Right across the country, decent, honest and law-abiding citizens will be delighted that we are looking to tackle head-on those whose only motive is profit. That profit, and its provenance, is immaterial to criminals. It does not matter to them that they are involved in pushing drugs or trafficking in them, in smuggling goods or in dealing with illegal immigrants, as long as money is collected and paid to them so that they can boost their bank balances and improve their already excellent lifestyles. The misery suffered every day by individuals, families and communities is the last thought on the minds of the people coining the cash.
Much of the publicity surrounding the Bill has centred on drugs and drug barons, and all of us have a fair idea of the impact of drugs on modern society. Some would call drugs modern society's scourge, and would say that we have to live with them and battle against them. My hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, West (Stephen Hesford) described what goes on in his constituency, and his was a true portrayal of what is happening across the country. The only difference between what happens on council estates and on private residential estates is that violence is present on the council estates.
Neighbours complain about drug pushers and suppliers, and their lives are turned upside down by the disturbance and disruption caused by cars coming and going all evening, early and late, and all through the night. People who push and supply drugs have an altogether different lifestyle. They sleep through the day and conduct and transact business in the evenings. The culprits party all night, as a constituent of mine—an elderly gentleman of nearly 80—told me recently. He said that he and his wife were at breaking point. His wife could no longer leave their house, but had to go to bed in the day to try to get some sleep. This constituent visited me three times and, on the third occasion, he told me that his doctor had prescribed Valium because what was going on had left him such a wreck. The woman next door to this constituent was making lots of money. She was not interested in him or any other neighbour.
To a degree, I blame the local authority: the police have tried their best to clamp down on the trouble, but the local authority's housing department has not helped at all. The result is a terrible environment for our children. I have
810
been told that children on the estate that I have described leave their respective families' flats at 8 o'clock in the morning to visit drug suppliers. They then return to their families for breakfast—if they get breakfast at all. We do not want young children to be brought up in such an environment in our society.
Drugs and drug abuse create all sorts of misery. I worked in a drugs initiative group in my constituency for a short time, and I recall a police officer telling us one evening about how witnesses of drug abuse in the family undergo something that resembles bereavement. I am sure that all hon. Members know that bereavement is difficult to overcome, but watching a household member who is heavily into drugs is like watching that person die. Not much can be done to help: families try to pull together, but what they suffer is almost the same as bereavement. We have to try to prevent the spread of drugs through our communities.
Other hon. Members have spoken about figures and statistics. Those statistics give a true picture of the misery that 1 kg of heroin can cause on the street, and what it costs people, families and communities.
I was fortunate enough to hold an Adjournment debate 11 months ago on the smuggling of tobacco and alcohol. I said that the problem went beyond those visitors to the continent who purchase an extra 200 cigarettes or bottle of spirits, or the people—business men and women, or lorry drivers, for example—who carry back a small amount of goods for friends or relatives. The problem has to do with bootlegging—the process by which tobacco and alcohol products are purchased on a large scale in countries with lower tax rates, and then illegally sold to people, distributors and retailers in the UK. The white van trade, as it is called, appears to account for about 25 per cent. of smuggled goods.
I said earlier that criminal activity can affect all of us. By its nature, bootlegging can lead to the closure of those small corner shops that are so much needed in many rural constituencies. Criminals generate profit by cornering the market, and local people lose the convenience of having a shop in their villages.
It is reassuring to see that the Bill contains a range of measures to assist police and courts with the confiscation of the proceeds of crime. The establishment of the Assets Recovery Agency is to be welcomed, and the agency's mechanisms will prove helpful in providing the expertise necessary to carry out investigations and confiscate criminal assets.
The agency will have powers, similar to those granted to the police, to investigate, freeze and confiscate. That, too, is welcome, but the agency will have to pull together the work of investigators, accountants and lawyers. In that regard, I do not envy those in the agency charged with securing the co-operation of accountants and lawyers. When I hear hon. Members condemn each other for having been either an accountant or a lawyer in a previous life, I worry about what they think of one another.
In the past, it was all too easy for criminals to move assets when they came under pressure from the law, but the Bill will allow assets to be frozen at the beginning of an investigation, rather than when a person has been charged. I am pleased about that, although I know that some hon. Members are worried about the provision. However, we need to be bold in order to move matters forward. Banks will also be obliged to report the accounts of people under investigation to the police and customs.

811
Other provisions in the Bill include the power to seize substantial sums of cash derived from crime, or intended for use in crime. That money can then be forfeited in civil proceedings in magistrates courts. I see nothing wrong with that, nor with a civil recovery scheme that will give the Assets Recovery Agency the power to sue people in the High Court to recover property derived from crime. In my view, there is nothing wrong either in tackling the tax position of convicted criminals by giving the Assets Recovery Agency the power to assess a person's tax position and issue what I hope would be a substantial tax demand.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson) made the plea that money should be returned to communities that have suffered at the hands of despicable criminals. I sincerely hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will clarify the matter. I believe that the Bill provides that money confiscated from criminals can be used again in our communities.
Many people in our communities see what is going on around them. They know that something is desperately wrong when a person who seems to be unemployed and living on benefit runs around in several cars, all of which have personalised number plates. That person may have a large American camper van at his door, and may also own a boat. There is something sadly wrong with that. I am sure that the Bill will improve our communities, and I shall very much support it during its progress through the House.
7.29 pm
Mr. George Osborne: I wish to make a couple of general observations about the Bill, the principle of which I support, before moving on to specific concerns about a number of clauses, particularly those relating to the controversial new powers of civil forfeiture.
I begin by taking issue with something that the Home Secretary said in his speech to the Labour party conference at the beginning of the month. He said that it was not lawyers and judges who secured the liberty and freedom of our people; it was political action bringing about change. He expanded on the theme the next day in an article in The Times, saying:
"Freedom springs not from abstract legal process but from political action. After all, British democracy was not created by lawyers and judges."
I hold no brief for lawyers—I think that I am about the only speaker so far who has not been a lawyer, although my wife was once. However, I believe that the Home Secretary profoundly misunderstands our history and the development of our freedoms. We in Britain were proud of our constitution before we were proud of our democracy. Our constitution was formed as much from the steady development of our common law by our courts as by the political actions of politicians in this House and elsewhere. The essence of the constitution is that the actions of the state are subject to the rule of law. The freedoms of each one of us, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) reminded us, occur at the interstices of the laws.
Primary among those freedoms is the freedom to live without fear of arbitrary arrest and imprisonment. It has been enshrined in common law for centuries and is known as habeas corpus. Equally important is the freedom to hold property. I take issue with some Labour Members
812
who talk as though that freedom applies only to the very rich. For people who own their own council flat or have a small building society savings account, the freedom to hold property is very important. It is a bulwark between the power of the state and the freedom of the individual. That is why we should treat with care and examine with caution any Bill—particularly one as complex as this—which threatens the institution of property.
The Cabinet Office report which led to the Bill refers to
"a significant extension of the powers available to the State".
Our freedoms are not absolute, and it is the difficult duty of any Government to attempt to balance the competing freedom of the individual with the freedom of society to live free from the fear of crime. According to the Cabinet Office report:
"There is a careful balance to be struck between the civil rights of the individual and the need to ensure that the State has the tools to protect society by tackling crime effectively."
The mere mention of civil rights has Ministers reaching for their revolvers, but, unfashionable though it is to say it, I think that civil liberties are important and need constant protection. There are always good reasons why one civil liberty should be undermined, why another should be eroded and why a problem can be resolved by a change to yet another. Civil liberties need constant protection and there are always good reasons for undermining them. That is why we must be constantly on our guard.
Is the threat to our society from organised crime or money laundering such that it warrants a restriction of the rights of the individual? If we accept that the threat warrants it, do the powers in the Bill go beyond what is necessary to achieve our objectives? I accept that the threat to our society and our security from large-scale crime, drug dealing, organised crime and money laundering is very real. I pay tribute to the hon. Members for Wirral, West (Stephen Hesford), for Central Fife (Mr. MacDougall), who made his maiden speech, and for Dumfries (Mr. Brown). They all spoke movingly about the problems that drugs cause in their constituency, as they do in mine. I do not pretend that mine is a deprived inner-city area, but drugs are nevertheless a major concern for my constituents. Drugs pose a very real threat, and we lack the means to tackle it effectively. We also lack the means to tackle the way in which terrorist organisations are funded, as they rely largely on the proceeds of organised crime.
Fighting the crimes which corrode our society and starving terrorists of funds must include getting hold of the huge sums that people earn. Being caught must not simply be a career hazard for a criminal—it must destroy his career. We must find a way of reaching those whom the Minister for Police, Courts and Drugs described in his opening speech as the untouchables. The Home Office estimates that about 400 criminal bosses are sitting on profits of £440 million, half of which is held by only 39 people.
Despite a succession of confiscation laws passed by Governments of both parties, it is clear that the laws are not working. The Bill passes the first test that I set it. There is a significant threat to our society from large-scale crime. One way of tackling that is by getting at the profits of the criminals, and we lack the means. That justifies restricting the individual's right to hold property.
Whether the Bill passes the second test is another matter. Are the new powers that the state proposes to take upon itself necessary, or do they go beyond what is

813
required? Many of the Bill's provisions are necessary. The creation of a national Assets Recovery Agency is clearly necessary when individual police forces lack the expertise or, I suggest, the will to pursue complex financial forfeiture actions. It also makes sense to unify the various money-laundering offences, although I note what my hon. Friends the Members for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell), for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) and for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) said about that.
At the heart of the Bill is the change to the existing criminal confiscation regime and the creation of the new civil power of forfeiture. Pressure groups such as Liberty and Justice have criticised both as unacceptable erosions of the liberties of the individual. They object to the so-called reverse burden system that puts the requirement on persons convicted of a certain number of offences to prove that their assets are not the earnings of a criminal lifestyle. Some of my colleagues may disagree with me on this, but I have no problem on civil liberty grounds about the clauses that strengthen the criminal confiscation regime. There is a huge distinction between people who have been convicted of a criminal offence in a court of law and people who have not.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset made the point that we do not know what these offences are and I hope that during the Bill's passage we will be given some idea of the nature and seriousness of the offences under discussion. However, I assume that they will be fairly serious. When a person commits a serious criminal act and it is proved beyond reasonable doubt in a courtroom that they have done so, they have in my view forfeited many of the liberties that the rest of us enjoy. The consequences include the possibility of being locked up in prison and losing the assets that they have earned through their criminal activity.
Why does clause 75 restrict criminal confiscation orders, except in the case of drug crimes, to persons who have been convicted of a number of offences? If they have been convicted of one offence, they need to be convicted of the same offence on two separate occasions in the past six years or of four offences on the same occasion. Surely being convicted of one serious offence such as arms trafficking or the trade of prostitution should be enough to call into question a person's lifestyle and the legality of their assets. If Ministers are right to say that we are dealing with criminal untouchables, requiring the police to catch those people red handed not just once but several times seems to undermine the whole point of the Bill.
A harsher criminal confiscation regime would also make less necessary the one part of the Bill that I find it difficult to accept—the proposed new power of civil confiscation. It allows the state, for the first time, to seize the property of people who have never been convicted beyond reasonable doubt of a criminal offence in a court of law but who merely, on the balance of probabilities, are deemed likely to have taken part in unlawful activities. That gives the state major new powers of a totally unfettered kind, the full nature of which is spelled out in the explanatory notes.
Of clause 245 the explanatory notes say:
"This is an entirely new right of action … Cases where criminal proceedings have not been brought would include cases where there are insufficient grounds for prosecution".
814
Of clause 246 they say:
"The criminal standard of proof, under which matters must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, does not … apply".
Of clause 247 they say that
"it is not necessary to show that property was obtained through a particular kind of unlawful conduct, so long as it can be shown to have been obtained through unlawful conduct of one kind or another."
In other words, the Bill is giving massive legal force to the old lament of the policeman: "We know he did it; we just can't prove it." Indeed, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson) echoed that lament when he said, "They got off but they are guilty as sin."
I believe that the Bill undermines the very foundation of our freedoms, which is that people are innocent until they are proved guilty, that the state cannot merely seize the property of the individual but must establish that the individual has forfeited his liberties under the rule of law. The way that we do that in our society—the way we have always done it—is to take individuals to court, establish beyond reasonable doubt that they are guilty, preferably to a jury of their peers, and prove that they have committed a criminal offence.
The new power of civil forfeiture is born of an understandable frustration at our inability to pin things on certain individuals, but it is a sloppy and dangerous short cut to improving our criminal law.
Mr. John Butterfill: My hon. Friend suggests that trial should preferably be by jury. Does he accept that in many cases of the type that we are discussing, concerning money laundering and major fraud, juries are absolutely incapable of understanding what is put before them? I am afraid that there are too many examples of that already.
Mr. Osborne: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He makes a good point about juries in complex financial fraud cases. The central point that I am making is that, regardless of whether it is a complex fraud case and regardless of whether there is a jury, a criminal conviction still has to be established beyond reasonable doubt. What is proposed in the legislation would change that and allow a court to bring a civil forfeiture action, which is simply on the balance of probabilities.
Stephen Hesford: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman missed the snippet in my speech in which I said that this procedure was common practice in the United States. Is he saying that that sophisticated democracy has got it wrong?
Mr. Osborne: I am not familiar with the regime in the United States, but I will take the hon. Gentleman at his word. In the United States there are of course very powerful other protections for the civil liberties of the individual, such as an enshrined Bill of Rights that is enforced by a Supreme Court, and it is a very different system from the system under which we live, which is a common law developed over hundreds of years and which protects our liberties under the law.
I finish by referring back to the Cabinet Office report, which asks a pertinent question. It asks who seriously believes that the police will waste their time putting together complex criminal charges against these people

815
when they know that they can pursue a much easier civil route. Therefore, far from bringing the so-called untouchables within our grasp, the new powers will make them more untouchable—more untouchable by the criminal law. Although I support much of the Bill, I will need a lot of persuading by Ministers to convince me that I should support the draconian new powers of civil forfeiture.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. Nine hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye. If each hon. Member who is called takes their full allocation, only six hon. Members will be successful. I hope that the mathematics will be understood by everyone present in the House.
7.43 pm
Mr. Tom Watson: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to contribute, sooner than I had anticipated, to a debate on an issue of paramount importance to my constituents. Over the summer recess and during the general election campaign, they told me on the doorstep that crime was their No. 1 concern. They wanted the Government to deal with the drug industry, which permeates many families across the black country. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Brown) said, they know that, for too many people in Britain, crime does pay, and they expect Parliament to put an end to it. I hope that the Bill will go a long way to meet their concerns.
The recent British crime survey figures, which showed crime falling by 12 per cent. last year, were welcomed in the west midlands, but people recognise that there is still a long way to go. If the Government are going to be tough on crime, they must be tough on the dirty money that funds and motivates crime.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson) said that many hon. Members live in a different world from their constituents. For many people in my constituency, organised crime is a strange faraway world that they feel does not relate to them, but it has a strong impact on everyday lives in many communities in Britain.
The hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) vividly outlined how £1 million taken from a drug baron can take 50 kg of heroin off the streets of Britain, and yet, with all the new technologies—the mobile phone drug markets, the complex series of dealers—the Mr. Bigs at the end of the supply chain often evade capture. Yet we all know who these people are. On 18 October, the Sandwell edition of the Express and Star reported that Britain's five biggest drug barons were collectively worth £200 million. The Bill will allow us to tackle the Mr. Bigs of Britain; everyone in the House should welcome that.
The hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) expressed his frustration that, for far too long, the police and the courts had not placed a high enough priority on the recovery of criminal assets. When we consider that the proceeds of crime account for 2 per cent. of gross domestic product, we realise that the scale of the problem is so great that we must collectively tackle it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Tony Worthington) spoke about the money-laundering industry surrounding General Abacha, worth
816
$4 billion alone. However, in 1999 in the United Kingdom, the value of receipts from confiscation orders was only £25 million—a tiny proportion of the overall gains made by criminal gangs. In addition, when drug trafficking convictions are secured, confiscation orders are issued in only one in five cases.
The Home Affairs Committee recommended in 1995 that the Home Office working group on confiscation should continue to keep legislation under constant review. That working group called for a more radical analysis of the case for extending the UK's existing, limited powers for confiscation without a criminal conviction. I congratulate the Government on responding to those recommendations.
I believe that the Bill recognises the scale of the challenges ahead. I welcome the creation of the new Assets Recovery Agency, because if we are to unravel the labyrinthine complexities of the dirty money audit trails, we shall need specialists to do so. As we found with the bin Laden network, Governments must act much earlier to freeze criminal assets before the dirty money disappears. The Bill rightly allows that to happen.
I believe that we have all recognised the responsibility that banks have to their communities to report any suspected dirty money transactions. The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) raised a pertinent point when he expressed his concerns for finance industry workers. I know that the finance union UNIFI is concerned about the possible implications of clause 324 in respect of
"reasonable grounds for knowing or suspecting"
that a transaction is being made with criminal money. I hope that the Minister will be able to allay the fears of its 160,000 members and persuade them that the law will target hotshot City financiers—like the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field)—who are the accomplices of the criminal gangs, not the front-line staff who work in the banks.
I hope that, as many hon. Members have said, we can send a clear message to civil liberties organisations, especially Liberty, that decent, hard-working people should have the right to live in a society free from the fear of crime and the menace that the drug cartels hold over our communities. We all need to make it clear that honest, hard-working, law-abiding citizens have nothing to fear from the Bill. The shadow Home Secretary may have a problem with certain smaller aspects of the Bill, but most people know who the people involved are.
I welcome the Government's commitment to double the value of recovered assets by 2004, and I hope that the Minister will set far more ambitious targets for the Assets Recovery Agency. The £45 million already pledged for asset recovery and the extra money for the new squad of financial investigators will go a long way to achieve those targets. The investigators will pit their wits against criminal masterminds who move money and assets around the globe, but with their success they will help to break the cycle of crime by cutting the cash that supplies funds for yet more criminal activity.
In conclusion, this is a good Bill. It will go a long way to disrupt the drug supply chains; it will take out crooked accountants; and it will undermine the financial base on which criminal gangs get their ill-gotten gains.
7.50 pm
Mr. Alistair Carmichael: We on the Liberal Democrat Benches also welcome the Bill, and perhaps with more enthusiasm than some hon. Members on this side of the House. I am quite impressed by the way in which the very limited role of the provisions on profit confiscation will be expanded. It is important that we recognise the interrelation of different sorts of crimes. Crimes relating to drugs offences, money-laundering offences or whatever do not exist on their own; there is a clear and intricate interrelation between the various different species of crime. It is very important for the credibility of the wider criminal justice system that that is recognised and that legislation such as the Bill is put on to the statute book.
Several hon. Members have spoken about the impact of drugs in their constituencies. As I have already said, the important thing about the Bill is that it will take confiscation beyond drugs. However, my constituency is about as different as one could hope to find from those represented by the hon. Members for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson) and for Wirral, West (Stephen Hesford). It is occasionally thought that we do not have a drugs problem in the northern isles, but I assure the House that, although we may not be as far down the road as some urban constituencies, we are very much on that road and we look with horror to see what awaits us unless something is done. I therefore welcome the Bill as part of an overall package.
Hon. Members will be aware that many of the Scottish provisions in the Bill are the result of a Sewel motion passed by the Scottish Parliament. In passing, I would say that a mechanism must be devised to incorporate more effective accountability, or the involvement of Ministers in the Scottish Executive, when that happens. Some of the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) about the rights and position of innocent third parties could quite easily be assuaged if answers on the availability of legal aid could be given, but they are obviously not presently available to hon. Members. I simply put that down as a marker for future modernisation of the procedures.
Mr. Foulkes: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point, but I assure him that officials from the Scottish Executive have been involved at every stage in the Bill's drafting, and they will be involved during the Committee stage. I intend to serve on the Committee, as will many of my colleagues on both sides of the House who represent Scottish constituencies, so that we can ensure that the Scottish interests are properly considered. Last Wednesday, I attended the debate on the Sewel motion in the Scottish Parliament and found it very helpful to our consideration.
Mr. Carmichael: I am obliged to the Minister for that reassurance. He may be aware that, by virtue of politics and geography, I have perhaps better access to Ministers in the Scottish Executive, especially in relation to justice matters, than many hon. Members, but that is my good fortune, and to leave such matters to that sort of accident is less than desirable.
I should like to say a few words about innocent third parties. Several Labour Members—in particular, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok—spoke about people who
818
have no visible means of support. Of course, that is a very legitimate point, but a number of other people who will fall foul of such proceedings have some visible means of support. They may be engaged in a cash-rich business, such as construction, or perhaps a security firm, which gives them a veneer or facade of respectability, beneath which there is a rather more murky picture. Some people can be properly called innocent victims in such circumstances.
A very lengthy fraud prosecution might well take the police 18 months or two years to investigate and a further year or 18 months to be dealt with by the procurator fiscal and perhaps another year as successive advocate-deputes kick the case on to one another in the High Court, finding a good reason not to proceed with it. If the proposed restraint orders were used at the start of such cases, which may well happen, innocent parties might be deprived of their legitimate enjoyment of their property for a prolonged time. I wonder whether the Minister could assure me in replying to the debate that if it ultimately transpires that someone has been deprived of the enjoyment of his or her property in that way, the Crown will be liable for damages as a result of wrongful diligence. It seems that a strong parallel can be drawn between the existing law of interdict and the proposed law on restraint orders.
The other danger to innocent third parties comes from the interaction of the confiscation provisions and the law on bankruptcy and corporate insolvency. I understand that, under profits confiscation orders, the property will be removed from the estate of a possible sequestrated person before the estate is determined, so those who have a legitimate claim on a proportion of a bankrupted person's estate will find that they are significantly worse off. Those people may have entered into a contract with the person who was the subject of the confiscation order. I wonder how much consideration has been given to people in those circumstances.
My final nagging doubt relates to the provision of search powers. I am no great fan of legislation that reintroduces powers that already exist, and there is a danger that we shall do so under the Bill. All the powers given to the police under it already exist under section 14 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995. That is a live concern for the efficient and effective operation of the law on search because many hon. Members will be aware that there has been considerable conflict in the past between the law of search under the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980 and section 23 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. Why are the search powers in the Bill necessary?
Finally, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes said, a clear hierarchy of confiscation procedures can be followed, such as those on conviction, on civil recovery and on taxation. I hope that that will be followed stringently. Indeed, it would be beneficial to require the Lord Advocate to give his consent before the director can take taxation actions in Scotland. That would preserve the Lord Advocate's position as the primary actor in the first and second instances. In many ways, those are quibbles that can no doubt be resolved in Committee, but tonight my Liberal Democrat colleagues and I are more than happy to support the Government.
7.59 pm
Mr. Ian Lucas: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael). Orkney is my favourite holiday destination and I urge all hon. Members to go there as soon as possible.
I speak as yet another lawyer, albeit happily retired, so I hope that I can bring some valuable insights to the debate. I have practised as a defence criminal solicitor and also been involved in the regulation of financial services in a firm. It is important that we consider the Bill closely and that we strike the correct balance in dealing with such matters. It is most important, however, that we put this Bill in context.
It is difficult to overstate the effect of illegal, addictive drugs on our society. They are the predominant source of crime; they prevent people from making a positive contribution to society's well-being; they create misery for those who take drugs and for their families. The response by successive Governments to the problem has to date been strong on rhetoric but, I regret, largely ineffective. I am afraid that there is little doubt that the problem of drugs in our society has got worse, not better over the past 20 years.
It is in that context that, in passing, I welcome last week's announcement that the classification of cannabis under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 is to be reconsidered. I also welcome the Bill, because it seems to be part of a shift of emphasis towards the specific targeting of those who treat drugs as some kind of legitimate business. Whether those people are traffickers or launderers, they must get the message that the trade is a sick one, that it devastates those who are affected by it and that we as a society will no longer put up with it.
As I mentioned, I had some experience of drugs in the criminal courts. I worked as a solicitor, often with juvenile offenders, on Merseyside and in north-east Wales in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Much of the crime was committed to feed heroin addiction. The use of cannabis was not a factor in the commission of theft, burglary or robbery. The use of heroin was the major factor. In many cases, without heroin there would have been no crime. Without the crime, people's fear would have lessened and the community would have been stronger and happier. The connection really was that simple.
Seeing a 14-year-old who is a victim of heroin addiction is a formative experience. I represented one 14-year-old who had committed 24 dwelling-house burglaries. Twenty-four people suffered the life-changing experience of feeling threatened in their own homes. The child concerned had no moral sense; he lived only to feed his habit. His family, who were so supportive in court, mattered to him only in so far as they gave him money. Often, he stole from them. He cared nothing for the hurt that that caused his mother, and less for the fear of victims remote from him—the people whose homes he had burgled.
It struck me then how often I represented the victims of heroin addiction and how seldom I represented those who profited from trade in the drug. Those traders seemed almost immune from prosecution—able to build their wealth by exploiting the young heroin addicts who were their customers. Their further victims were the people whose houses were burgled. There seemed to be no strategy to get such traders. Large-scale traffickers and launderers were never the specific targets of the law.
820
I welcome the Bill as a clear statement that such people are now in our sights and that concentrated action will be taken against them. They are as big a threat to society as any individual drug addict.
As I said, later in my legal career, I was a supervising officer under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. As Conservative Members will accept, that was an onerous burden. Frankly, it was a pain in the neck; it involved constant form filling, much supervision of a financial adviser who worked for me and many interviews with people from the regulating authority, but it was necessary. Weighing that against the effect of heroin on our society is not difficult. The effect of the trade in heroin is so profound that it demands the far-reaching measures in the Bill.
I welcome the concern for civil liberties expressed by Conservative Members, although I am surprised that they seem to adhere to that topic only when discussing lawyers, accountants and bankers.
Mr. Grieve: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. David Cameron: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Ian Lucas: I am delighted to give way to the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve).
Mr. Grieve: The hon. Gentleman clearly has not listened, and certainly not to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin). He highlighted not the money-laundering provisions, on which there may be little disagreement, but the draconian and wide-reaching legislation that could affect those who, far from being lawyers and accountants, are rather vulnerable members of society.
Ian Lucas: I do not accept that for one minute. The thrust of Conservative Members' comments has been advocacy of a limited section of society. We did not hear such advocacy at any stage while the Conservative party was in government—quite the contrary.
Mr. Cameron: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Ian Lucas: I must move on.
We must make it clear that profit from the crime of trade in heroin is so intolerable that we are determined to seek to eliminate it. The mandatory nature of the confiscation procedures proposed is essential. It sends a clear message that there will be no profit from crime. The piecemeal measures taken in the past few years, though welcome, have diluted the message that Parliament must send to the traffickers: "You will be pursued."
The creation of the Assets Recovery Agency is a bold step, expressing the importance of acting against those who profit from crime. We regularly hear press reports of the astronomical amounts made in the criminal drugs industry. I agree that we must set ambitious targets for the sums to be recovered from traffickers. We must find the most experienced and committed staff for the agency. We must monitor the agency to ensure that targets are met and that there is a regime so effective that those who are convicted of profiting from crime surrender all that profit. I would also like the money recovered to be used

821
exclusively to compensate victims. It should also be used to treat offenders who become victims themselves through the use of drugs.
The creation of a structured basis on which to build action against those who profit from the proceeds of crime is long overdue. It provides the opportunity to proceed against criminals in a systematic and consistent manner within the rule of law. As a former lawyer, I recognise the importance of fairness in procedures and the establishment of guilt before legal action seizing property is authorised, but we must recognise the truth that our present policy against crime profiteers has been ineffective, that a new regime is needed, and that that regime must be rigorous to achieve its aims. The House should take it from me that there is no satisfaction in representing in our criminal justice system the heroin addict who repeatedly offends and is repeatedly caught. There is even less satisfaction in knowing that so-called respectable people in our society are making money from the wrecked lives of their victims.
The Bill strikes the right balance between the rights of society and those of the individual. We must make the criminal realise that he will not retain the profit of his trade if he is convicted; that the days of the drug baron serving a prison sentence and thereafter enjoying the proceeds of his crimes are gone. We must get the message through to these people that their trade is despicable, that they are the target of this legislation and that we are determined that they will be caught and made to pay.
8.8 pm
Mr. David Cameron: I start from the simple proposition that when a Government introduce a Bill of such size and scale, they must prove why it is so necessary. That is doubly true when liberty is being curtailed. There is no doubt that the Bill curtails liberty in some ways. The briefing that we have all received from Liberty and the Law Society made that point clear.
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas), although he was rather unfair to those of us on the Conservative Benches when he said that we defended only the civil liberties of bankers, lawyers and rich people. I made a speech two weeks ago in the debate about football hooliganism. I do not want a reputation for defending football hooligans one week and bankers, lawyers and drug addicts—or whatever he said—the next. If one cares about liberty and the rights of the individual as against the state, one sometimes may appear to be defending odd groups of people. Actually, one is defending a principle.
I accept that there is compelling proof—my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) made this point well—that some legislation is necessary. First, the figures provide clear evidence that only a small number of confiscation orders have been served. In 1998, there were 7,000 drug convictions, but less than 18 per cent. of them resulted in a confiscation order. Those figures probably underestimate the true scale of the problem because only the more serious drug offences make it to the courts. One would hope for a much higher percentage. The Minister was convincing on that.
The second reason for legislating is that there is a piecemeal approach to legislation and the bodies responsible for recovering the proceeds of crime. We have
822
the central confiscation branch within the Crown Prosecution Service, which has just 10 people working in it and a budget of £1 million, and the asset forfeiture unit which is part of Customs and Excise, with a staff of just 13 and a budget of about £1 million. It is easy to get the feeling of a higgledy-piggledy organisation of different bodies that are responsible for recovering the proceeds of crime. Clearly not enough is being done, which is why Conservative Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton and I, welcome a Bill and measures being taken.
The third reason to legislate is the importance of deterrence. Conservative Members very much believe in deterrence. We want people to be frightened of being caught and punished. It is a powerful deterrent if people not only lose their liberty when they are sent to prison, but fear losing their money. We all remember the beginning of "Porridge" when the voice-over says, "Norman Stanley Fletcher, you seem to view prison as an occupational hazard." Many criminals—drug dealers in particular—view prison as an occupational hazard because they know that when they get out they do not need to have another occupation owing to their ill-gotten gains.
No one more than I wants drug dealers—many Labour Members spoke movingly on this subject—stripped of the proceeds of their crimes. Friends of mine have had their lives ruined by heroin. I want heroin dealers to lose their cars, houses and money. When they are convicted, I want them to suffer in the same way as their victims. I do not know, Madam Deputy Speaker, whether you, like me, are a fan of "The Sopranos", but in that magnificent American television series a mafia boss poses as a waste management executive. He has an incredibly lavish lifestyle—an enormous house, a swimming pool and dozens of cars. We want the smiles wiped from such people's faces when their assets are removed once they are convicted, as they should be. That is why we support the concept behind the Bill. There is proof that a Bill is needed, but many Opposition Members want to know whether it goes too far: has the performance and innovation unit got a little carried away?
I am not sure that the Minister completely addressed that concern. When liberty is being removed, we want to believe that he has a grip on every detail and clause that will affect us. We want to feel that pulsing through his veins, but I am not sure that I did. I shall listen carefully to the Under-Secretary's response.
I welcome certain aspects of the Bill. The concept of an Assets Recovery Agency is right. If the agency has clear goals and the resources that Ministers intend to give it, and if it is accountable and publishes its results in reports, it can do better than existing organisations. I also welcome the idea of tidying up current law. That is important because there are anomalies. It is clear that drug trafficking confiscation laws should be extended to all types of crime. At the moment criminals can plead guilty to non-drug offences, because that enables them to protect the money that they have made from drug deals.
In addition, I welcome many of the new powers mentioned by Labour Members. We want a robust response. However, I have three concerns and a warning of what worries me in the future. My first concern relates to the new process of civil forfeiture. I understand the

823
frustration at the fact that it is difficult to get the level of proof that is needed. As it says in the briefing document, one aim is to
"permit recovery of criminal assets where a criminal conviction has not been possible."
The problem is simple: we are discussing a civil offence; it will be part of the civil process, and the civil law burden of proof will apply—which is, as we all know, lower than the burden of proof for a criminal offence. As a result, will there not be a danger of miscarriages of justice, especially when we consider—my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) put this well—the scale of the Assets Recovery Agency compared with the scale of the individual? I want to hear more about the safeguards that will prevent miscarriages of justice when there is a lower burden of proof.
Many hon. Members have received the Liberty briefing document. Sometimes when we talk about civil liberties they are too obscure and do not appear real. Liberty states:
"Imagine you have been given money by a secret admirer, or left money in someone's will and you decide to buy a new car and have a holiday and spend money for the first time in your life. This lavish lifestyle comes to the attention of the police because your bank reports the 'unexpected' payments to them. Under the proposed new law the police will be able to sue you in the civil courts and in reality (if not in the law) the onus will be on you to prove that the money does not come from the proceeds of crime."
That can happen to anyone, not just drug dealers and criminals. Such considerations sometimes have to be brought to life.
My second concern relates to the role of the Assets Recovery Agency. I welcome clarification if I am wrong, but it seems that it is to be both investigating and prosecuting. The power of prosecution was removed from the police and given to the CPS because it was thought that there was a conflict if a body both investigated and prosecuted.
My third concern relates to the confiscation orders set out in part 2. My hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset made this point clearly. The judge of a good speech is how many notes get passed from the box to the Minister, and a veritable relay went on at that stage. Notes passed like batons. [Interruption.] I have experience of passing the notes, and I was going to say that it is sad when they do not fly thick and fast when one is speaking.
My hon. Friend made the point, which is clearly set out in the explanatory notes, that the confiscation orders can be triggered by minor offences. The notes state:
"a confiscation order may be made following any conviction in the Crown Court or the magistrates' court."
I am glad to see that notes are flying thick and fast as I enter the fertile territory that my hon. Friend opened up so brilliantly. We need that concern addressed.
Mr. Grieve: I shall try to pre-empt the note. My hon. Friend may agree by way of qualifier that one has to show that there has been a benefit under those convictions, rather than just punching someone in the face, or a pecuniary advantage. However, what constitutes a pecuniary advantage is an interesting matter for speculation.
Mr. Cameron: As ever, that is the advantage of having lawyers and non-lawyers present. I am one of the few Conservative Members who is not a lawyer, and it is
824
possible to combine a feeling about the general principles with the razor sharp mind of my hon. Friend, who can get to grips with such problems.
Let me end with a warning. It is interesting that on the front of the Bill the Secretary of State has signalled that he is content that it will be acceptable under the European convention on human rights. Many hon. Members will have read about the McIntosh case, in which the court of criminal appeal in Edinburgh ruled that the confiscation of the assets of convicted drug traffickers contravened article 6(2) of the convention because they were built up in the years before the criminal conviction.
We want to hear Ministers say that they really believe that the Bill, with all its clauses and all the subjects it covers, is judge proof, and that it will not be struck down under judicial review. The Bill has more than 400 clauses and we will spend hours debating it in the Chamber and in Committee; it will be a waste of time and bring the House into disrepute if the legislation is quickly struck. down because the legal advice on which it is based was not correct. My brief experience at the Home Office tells me that if officials warn a Minister that there is a danger—a small danger—that a measure will be struck down under the European convention on human rights, that cloud no bigger than a man's hand will assuredly grow larger, until the measure has become history because a judge has spoken.
There will be a lot of discussion about the European convention on human rights in the coming weeks, especially in connection with the forthcoming terrorism legislation. We have to get the Proceeds of Crime Bill right.
Norman Baker: The hon. Gentleman has, rightly, spoken at length about civil liberties and the Bill's impact on human rights legislation. May I take it that he and his colleagues now recognise the value of the Human Rights Act 1998?
Mr. Cameron: No, that does not necessarily follow. I tend to agree with the Home Secretary, whom my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton quoted. The right hon. Gentleman has said that our liberties are based predominantly on the actions of Parliament, and that Parliament has done the job of defending our rights. Although I supported the principle of the European convention on human rights, I think that the way in which we signed up to it and the Government wrote it into our law via the Human Rights Act has resulted in the Government and Parliament sometimes being unable to do things that all reasonable people accept are the right things to do.
I suspect that we will find that the same restrictions apply to the terrorism legislation that is soon to be introduced. I do not want to stray from the subject of the debate, but it is worth noting that just the other day the Home Secretary admitted to the Select Committee on Home Affairs that in dealing with terrorism he would like to have available to him both deportation and detention, but that because of the convention and the Act he will not have the option of deportation available to him; instead, he will have to rely on detention. Sometimes we tie our hands too tightly. I do not agree with the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) on that point.
Finally, I issue a warning about the European convention and the Human Rights Act. I plead with the Government not to dig a hole for themselves. They may

825
find that not only the Proceeds of Crime Bill but other Bills will be caught up on those hooks. They must leave themselves some flexibility, because it might be that they want to take action, with the support of the Opposition, that is not possible under the convention or the Act. We must get that issue sorted out before passing Bills on the scale of the one before the House tonight.
8.22 pm
John Robertson: I am delighted to have the chance to participate in the debate. I did not receive the Law Society briefing; that is probably because I am not a lawyer, but I am sure that the House will not hold that against me.
For too long, we have paid insufficient attention to the financial aspects of crime. Let us not forget that the motivation for many crimes is money: it is estimated that profit is the ultimate goal of 70 per cent. of all recorded crime. Last year, total assets of organised crime were estimated to be £18 billion—that is, 2 per cent. of gross domestic product.
As the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) said, half the £440 million in profits held by 400 crime bosses are in the hands of only 39 big bosses. Crime barons whose assets are not stripped are often responsible for generating further crime. Assets left in the hands of the perpetrators of crime can be used to fund further criminal activity, which leads to an impenetrable cycle of crime that devastates communities such as that in my constituency, which has one of the highest rates of drug crime in Scotland.
I am pleased that the Government are addressing the issue through legislation. Many criminals regard prison as an "occupational hazard", as the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) said, and use the money made from their activities either as a nest egg awaiting their release from prison, or to keep their businesses going outside and ensure that their loved ones and families are well looked after while they are inside. Although no one wants innocent family members to suffer, people cannot benefit or be seen to benefit from crime.
Arrest and conviction alone are not enough to reduce crime significantly, as they can leave criminals free to run or return to their illegal enterprises. Legislation to strip criminals of their working capital has been widely welcomed by police forces throughout the country. I commend the principles of the Bill. All the responses that I have seen agree with the Bill, which is designed to strengthen and extend existing legislation on confiscation and recovery of the proceeds of crime. The hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) appears to have in mind the case of Al Capone—pronounced by most normal people with a silent "e"—but that is hardly surprising, given that his party robbed the country for 18 years. Many criminals—some of them members of the Conservative party—have evaded prosecution because of loopholes in current legislation.
Mr. Nick Hawkins: The hon. Gentleman said that all the responses that he has seen have welcomed the Bill. Has he read the responses of organisations such as Justice and Liberty? We Conservatives have become
826
accustomed to hearing Labour Members talking about the importance of civil liberties, so I would be surprised to hear that he had not seen those organisations' responses.
John Robertson: The hon. Gentleman obviously did not listen to the start of my speech, when I said that I had not received them, attributing that to my not being a member of the Law Society or having any connection with it.
Given that many criminals have evaded prosecution, I seek clarification on several points to ensure that the loopholes will be closed. Clause 67 deals with the seizure of money and applies to money held in bank or building society accounts, and clause 42 deals with the use of restraint orders in the early part of an investigation. Both clauses have been widely welcomed. In the past, people who became aware of police interest attempted to arrange the disposal of their assets. The Bill rectifies that—or at least it should. However, we must also consider cases in which the perpetrators of crime have already used the names of associates to register property, or have signed over assets to friends and family to avoid seizure. Unfortunately, such practices can be extremely difficult to prove.
Like many hon. Members, I want the Bill to contain clear safeguards to protect innocent third parties who, by association, might be unfairly targeted and have legitimate financial assets confiscated. The Human Rights Act 1998—mentioned by many Conservative Members who have taken the road to Damascus—enables individuals more easily to challenge decisions of the police should the latter fail to adhere to the standards laid down in the European convention on human rights. It is crucial, therefore, that the rights of third parties to claim lawful ownership of property under dispute be closely observed by law and enforcement officers.
Concerns have been raised about access to bank records held in. Scotland. Financial institutions based in Scotland operate accounts on behalf of other banks. Access to these accounts is required quite frequently. However, orders issued by the Crown court in England are not valid. Access can be gained only by means of an order obtained in Scotland from the sheriff via the procurator fiscal.
This process can be extremely time consuming and bureaucratic. It can often result in the line of inquiry not being followed up. It is therefore necessary that, under any new legislation, production orders issued in England should be valid in Scotland, and vice versa.
Concerns have also been raised about how the legislation will apply to Scottish law. I hope that the Minister will keep in contact with his counterpart on the Scottish Executive—he has already said that he will, so perhaps I need say no more about that.
Concerns have also been raised about the provision of funding for the new legislation. Detective Superintendent Langdon of Merseyside police has said:
"Whilst not taking issue with the merit of the Bill, the financial implications are likely to be significant. Although, obviously, the Bill cannot stipulate the funding issues I would seek assurance that the costs are properly identified and some element of Government funding be applied to secure a seamless transition."
The Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland has also raised this issue. It has said that, with the new legislation, there will be ramifications for the Scottish police services and for police forces throughout the

827
country, especially in relation to sufficient resourcing to make an impact upon the wealth of those involved in criminal activities. It points out also that the new legislation will still require the police to report cases of potential asset confiscation, but the crucial difference is that the Bill will introduce asset confiscation which could proceed to civil proof, and there are likely to be occasions when police intelligence will form part of the Crown case. I am sure that that aspect of the Bill will be carefully managed.
It is vital to ensure that financial investigators are fully and properly trained in all areas of the new legislation, as breach of process could lead to claims for compensation. I seek assurance that funding and training will be carefully considered. The Bill is important and a landmark in the fight against crime and the criminals who plague our communities. The Government should be commended for introducing it.
8.31 pm
Mr. Bill Tynan: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Central. Fife (Mr. MacDougall) on his well-constructed and thoughtful maiden speech. I look forward to many more of his contributions.
The Bill will play an invaluable role in the fight against organised crime. I understand that some may regard it as controversial in regard to civil liberties, but I think that we should see it as an opportunity to strengthen and assist the police, customs officers and other agencies in their war against serious crime. The proposals contained within the Bill will remove the constraints that have seriously inhibited the effectiveness of previous legislative changes. The change in emphasis from merely law enforcement to targeting the profits that criminals and their associates make from crime is particularly welcome, and is one that all hon. Members should support.
In my short contribution, I shall remind hon. Members why the Bill is necessary. Those who will be subject to the proposed legislation have a devastating effect on our communities. It is widely acknowledged that the proceeds from past criminal activity fund the relentless upward spiral of profits from organised crime. I believe that the Bill will strike at the heart of the problem. It will target those who enjoy a lavish lifestyle from the proceeds of drug dealing and money laundering.
More often than not, the criminals who are apprehended are the small fry. They are those who, for various reasons, have become victims and have been forced into a life of crime. They are often expendable and easily replaced. They take the fall for those who appear to the public to be untouchable and above the law.
The law has not thoroughly and systematically addressed the issue of the proceeds of crime. For example, the Home Office has stated that during 1999–2000 only £49 million was recovered from criminals through existing powers. In 1995, it was estimated that £400 million could be recovered. That demonstrates the scale of the task. That is why I welcome the fact that the Bill forms part of a wider Government programme to reach the so-called untouchables—those who profit by leeching on the misery of others.
We have an opportunity to correct the failures of previous legislation. The Bill includes substantial and effective measures to do that. I especially welcome the allocation of resources for the creation of an action
828
programme that will create specialist training for law enforcement and prosecution agencies. I applaud the development of a multi-agency strategic approach to improve performance in the pursuit of all proceeds of crime. The failures of the past are of deep concern and it is crucial that proper training and accreditation of the proposed financial investigators and other agencies takes place as soon as possible.
In support of the proposal, we need only refer to recent history. Unfortunately, there are numerous examples of drug trials that have collapsed. There are other examples of such cases that have been lost on appeal owing to the errors of the police, the Crown Prosecution Service or customs investigators. I shall give an example which is pertinent to many people who have expressed concern about civil liberties. An article entitled "Drugs in Britain: Special Report", which appeared in The Guardian on Friday 9 June 2000, stated:
"Customs and Excise could be stripped of its power to prosecute after official inquiry reports into the collapse of Britain's biggest drug cases uncover a litany of incompetence and chaos that led to 'two of Britain's biggest gangsters' walking free.
Although the retired judge, Gerald Butler, who carried out the inquiry, said that almost everybody involved had some input into what went wrong, his recommendations made clear that the judge who threw out the case against both men had been mistaken.
His report cleared the customs officers involved of accusations that they acted illegally in their undercover bugging operations, faked evidence or lied under oath …
But the report, published yesterday, identified incompetence in the customs prosecution and said that the official authority for their bugging operations was based on 'hopelessly defective documentation' and that the records on all their bugging operations at the time were chaotic.
The collapse of the case left the taxpayer with a £50 million bill".
Two individuals were cleared of smuggling £34 million-worth of cocaine into Britain. The report continued:
"At the time of their arrest in 1995, customs hailed a spectacular raid on the yacht, The Frugal, at Pevensey Bay, East Sussex, as part of Operation Stealer, as 'the best knock ever'.
The two ring leaders were jailed for 24 years each.
But the case turned sour when the appeal court judge, Mr Justice Turner, threw it out on the grounds that the prosecution had wrongly withheld the information that the suspects' hotel rooms had been bugged without official authority."
Judge Butler said:
"A lot of people are to blame. I cannot point the finger at any one person or group of people. Things went wrong from the off and they never recovered. Almost everyone had some input in what went wrong."
That clearly demonstrates the need to look carefully at the way in which we apply the Bill's provisions so as to make sure that such incidents cannot happen again. The training that will be given will, I hope, eradicate the problem in future.
In July 2000, The Guardian reported that an individual accused of involvement in a £50,000 cannabis ring in Scotland was freed because a deadline had expired, amazingly, because a judge could not be found to try the case.
Mr. Cameron rose—
Mr. Tynan: I am sorry, I want to make progress.
The Bill would permit the assets of those criminals who, for whatever reason, escape prosecution, to be frozen and seized. While a botched criminal investigation

829
may enable them to remain free, it would not safeguard their ill-gotten gains. It is abhorrent to everyone that they flaunt their success with lavish lifestyles, flashy cars, large houses, expensive clothes and often substantial business interests. They sometimes become unacceptable role models for our young. Confiscating their illegal funds will strip away the belief that crime pays and will highlight to impressionable young people the fact that those criminals will pay the price for the misery that they create in communities throughout the United Kingdom.
I remind those who express doubts and concern about civil liberties of the many young men and women in our constituencies whose lives and families have been torn apart by the tragedy of drug addiction. Young people are actively targeted by the dealers in death, even at primary school, as has been said tonight. During the by-election at which I was elected in 1999, South Lanarkshire experienced its 100th drug death. A young woman who had been at school with my youngest daughter, who is 25, was found dead in a Hamilton flat, another victim of the drug barons. In 1997, there were 22 drug-related deaths in Lanarkshire; by 1999, that had risen to 27. In 2000, drug users in South Lanarkshire were 17 per cent. more likely than users in Scotland as a whole to be using heroin as their main drug. That situation is repeated across the country every day. The trend must be reversed and the Bill can play an important part in that.
I believe that, given the opportunity, the community can identify the drug dealers in its midst. One need only look at the successful national campaign run by the Daily Record in Scotland. By enlisting the help of the people, the newspaper was able to name and shame those who peddle drugs. If the Bill is successful, we can gain the confidence of the people in every community in the UK and enlist their help in targeting the drug dealers and money launderers. The Hamilton Advertiser also plays an important role in its opposition to drug dealers. It recently ran a hotline in conjunction with the local police, which was extremely successful.
Recent history is littered with examples of criminals who have escaped the law. The Bill is, among other things, an excellent example of the fact that UK-wide legislation is necessary to combat organised crime. I applaud the action of the Scottish Executive in ceding some of its authority to Westminster in this matter to ensure that criminals have nowhere to hide. The Bill is tailored to Scottish law and contains some elements that are unique to Scotland. The fact that my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Scotland Office is helping to pilot the Bill through the House emphasises the importance attached by the Government to the Scottish aspects of the Bill, as do the 110 clauses relating directly to Scotland.
The fight against crime is one that we cannot afford to lose, and the Bill will be an invaluable new weapon in our anti-crime armoury. The beauty of it is that it will target not just the criminal minnows, but the gangland bosses and the criminal bigwigs, who will sleep less easily in their opulent residences tonight because the Bill sends out a clear message that crime does not pay.
8.41 pm
Mr. Miss Julie Kirkbride: I am grateful to be called to speak, as I acknowledge that I have not been in the Chamber for the entire debate. [Interruption.] The
830
Minister of State, Scotland Office, who is a very nice man, asks why not. With my new-found domestic responsibilities, I find spending the entire day listening to a Second Reading debate in the Chamber a little more difficult than I did previously.
I associate myself with some of the remarks of the hon. Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) in his impassioned speech about the reasons why it is necessary to attack the drug traffickers and the profits that they make out of innocent people, especially innocent young people. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the reason behind the Bill, which we can all support, is to go after the Mr. Bigs—the criminals who somehow manage to get away with it and in so doing scar the lives of the constituents not only of Labour Members, but of all of us. Those whose lives have been scarred will certainly welcome the measures that the Government are taking tonight.
The purpose of the Opposition's argument is to sound a note of caution. Although we all endorse the aspirations behind the Bill, there are some obstacles and difficulties, which were eloquently outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), the shadow Home Secretary. I should tell the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth), that my hon. Friend is a very clever man and he would be well advised to listen to the points that he raises. [Interruption.] The Minister may also be a very clever man, but on our Benches, my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset is considered somewhat superior, even in these intellectual circles, and he raised some pertinent points. No doubt the Minister's civil servants will be busily trying to answer some of them and putting the Minister right in Committee. We look forward to that debate.
We all recognise that the criminal justice system sometimes lets us down. As the hon. Member for Hamilton, South said, people who are clearly guilty sometimes manage to escape justice. We hope that the measures before us will tackle that abuse. We want to see such people behind bars where they deserve to be and deprived of their liberty. If they cannot be deprived of their liberty, we can at least deprive them of their lifestyle, their assets and their wicked daily business. We recognise the Government's aims in that respect, and hope that they succeed in catching the Mr. Bigs who have not been caught by the criminal justice system, but who may be caught by the provisions of the Bill.
We all live in the real world, however, and, as constituency Members, we have seen good intentions go down the wrong hole. Perhaps I am mixing my metaphors. What I mean is that, having set out to catch the Mr. Bigs—those who really deserve to be treated to measures such as this because all else has failed—we sometimes catch people whom we did not intend to be subject to such draconian measures.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset mentioned the Child Support Agency, and the circumstances are, indeed, potentially comparable. When we launched the CSA, we all thought that it would catch absent parents who paid nothing towards their children's support. One of the reasons why it became so controversial was that it did not, and still does not, catch those parents; it catches parents who pay something, who then object to what they consider to be the CSA's exorbitant demands for extra payment.

831
We want the Bill to catch Mr. Big, but whether it will catch Mr. Big we do not know. What we do not want it to do is catch those who in this sense are innocent: those who, having committed a tachograph offence, are suddenly brought into a system which, although civil, is backed by serious instruments of the law and find themselves in a position they never thought possible.
As I know from many of my constituents—I am glad to say that I do not know it from personal experience—those involved in civil proceedings end up paying the legal bills. The Minister shakes his head; I hope that that means that all costs will be paid if people are found not guilty. That would certainly be welcome, because, owing to the powers that have been conferred, people might otherwise be affected because their affairs had precipitated an investigation later found to be unreasonable.
Mr. Bob Ainsworth: I can confirm that we intend to allow civil legal aid for people to defend themselves, rather than allowing them to use the proceeds of crime.
Miss Kirkbride: I am glad to hear it. I assume that if such people are found not guilty of using the proceeds of crime to support their lifestyles, compensation will be provided. If that is the case, I am glad to learn that innocent people brought into the system—for reasons that I endorse, in terms of what the Minister seeks to do—will not be caught up in litigation that could literally bankrupt them.
Mr. Grieve: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Does she agree that if the system is such that those who are not eligible for legal aid, and who succeed in resisting civil proceedings, are left with a substantial bill—many litigants are in such circumstances, even when their costs are paid by the other side—that constitutes a rather strange and arbitrary punishment, given that the proceedings will have been initiated by the state?
Miss Kirkbride: That, too, is an important point, which may be pursued in Committee.
I think we are encouraged by what the Minister has said, but I know from my postbag that the Inland Revenue—which, as we know, has fairly draconian powers—has on occasion become involved in circumstances in which no case is proved at the end of the day, but the person concerned has spent a great deal on ensuring that he or she is found innocent. Although those costs may be paid, an opportunity cost will be involved in the fighting of an action that may turn out to have been conducted in an entirely unfair way.
Mr. Ainsworth: We are perhaps in danger of a genuine misunderstanding. In cases of civil recovery under part 5 where property is being pursued, compensation will be available if the case proves to be ill founded and falls. That is not exactly the same as the confiscation provisions in part 2, so those issues will be dealt with. That will act as a deterrent to the agency pursuing ill-founded cases.
Miss Kirkbride: I confess to being a little unsure now exactly what the Minister has in mind. I think I remember his saying in his previous intervention that there will be civil legal aid, so that all litigation will be paid for, but in addition I think he is saying that if the litigation is
832
vexatious, there will be compensation for the time and effort involved in the case, so there will be no material cost for people who are innocent of the charges.
Mr. Ainsworth: Under part 5 on civil recovery, where people are eligible for legal aid, civil legal aid will be made available. Where they are not, litigation will not have to be shown to be vexatious. If they are incorrectly pursued by the agency in civil litigation, they will be entitled to compensation for that pursuance.
Miss Kirkbride: I am grateful to the Minister for seeking to clarify the matter. I think that the implication is that, if those people are very wealthy, they will have to pay for their own litigation because they will not be eligible for legal aid, but they will be compensated afterwards if the action is deemed to have been inappropriate. Clearly, these are important matters and will be pursued further in Committee. Nevertheless, the Minister's clarification is welcome. This is a very technical Bill and it is important that we all fully understand the nature of what is being considered.
I recognise that other hon. Members wish to speak, so I do not wish to continue my remarks any further. The only thing that it would be fair to say is that I have been somewhat offended by some of the remarks from Labour Members, who have suggested that, in seeking to raise questions about what the Government propose to do, we are trying to help or to protect people who are criminals, or to protect rich friends. Those remarks were wholly inappropriate.
It is our duty to raise questions about the Government's actions. I should have thought that the Government, in the particular circumstances in which they now find themselves, would be self-confident enough to respond to our concerns—as the Minister has—in the spirit in which they have been raised, and not, as some Labour Back Benchers have done, wrongly impugning our motives.
8.53 pm
Mr. Tom Harris: I remind the House exactly what the debate is about. It is not about civil liberties. It is not about legal manoeuvring or nit-picking. It is about saving our communities—it is that important.
The scale of the problem cannot be overestimated. There cannot be a single hon. Member whose constituency has not been affected by the drugs menace. In Castlemilk and other parts of my constituency, drug dealers, drug users, money launderers and protection racketeers have tried to make life a misery for the vast majority of my constituents. Let us remember that when crime hits, it hits the poorest areas worst. The wealthier people are, the easier it is to insulate themselves against the effects of crime.
The tentacles of organised crime reach into every part of every community. The Mr. Bigs, as we tend to call them, are the worst kind of leeches imaginable. I hesitate to call them Mr. Bigs—that label is far too positive. They feed on the weakest and most vulnerable in society and are directly responsible for the misery of ordinary, good, hard-working people.
Those creatures can be identified in two ways. One is through their criminal lifestyle, to which the Bill refers. I take as an example the town in which I grew up in

833
Ayrshire. It has been turned upside down by the activities of drug dealers over the past 20 years. I have to confess that some of the culprits are contemporaries of mine. They park their flashy, sophisticated and expensive cars outside the Department of Social Security while they sign on. I say that not out of envy, but to make a serious point. The culture of envy can take hold, particularly among younger men who see such people as some sort of role model or something to which to aspire. The Bill aims to fight that.
The other way of identifying these people is simply to ask someone. There are many people in Castlemilk who, off the top of their heads, could name two or three drug dealers who live locally. They could identify the firms that have been set up to act as cover for such activities and to launder the money. It is worrying that those people have the confidence and arrogance to know that they are largely immune from the powers of the enforcing authorities. They make no effort to cover their activities.
One reason why they are so secure in the belief that they will hold on to their fortunes can be seen on the Home Office internet site, which has been set up specifically to announce this Bill. It says:
"Current legislation is inadequate. We need to remove criminals' assets if we are to dismantle and disrupt their organisations."
Quite right too. Two lines later it says:
"In the last five years confiscation orders have been raised in an average of only 20 per cent. of drugs cases and just 0.3 per cent. of other crime cases."
That statistic alone would justify the setting up of the Assets Recovery Agency, but it raises concerns in my mind. If existing laws are not used to their limit, can we be confident that the new law will be used to its full extent? I hope that the Minister will refer to that in his winding-up speech.
I understand that, as the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir) said earlier, the agency's remit does not extend to Scotland. There will be a dedicated unit in the Scottish Executive, and it is not for the House to speculate on how that will be funded or organised. As an elected Member from Scotland, I would expect it to be just as determined to provide an effective service to the people of Scotland as its counterpart in England and Wales.
It is fair to say that the public are at best unconvinced and at worst cynical when Governments of any colour say that a Bill will change the face of society or stop criminals benefiting from crime. It has been a long time since the first such measures were introduced, and their results have not met expectations. That is why I strongly welcome the Bill. For the first time it provides a level playing field, which has previously been tilted in favour of the criminal fraternity.
I said that there can be a problem with people looking for role models, particularly in deprived areas, where second and sometimes third generation unemployment has meant that the traditional male role model of the hard-working father has been replaced by wide boys and villains. The Bill recognises that.
If we are to combat the seductive image of the successful criminal, successful action against them must be accompanied by publicity. That sounds like a trite point, but I hope that when the Bill is enacted there will be high-profile confiscations. In that way, whenever some
834
jumped-up young thug gets his Ferrari, his yacht or even his home confiscated, it will be obvious to the local community that has paid for those benefits that he has got his come-uppance. Even if he is not sent to jail, people will see that he will not be able to live in the style that he has been used to.
The most contentious part of the Bill is that dealing with civil recovery. The Government have certainly established, and I agree, that the civil recovery provision does not seem to conflict with the European convention on human rights. I hope that that view will be borne out if the provision is challenged in court. The civil recovery clause is the one clause in the Bill that I wholeheartedly welcome. My plea to Ministers is to ensure that when the Bill is enacted we use the civil recovery clause frequently and enthusiastically. If we do not do so, those who are expecting great things from the Bill will be very disappointed in both the legislation and the Government.
Every hon. Member understands the difficulties that the authorities face in prosecuting those who are so powerful and wealthy that they do not even have to dirty their hands by doing their own dirty work. The drugs barons are sometimes three or four times removed from the dealer on the street, pulling the dealer's strings; so rarely do we see those evil people behind bars.
I accept that we have to be careful with civil liberties. The priority of the House and of the Government, however, should be to protect not the civil liberties of drugs barons but the civil right of young people to live free from the threat of drugs, of older people to be able to walk along the street without threat and of us all to feel secure in our home. Currently, we are all being denied those rights.
I have previously raised the issue of money laundering in Northern Ireland, and, earlier this year, the Government introduced the Financial Investigations (Northern Ireland) Order 2001. In our debate on that order, the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor), expressed neither support for nor opposition to the order. I had hoped to hear today that Conservative Members had come off the fence and now support the order. I do not want to make party political capital out of the issue but. bearing in mind what we have heard in this debate, I am disappointed that the Bill will not have cross-party support, as it would have benefited the legislation.
Mr. Grieve: I shall reiterate the position. The official Opposition have indicated that we support the intentions behind the legislation. Consequently, we shall not vote against it today. We have also highlighted issues about which we have very substantial concerns that we want to be addressed in Committee. We shall do that in a spirit of complete co-operation. Indeed, I very much hope that the Committee will serve as a model for how such Committees should operate in that regard.
Mr. Harris: I accept the hon. Gentleman's remarks, but earlier in the debate the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) said that Labour Members might eventually regret the speeches that we made in this debate. Although I accept that not one Conservative Member would consider himself to be soft on crime, any drug lord who read this debate would find no small comfort from the tone and content of some of the speeches made today by Conservative Members.

835
In the Committee's debate on the statutory instrument, the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik)—who is not in the Chamber—mentioned George Orwell and "Nineteen Eighty-Four". I often find that comparisons with Orwell's dystopia are at best inappropriate and at worst over the top. Any Government who are determined to crack down on crime are accused of introducing a police state. When closed circuit television is extended, some people believe that we are in a police state. When people talk about identity cards, which I support, other people say that we are heading towards a police state.
Undoubtedly there are those who will read the Bill and see not a new means of combating crime but a threat to civil liberties. I do not believe that, 50 years ago, when "Nineteen Eighty-Four" was written, Orwell could have foreseen the state of society today or the type of champions league criminals who are comprehensively crippling our society. It is a sad day when such severe action is necessary, but necessary it is, and I think that that is justification enough for it.
The Bill will apply to Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland. As a Scottish Member I welcome the opportunity to speak in a debate on such legislation, and I pay tribute to the Scottish Parliament for moving a motion last week to allow us to do so. I am glad that the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir) is in the Chamber because I understand that, although they supported the civil motion, Scottish National party Members of the Scottish Parliament were unhappy that such a motion had been moved as it denied the Scottish Parliament itself an opportunity to legislate. I do not want to make a party political point about this, but it is more important to enact the Bill than to worry about where it is debated. I do not believe that an Act of Parliament needs a tartan cover to be effective.
My constituents and people throughout the country want nothing less than the total dismantling of organised crime networks. They want those responsible for money laundering, protection racketeering and drug trafficking behind bars and deprived of the trappings of wealth.
The Bill continues the good work done by previous Governments and it deserves the support of the whole House.
9.5 pm
Mr. Mark Lazarowicz: I, too, welcome the proposals in the Bill. They will be welcomed by the public, who want tough action to prevent drug dealers and others who prey on human weakness and misery from profiting from their nefarious activities. The measures also hit at the right target: those who make vast profits from drug dealing, rather than the user. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas), I warmly welcome the Home Secretary's announcement last week on the reclassification of cannabis. That announcement and today's proceedings represent a sensible focusing of drugs policy on what should be our real targets.
Mr. Grieve: I accept that there may be arguments on both sides, but one of the consequences of reclassification is that the maximum sentence that can be imposed on the Mr. Bigs who engage in substantial dealing in and
836
importation of cannabis will be reduced to five years. Does the hon. Gentleman consider that compatible with the aims of the Bill?
Mr. Lazarowicz: The Bill rightly hits at the financial gains made by such individuals.
Some concerns have been raised about the impact of the Bill on human rights. Such concerns should not be set aside lightly. I believe that most of them can be resolved satisfactorily in Committee. They must be resolved, not least to ensure that the legislation is watertight, as the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir) so rightly said.
There are admittedly some significant new powers in the Bill: in particular, the powers of civil recovery of proceeds arising from unlawful conduct set out in part 5, but it is debatable whether even those represent such a fundamental innovation as some of the Bill's detractors suggest. There are, after all, some circumstances at present in which there can be forfeiture of criminal assets outside criminal proceedings. As the hon. Members who raised the point are no doubt aware, it has always been the case that property that someone has acquired from another by unlawful conduct can be recovered in the civil courts by its rightful owner satisfying the civil standard of proof.
The hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) rightly said that there is a difference between a dispute between two individuals and an isolated individual facing the full rigour of the state in the shape of a powerful Assets Recovery Agency or, in Scotland, the even more frightening shape of that awesome body of men and women, the Scottish Ministers. Of course the situation is not the same, but the picture of the weak individual against the strong state that some Opposition Members have tried to portray is not an accurate reflection of the real world.
The real issue is the neighbourhood drug dealer, the international criminal, the trafficker in illegal immigrants and the international terrorist network that can reach more than 60 countries, as we now know to our cost. Under existing legislation, it is our state, defending our public interest, that all too often faces an unequal fight against those organisations. I want our law enforcement agencies to have the ability to fight them on equal terms, which is what the Bill is about.
Of course, the possible effect of any measures on an individual's rights has to be considered against the benefit to society as a whole. In the real world, it is difficult to imagine a case in which a person with a genuine, lawful right to property would not be able to establish that right if challenged under the Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, West (Stephen Hesford) pointed out, legislation of this nature has existed for some time in the United States. It has also existed in countries such as Ireland and Italy. I would have thought that Opposition Members could highlight some actual examples of where such legislation has caused real difficulties.
Two hypothetical examples were given. The hon. Member for West Dorset referred to the example of a discount store. I am not sure whether he had in mind that the entire weight of the Assets Recovery Agency would seek to recover an electric kettle that someone had bought from a Sunday market. That is an example of a point that has no sensible validity in terms of opposing the Bill. I understand that the Bill's provisions to recover property

837
would apply only above a threshold of £10,000. I do not know in which store the hon. Gentleman does his discount shopping, but £10,000 is some list for a day's shopping.
The second such example came from the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron), who referred to a secret admirer leaving a legacy to a lucky individual. Such admirers may regularly benefit members of the Conservative party, but that one theoretical and rare example should not be set against a measure that will make the business of drug dealers, money launderers and the rest much more difficult.
What concerns me most is that the provisions of the Bill should be used. As the performance and innovation unit report that predated the Bill pointed out, even the existing powers have not been used to their full extent. That is why I welcome the proposals on the Assets Recovery Agency, which will operate in England and Wales. I also welcome the extra resources that are proposed to enable similar powers to be enforceable in Scotland. It is important that there is the closest possible co-operation between the Scottish unit and the Assets Recovery Agency to make sure that the big-time operators that the Bill wants to hit do not slip between the two jurisdictions. The Scottish unit may have some 10 staff. That seems to be a small resource for the work that it will have to undertake. I would welcome clarification from Ministers of how that co-operation can be made effective.
A second area of concern is the way in which, under current proposals, a court in Scotland will have only the discretionary power to make a confiscation order under part 3, whereas in England and Wales, under part 2, the court will, if the necessary conditions are met, be required to make the necessary order to seize assets.
The Law Society of Scotland welcomes that distinction. For my part, I do not see the justification for a regime in Scotland different from that in England and Wales. If there is evidence of gains from criminal conduct, I do not see why the courts should do other than deprive the person concerned of their ill-gotten gains. I urge the Government to consider making such action by the court mandatory, if the right circumstances are met, for Scotland as well as for England and Wales.
Mr. Carmichael: Should not the courts in England be given the discretion, rather than the courts in Scotland having it removed? Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that there could be severe cases where injustice will be done if courts are not given any discretion at all?
Mr. Lazarowicz: It is possible, but that would be wrong. My hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, West made the valuable point that part of the problem is the culture of the courts and prosecution services in making use of the measures. I am concerned that without such mandatory provisions, when the relevant conditions are met the culture may not result in the change in approach that is needed to tackle the problem.
Finally, I turn to the way in which the Bill has been introduced as a UK measure, even though it includes matters over which competence has been transferred to the Scottish Parliament. That is an excellent indication of how the Scottish Parliament and the UK Parliament can work together well in the interests of both Scotland and the rest of the UK. It is an excellent example of the new, devolved system of government working at its best.
9.15 pm
Mr. Vera Baird: I can say with confidence that I am the last lawyer to speak in this debate and, perforce, I shall do so in headlines.
I welcome the Bill, as will the people of Redcar. As many hon. Members have said, it will give them protection from the predatory behaviour of drug dealers. However, I have huge reservations about the blunderbuss risk attached to the civil recovery procedure. I hope to be able to express some of those reservations at a more appropriate time in Standing Committee. The Bill is excellent, but it is rather heavy artillery.
I shall concentrate on a matter raised by a Conservative Member earlier in the debate. Clause 324(2)(b) would make it an offence if people in the regulated financial sector who had reasonable grounds to know or suspect that a person had been involved in money laundering did not report it. The problem is that the individual involved does not need to have known or suspected that another person was laundering money. He or she can be oblivious of the activity, but will, as the Bill is drafted, still be guilty of an offence by negligence. Such a person will be considered to be guilty of conduct that falls below the standard of a reasonable person.
That is almost unknown in the criminal law. Only in offences of manslaughter or public nuisance is it central to the liability that a person can negligently not notice that others are committing crimes. In this case, the crime is money laundering, and the penalty for negligently not noticing it or not reporting it is a maximum of five years. That is one of the most far-reaching and worrying aspects of what is otherwise a hugely well-intentioned Bill.
Finally, I, like other hon. Members who have contributed to the debate, am a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. We look forward to being able to deliberate more fully on this measure. We should be grateful to receive the rationale behind the advice that buttresses my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary's conviction that all the provisions in the Bill are compatible with the European convention on human rights. I suspect that the Joint Committee will have some concerns in that regard. I hope that those concerns, and the matters that I have raised this evening, will be received kindly by the Government.
9.18 pm
Mr. Dominic Grieve: My hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) made it clear at the outset that the Opposition support the aims of the Bill. We all want there to be in place a regime that ensures that criminals cannot enjoy the fruit of their criminality.
However, we would not be doing our job properly as the Opposition if we did not flag up the matters that concern us. It was suggested at one point in the debate that those matters should be left for the Standing Committee that will scrutinise the Bill. That is certainly the stage when matters will be considered in detail, but the seriousness of some of our anxieties is such that to omit to go into detail about them on Second Reading would be to fail to do them justice.
The debate has been thoughtful. Many hon. Members have contributed, and I apologise to those whom I neglect to mention, as I recognise that all who have spoken have made an individual contribution. It may be that, as the

839
House considers the details with which it must grapple, there is more common ground between the parties than some of the more intemperate remarks suggested. The hon. Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) encapsulated many of the points that we have been trying to make while, like us, welcoming the legislation.
I thank those of my hon. Friends who made important contributions to the debate. Some rightly concentrated on their areas of expertise, and it was pleasant to hear from the hon. Member for Redcar. She recognised that the points made by my hon. Friends the Members for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell), for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) and for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) about money laundering and its effect on financial services, and the potentially draconian penalties that will be visited upon those who are seen to have been negligent, described a very unusual state of affairs. Any right-thinking person wishing to see justice done would wish subjective and objective tests to be approached carefully.
Similarly, my hon. Friends the Members for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride), for Witney (Mr. Cameron) and for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) raised concerns about wider civil liberties issues to which I will return. Each one also indicated that there were aspects of the legislation that we can support.
Let me turn to the powerful contributions of Labour Back-Bench Members. The extent to which many represented communities that had been devastated by organised criminality was apparent. Conservative Members are not oblivious of the facts. It is sometimes suggested that we live in ivory towers of wealthy constituencies. However, in my constituency and the one adjoining it, represented by the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), I believe that the street price of heroin is at its lowest. That affects my constituents in exactly the same way as it affects hers. It is apparent that the profits are colossal. That is why I am bound to flag up the fact, as I did earlier in response to a comment, that we are sending out mixed messages. We slash the penalties for dealing and importing cannabis, although there may be a reason for reducing them for possession, while seeking to confiscate the assets of the individuals involved. The House may wish to ponder on that point.
The hon. Member for Central Fife (Mr. MacDougall) made his maiden speech this evening. It was unusual in that, unlike so many others, the hon. Gentleman succeeded in bringing his maiden speech to bear upon the topic that we were considering. I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman will make many more useful contributions in times to come.
Some of the contributions, such as that of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson), who is no longer in his place, highlighted the dangers that we run when populist demagoguery and emotion allow us to get carried away on serious issues. Of course, dealing with organised crime is of concern to all of us but we should not deal with it at the expense of throwing away safeguards for the civil liberties of individuals.
I want to address some questions to the Ministers. I shall start on the point that was flagged up—although the hon. Members for Glasgow, Pollok and for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz) thought it was useless—to the effect that the regime that the Government are seeking to introduce under the confiscatory mechanisms for Scotland is different to that for England
840
and Wales, in that greater discretion is given to the court on the making of assumptions in Scotland than is given here. We shall want to explore that matter carefully, because if the extra safeguard provided in Scotland, which in my judgment is very sensible, can properly be provided north of the border, I cannot see a good reason why it cannot be provided down here also, particularly as the contribution of Scottish MPs claiming what the benefits would be for their constituents was predominant in tonight's debate. I therefore very much hope that, as a starting point, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth), will address that issue when he winds up the debate. It will certainly be addressed in Committee.
I can only say that I despaired when I discovered that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok felt that the regime for Scotland was far too lax and that, in the phrase that I used to him but which he was really endorsing in return, he did not feel that it was possible to make omelettes without breaking eggs. I am sure that, if we turn ourselves into a tyrannical Government and regime, many criminals can be dealt with more expeditiously, but that does not turn us into a civil society, which is one of the things that differentiates us from tyrannies abroad.
While we are on the subject of tyrannies abroad, it may be worth turning to the issues in part 5. Conservative Members were seeking examples of ways in which individuals might find themselves prejudiced by the civil recovery procedures. I will turn to those procedures first because they are one of the areas that cause us most concern.
There is an underlying assumption in the civil recovery procedures. Under those procedures, individuals will be taken through a civil process intended to lead to the confiscation of their assets because, on the balance of probabilities, it has been deemed by the state agency that it thinks—"thinks" is the word—that those assets have been wrongly acquired.
In my experience as a barrister I have more than once come across individuals, particularly, interestingly enough, from ethnic minorities, who have been obliged to remove themselves from their country of origin, together with—I take this as an assumption, if I may use that word—their legitimately acquired assets, in circumstances that might well appear to be akin to those of an individual who might be engaged in crime. Indeed, in some cases, because of the tyrannical and confiscatory nature of the regimes that they were leaving, they had to engage in complex legal and financial shenanigans to achieve that, but it did not mean that those assets were wrongly acquired.
I shall put two points to the Minister. First, such individuals may, despite the fact that their assets were wholly legitimately acquired, have difficulty in showing their origin. Secondly—this may be the more important point, which we shall wish to revisit in Committee—we cannot get away from the fact that the system that we are devising will involve public hearings, as though it was ordinary civil litigation.
Doubtless those hearings will appeal to the prurient. A bit of schadenfreude always creeps in in these circumstances. It is always quite nice to see other people's finances being trotted out in the media, and I dare say that if it turns out that the person is a Mr. Big of the drug importation world, the revelations of the financial

841
transactions in which they engaged may be highly entertaining, and quite reassuring when finally they are potted and their money is taken away.
However, it is worth considering that in the process that we are trying to set up, one of the things that we must do is cater for those cases where the agency gets it wrong. We can guarantee to the Under-Secretary—I suspect that he will not even gainsay us—that in some circumstances the agency will get it wrong and only the court will rule against it.
In those circumstances, what will happen to people whose business and family finances have been trotted out in public, especially as the revelations may jeopardise other members of their family in foreign countries? What system will be devised then? If those circumstances occur, should we consider—we shall do so in Committee—whether to allow those subjected to it to elect for the confidentiality of chambers, even if the final judgment is given in open court? I simply flag up that practical issue, which the Government should consider.
I see that a certain amount of gossip is taking place. If any of the three eminent members of the Treasury Bench wishes to intervene, I should be happy to give way; otherwise I shall continue.
I turn now to some of the other issues that have been raised. Cash seizures were not greatly commented on during the debate, but the provisions on cash seizure are doubtless particularly useful because they will allow the immediate seizure of cash. Equally, they are particularly draconian because they will be used to remove assets from individuals, virtually on the knock on the front door. Under the Bill, that can be done on the administrative say-so of a police officer, although it will also be possible for a justice of the peace to do so. Again, I simply flag up to the Minister this issue of detail and principle: why will the judicial authorities be semi-excluded from the process? If they will be allowed to take part, why not simply delete from the legislation the power of a police officer in those circumstances?
We have also heard much about prejudice, which I touched on in referring to the mechanism in relation to the part 5 procedure. However, an issue that was touched on by several hon. Members will require some careful consideration—namely, to what extent will those administrative procedures prevent criminal trials from taking place subsequently? The Minister of State, Scotland Office shakes his head, but that is rather a good question. Information about such people may be exposed all over the pages of The Sun and the News of the World, so how can they subsequently be charged with a criminal offence, given that they have effectively been trawled through the courts and the information has been put into the public domain about activities that would not have emerged during their criminal trials? That important issue needs to be addressed, given that we do not wish, as one or two hon. Members have said, to create a system that reduces the effectiveness of being able to send people to prison under the criminal justice system.
We also need to consider the fact that previous efforts to seize assets of one kind or another have not worked. That fundamental issue should really be debated on Second Reading, rather than in Committee. The Child Support Agency was mentioned, but equally we have to
842
draw attention to the manner in which the total number of seizures under the existing rules has consistently declined ever since they were introduced. I do not welcome that, but it suggests at least that there may be a problem with how such confiscatory mechanisms work in practice.
Before we all start running down the road, waving our flags and banners and saying that we are pleased that the new system will lead to such wonderful results, I have to tell the Minister that he will have to satisfy the House and the Committee that, in practice, the provisions—especially those on the confiscatory rules, which, as Ministers have said several times, represent a consolidation measure—will be much more effective than the provisions that previously existed. If the Minister cannot satisfy us on that, the whole thrust of the legislation will be called into question.
It is easy for us in this House to be long on rhetoric, but we want to see the angels in the detail and not the devil. It would therefore be helpful if the Minister at least provided some indication in his winding-up speech of why he believes that the confiscatory mechanisms will work so much better than the present system.
I deal now with the confiscatory mechanisms that constitute the earlier parts of the Bill but which have been to an extent supplanted in the debate by anxieties over issues such as money laundering and part 5. There are some very odd things in the confiscatory provisions. Above all, they appear to centre on whether justice will be done either to people who are put through the process and exonerated or, most important, to third parties who are affected by the process and subsequently find that they are exonerated.
If somebody absconds and assumptions are made which are subsequently varied or rescinded, the court has power to award compensation if it thinks it just. However, if the full, normal procedure has taken place—notwithstanding the fact that subsequently the whole case may cave in—one is allowed to obtain compensation only in circumstances of serious default. I find the juxtaposition of those two things odd.
In such circumstances, the explanatory notes to the Bill strike me—frankly—as weird. They seem to say, "Oh well, as one was a very quick procedure, we feel that we should allow the just principle to apply, but as the other follows the normal criminal procedure, it should apply only in cases of serious default." I do not see why serious default should be the only ground for compensating people who suffer the adverse consequences of draconian legislation.
If the Government are confident that the people who are targeted will be found—if I may use that word; it is not the proper word in the circumstances—guilty or at least to be in default, why are they so concerned about paying full compensation in those circumstances? There is no justification for that. In so far as the provision may be a carry-over from earlier procedure, I strongly suggest to the Government that, given how much further and more extensively the net is being cast upon the waters, now is the time to change it. That is another example of an aspect that is fundamental to whether the Bill is acceptable. It will be considered in Committee, although it is right that we should flag it up at this stage.
I do not wish to take up more of the House's time. I hear one or two Members saying, "Hear, hear." We shall certainly seriously and as rapidly as possible consider

843
such matters in Committee, but let us not forget that we are dealing with a 444-clause Bill. It is longer than the Law of Property Act 1925. It is one of the largest pieces of legislation ever presented to the House in such a form. For a piece of semi-criminal legislation, that is in itself quite worrisome. It deserves close scrutiny. I repeat to the Minister what we have said before: we support the aims of the Bill, but that should not be an excuse for throwing away common sense and, above all, that should not be a reason for throwing away civil liberties.
9.39 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Bob Ainsworth): It has been a good debate, as the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) said. Some contributions were well informed. They showed great knowledge of the law, financial institutions and the consequences of criminality and drug trafficking. The maiden speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Central Fife (Mr. MacDougall) was one such speech, and several hon. Members congratulated him on his performance. The quality of those contributions was not surprising. However, the almost complete and astonishing role reversal by the Conservatives was surprising. I have rarely seen their Front-Bench spokesmen so agitated. I was especially surprised that they were so agitated about human rights and civil liberties.
Labour and Liberal Democrat Back Benchers usually raise and get concerned about such matters. To hear the Conservative Front-Bench spokesman so worried about them was surprising. Either there has been a Pauline conversion, or something else is going on. Their concerns ran through the opening speech of the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) and the closing remarks of the hon. Member for Beaconsfield. They reached a crescendo with the speech on inner cities by the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field).
It is the tone that is interesting, not what is said. Conservative Members are trying to tell us that they support the measures, yet they describe them as draconian and an affront to civil liberties. The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster got to the point of calling them evil and illiberal. With that support, we are entitled to ask exactly where Her Majesty's Opposition stand on this. Some of my hon. Friends on the Back Benches are right to ask about their motives.
Mr. Letwin: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Ainsworth: In a moment.
The measures include establishing an agency. There is legislation to recover the proceeds of crime, but it is piecemeal. This is the first time that an agency will be dedicated to such work. By comparison with the relative size of our economies, we recover a quarter of the proceeds of crime that the authorities in the United States recover and a 10th of that recovered in Ireland. The Bill consolidates legislation and creates the agency that is needed if we are to have an impact.
Some of my hon. Friends said that there is cynicism about the effectiveness of such measures. Unless legislation is coupled with a strategy that all agencies sign up to, in which they agree to work together, and with investment in the necessary expertise, we will not be able
844
to deliver on many people's expectations that we are as effective as other countries at recovering the proceeds of crime.
Confiscation is underused. Where it is used, it is underenforced. Existing legislation is disjointed and inaccessible. Confiscation is not new. I am surprised by Conservative concerns about it. Assumption is not a new concept. There is no reversal of the burden of proof. Confiscations will apply to people who have been convicted. In those circumstances, the defence against confiscation will be to prove that there are no proceeds of crime to confiscate, but only after conviction. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield is upset about the way serious default is used in the Bill, but we are talking about confiscation after criminal conviction, so I really do not understand why he is so exercised about that issue.
Mr. Grieve: I suggest that the Minister recalls the words of his hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, West (Stephen Hesford), who asked for clarification of the definition of "criminal lifestyle". That is where novelty arises. The issue is not being convicted of a crime, but being found to have a criminal lifestyle based on a series of what are potentially extremely minor offences that are statutorily determined via statutory instrument by the Secretary of State.
Mr. Ainsworth: I will not try to suggest that there are no important issues to be addressed. We will have to discuss them in Committee. I hope that, despite the rhetoric and the overall tone of today's debate, the hon. Gentleman will respond reasonably during the Committee's examination of the Bill. All we are trying to do in part 2 is streamline and consolidate the legislation. For reasons that have been adequately explored by my hon. Friends during the debate, we are insisting that, in appropriate circumstances, confiscation is considered and that assumptions are used so that we can end the underuse of the provisions.
On civil recovery, where there are substantial assets that are being used and enjoyed and where criminal conviction is not possible—the individual who committed a particular crime may be abroad, untraceable, or even dead—why should we not, on behalf of the citizens of this country, have the power and ability to sue for the forfeiture of that property? Why is that principle so wrong?
The hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) said that the agency would have the ability both to prosecute and to investigate, but that is not so. The agency will not be a prosecuting authority. These are civil matters; the agency will sue people in the courts. Yes, of course it needs the ability to investigate: in normal civil procedures, people have a case that they take to the court, and the agency will need to be able to discover the property and proceeds of crime involved if it is to be able to make its case; however, it will not be a prosecuting agency.
The hon. Member for Beaconsfield suggests that the agency will ride roughshod over people's civil liberties and that it will be able to take all sorts of action simply because it thinks that the action is appropriate. In fact, the agency will have to go to court and show a good, arguable case in the first instance. It will have to prove—yes, to the civil standard—that the property involved is the proceeds of crime. The individuals involved will not be

845
subject to the necessity of proving that their property is not the proceeds of crime—it will be the other way around. If the agency gets it wrong, it will be liable for costs and compensation. I do not know why he is getting so upset. I repeat, of course there are issues that need to be properly explored. We will do that in Committee.
The people who elect us expect our powers to investigate and tackle money laundering to be equal to the tasks in hand. As everyone knows, this country has some very large financial institutions, but in 1999 there were only 140 prosecutions in the UK for money laundering, whereas in Italy there were 538 and in the United States of America there were 2,034. Surely that shows that there is a need to increase our ability to take action against money laundering.
My hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) expressed concerns about the level of proof that would be needed for the reporting of money laundering. Guidance will be issued in consultation with the industry, and that will apply only to the regulated sector. If that guidance is adhered to, that will be a defence. That may be some reassurance to her.
Some Members are worried about what they see as inadequacies in the strategy and in previous legislation. Legislation alone will not measure the need to take action. We need an entire strategy, and we have one. We need all the agencies to sign up to it, and they have. We need also investment in the expertise that is necessary to put the strategy into place. Some measures have already been implemented. Money has been allocated. There have been announcements of the initial bids against that money. We shall be able to announce the strategy in detail at the end of the month.
Scottish Members and the hon. Member for Beaconsfield referred to the differences between Scottish and English legislation. Many of my hon. Friends said that they might desire the measures that are available in England and Wales to be available also in Scotland. My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Scotland Office has talked to his colleagues on the Scottish Executive and others about the matter, and he will continue to do so. There is a different tradition in Scotland, and the Bill reflects that.
Mr. Carmichael: I wish to stiffen the Minister's resolve on that point. Does he agree that it is nonsensical to say that the proposed legislation is necessary to reinforce the credibility of the criminal justice system, and then to say, like the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz), that the courts are not to be trusted to execute the proposals?
Mr. Ainsworth: As I have said, the current measures have been under-used. It is appropriate to take action to ensure that they are not under-used in England and Wales. There is a different tradition in Scotland. There are different and devolved issues. The Scottish Executive have been fully involved in the development of policy, and their views are reflected in the Bill. If people want to make representations, we must provide the mechanism for them to do so. We are not opposed to that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Tony Worthington) talked about the Abacha case. We are introducing the capacity of restraint to the
846
start of the investigation. There was a potential problem. We are also introducing regulations that will affect bureaux de change, which will come into effect next month.
My hon. Friend complained about the performance of the Home Office in responding to foreign jurisdictions. New resources have been made available, which has led to a considerable improvement.
The hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) raised many of the issues that were taken up by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe), which included questions that go to the heart of concerns that people should have. There will be, as a necessity, a hierarchy of use for the measures and the way in which they are used in conjunction with criminal prosecution. We intend to set that out in guidance which will be available for the courts. Confiscation will be the normal route when a criminal prosecution is pursued, so civil recovery and cash forfeiture will not be an issue. When a case is pursued through the criminal courts, the confiscation route will be the first option for the forfeiture of the proceeds of crime. I hope that that satisfies the hon. Member for Lewes and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green. Only when prosecution is ruled out will other routes be pursued; the reasons for ruling it out will be part of the normal decisions taken by the prosecution agencies.
Norman Baker: Does that mean that there are no circumstances at all in which criminal proceedings will be parallel to civil proceedings to seize assets?
Mr. Ainsworth: Civil proceedings will not run parallel to confiscation proceedings or criminal proceedings. If there are criminal proceedings, confiscation proceedings could well be part of that. Civil proceedings will only be instituted when criminal proceedings are not felt to be available or appropriate.
The hon. Member for Lewes was anxious about innocent third parties; there were also concerns about whether legislative measures would be effective against tainted gifts. We think that we have got it right, but the matter will need to be examined in Committee. We need to be able to take effective measures so that the proceeds of crime cannot be hidden or salted away by an accomplice or relative, and can be pursued. Yet we also need to protect associated property, innocent third parties and people who have bought at value. We intend to do precisely that. As Members get into the detail of the Bill, they will see that we have managed to give protection to innocent third parties while, at the same time, introducing an effective measure to pursue the proceeds of crime and pretty clever individuals who attempt to hide them and put them beyond the reach of the authorities.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Central Fife who, in his maiden speech, supported the Bill, as did several other hon. Members. As a Home Office Minister, I became responsible for the legislation in June this year. Since then, we have examined all the measures in detail, and listened and responded to all those—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. There may only be a few minutes left, but the Minister should be heard.
Mr. Ainsworth: We made some changes in response to the consultation, but declined to make others.

847
We incorporated the extension of cash seizure promised during the general election. I am completely confident that the measures in the Bill are necessary and the safeguards adequate. To those in the House and elsewhere who disagree, and to people who doubt the justification of our proposals, I say quite simply that there is no justification for continuing with a legislative framework that allows people to retain the proceeds of crime to corrupt our financial institutions, compete unfairly with legitimate business and finance further crime. I therefore commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Proceeds of Crime Bill

  PROCEEDS OF CRIME BILL (PROGRAMME)
  Motion made, and Question put, pursuant to Order [28 June],
  That the following provisions shall apply to the Proceeds of Crime Bill:

  PROCEEDS OF CRIME 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. (1) Proceedings in the Standing Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Tuesday 5 February 2002.
    (2) The Standing Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.

    Consideration and Third Reading
    4. (1) Proceedings on consideration and Third Reading shall be completed in two allotted days.
    (2) An allotted day is one on which the Bill is put down as first Government Order of the Day.—[Mrs. McGuire.]
    The House divided: Ayes 353, Noes 152.

    Division No. 46]

    [9.59 pm

    AYES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

    Ainger, Nick

    Bennett, Andrew

    Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

    Benton, Joe

    Allen, Graham

    Berry, Roger

    Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

    Best, Harold

    Betts, Clive

    Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

    Blizzard, Bob

    Atherton, Ms Candy

    Blunkett, Rt Hon David

    Atkins, Charlotte

    Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

    Bailey, Adrian

    Borrow, David

    Baird, Vera

    Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

    Baker, Norman

    Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

    Banks, Tony

    Brake, Tom

    Barnes, Harry

    Brennan, Kevin

    Barrett, John

    Brooke, Annette

    Barron, Kevin

    Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

    Battle, John

    Bruce, Malcolm

    Bayley, Hugh

    Bryant, Chris

    Beard, Nigel

    Buck, Ms Karen

    848

    Burden, Richard

    Foulkes, George

    Burgon, Colin

    Francis, Dr Hywel

    Burnham, Andy

    Galloway, George

    Burstow, Paul

    Gapes, Mike

    Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

    George, Andrew (St Ives)

    Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

    George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

    Cairns, David

    Gerrard, Neil

    Calton, Mrs Patsy

    Gibson, Dr Ian

    Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

    Gidley, Sandra

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Gilroy, Linda

    Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

    Goggins, Paul

    Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

    Carmichael, Alistair

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Casale, Roger

    Grogan, John

    Caton, Martin

    Hain, Rt Hon Peter

    Cawsey, Ian

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    Challen, Colin

    Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

    Chaytor, David

    Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

    Chidgey, David

    Hancock, Mike

    Clapham, Michael

    Hanson, David

    Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

    Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

    Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

    Harvey, Nick

    Havard, Dai

    Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

    Healey, John

    Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

    Heath, David

    Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

    Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

    Clelland, David

    Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

    Clwyd, Ann

    Hendrick, Mark

    Coaker, Vernon

    Hepburn, Stephen

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Heppell, John

    Cohen, Harry

    Hesford, Stephen

    Coleman, Iain

    Hewitt, Rt Hon Ms Patricia

    Connarty, Michael

    Hill, Keith

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Hinchliffe, David

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Hodge, Margaret

    Corston, Jean

    Holmes, Paul

    Cotter, Brian

    Hood, Jimmy

    Cousins, Jim

    Hope, Phil

    Cox, Tom

    Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

    Cranston, Ross

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Crausby, David

    Howells, Dr Kim

    Cummings, John

    Hoyle, Lindsay

    Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

    Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

    Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

    Dalyell, Tam

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Hurst, Alan

    David, Wayne

    Hutton, Rt Hon John

    Davidson, Ian

    Iddon, Dr Brian

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Illsley, Eric

    Dawson, Hilton

    Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    Jamieson, David

    Denham, Rt Hon John

    Jenkins, Brian

    Dhanda, Parmjit

    Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

    Dismore, Andrew

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Dobbin, Jim

    Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

    Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

    Donohoe, Brian H

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    Doran, Frank

    Joyce, Eric

    Doughty, Sue

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Dowd, Jim

    Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

    Drew, David

    Keetch, Paul

    Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

    Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

    Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

    Khabra, Piara S

    Edwards, Huw

    Kidney, David

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Ennis, Jeff

    King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

    Etherington, Bill

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Farrelly, Paul

    Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

    Fisher, Mark

    Kumar, Dr Ashok

    Fitzpatrick, Jim

    Ladyman, Dr Stephen

    Flynn, Paul

    Lamb, Norman

    Follett, Barbara

    Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

    Foster, Michael (Worcester)

    Laws, David

    Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

    Laxton, Bob

    849

    Lazarowicz, Mark

    Purnell, James

    Lepper, David

    Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

    Leslie, Christopher

    Quinn, Lawrie

    Levitt, Tom

    Rammell, Bill

    Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

    Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

    Linton, Martin

    Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

    Lloyd, Tony

    Rendel, David

    Lucas, Ian

    Robertson, Angus (Moray)

    Luke, Iain

    Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

    Lyons, John

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Rooney, Terry

    McCabe, Stephen

    Ross, Ernie

    McCafferty, Chris

    Roy, Frank

    McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

    Ruane, Chris

    McDonagh, Siobhain

    Ruddock, Joan

    MacDougall, John

    Russell, Bob (Colchester)

    McFall, John

    Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

    McGuire, Mrs Anne

    Ryan, Joan

    McIsaac, Shona

    Salmond, Alex

    McKechin, Ann

    Salter, Martin

    McKenna, Rosemary

    Sanders, Adrian

    McNulty, Tony

    Sarwar, Mohammad

    MacShane, Denis

    Savidge, Malcolm

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Sawford, Phil

    McWalter, Tony

    Sheerman, Barry

    Mahmood, Khalid

    Sheridan, Jim

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Simon, Siôn

    Mallaber, Judy

    Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

    Mann, John

    Singh, Marsha

    Marris, Rob

    Skinner, Dennis

    Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

    Smith, Angela (Basildon)

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Smith, John (Glamorgan)

    Marshall-Andrews, Robert

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Martlew, Eric

    Soley, Clive

    Meale, Alan

    Southworth, Helen

    Merron, Gillian

    Spellar, Rt Hon John

    Michael, Rt Hon Alun

    Squire, Rachel

    Miliband, David

    Starkey, Dr Phyllis

    Miller, Andrew

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Moffatt, Laura

    Stevenson, George

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Stewart, David (Inverness E)

    Moore, Michael

    Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

    Moran, Margaret

    Stinchcombe, Paul

    Morgan, Julie

    Stoate, Dr Howard

    Morley, Elliot

    Stringer, Graham

    Mountford, Kali

    Stuart, Ms Gisela

    Mudie, George

    Stunell, Andrew

    Mullin, Chris

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Munn, Ms Meg

    Tami, Mark

    Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

    Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

    Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

    Taylor, David (NW Leics)

    Naysmith, Dr Doug

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Norris, Dan

    Taylor, Dr Richard (Wyre F)

    O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

    Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

    O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

    Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

    O'Hara, Edward

    Tipping, Paddy

    O'Neill, Martin

    Todd, Mark

    Öpik, Lembit

    Touhig, Don

    Organ, Diana

    Trickett, Jon

    Owen, Albert

    Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

    Pearson, Ian

    Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

    Perham, Linda

    Turner, Neil (Wigan)

    Picking, Anne

    Twigg, Derek (Halton)

    Pickthall, Colin

    Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

    Pike, Peter

    Tyler, Paul

    Plaskitt, James

    Tynan, Bill

    Pollard, Kerry

    Vis, Dr Rudi

    Pope, Greg

    Ward, Ms Claire

    Pound, Stephen

    Wareing, Robert N

    Powell, Sir Raymond

    Watson, Tom

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

    Watts, David

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Webb, Steve

    Prosser, Gwyn

    Weir, Michael

    Pugh, Dr John

    White, Brian

    Purchase, Ken

    Wicks, Malcolm

    850

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

    Woodward, Shaun

    Worthington, Tony

    Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

    Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

    Willis, Phil

    Wright, David (Telford)

    Wilson, Brian

    Wright, Tony (Cannock)

    Winnick, David

    Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Wishart, Pete

    Mr. Fraser Kemp and

    Wood, Mike

    Mr. Phil Woolas.

    NOES

    Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

    Hoban, Mark

    Amess, David

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

    Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

    Horam, John

    Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

    Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Hunter, Andrew

    Bacon, Richard

    Jack, Rt Hon Michael

    Baldry, Tony

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Barker, Gregory

    Johnson, Boris (Henley)

    Baron, John

    Kirkbride, Miss Julie

    Beggs, Roy

    Knight, Rt Hon Greg (E Yorkshire)

    Bellingham, Henry

    Laing, Mrs Eleanor

    Bercow, John

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Lansley, Andrew

    Blunt, Crispin

    Leigh, Edward

    Boswell, Tim

    Letwin, Oliver

    Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

    Liddell-Grainger, Ian

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

    Lidington, David

    Brady, Graham

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Brazier, Julian

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Loughton, Tim

    Burns, Simon

    Luff, Peter

    Burnside, David

    McIntosh, Miss Anne

    Burt, Alistair

    MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

    Butterfill, John

    Maclean, Rt Hon David

    Cameron, David

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Cash, William

    Malins, Humfrey

    Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

    Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

    May, Mrs Theresa

    Chope, Christopher

    Mercer, Patrick

    Clappison, James

    Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

    Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

    Moss, Malcolm

    Murrison, Dr Andrew

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Norman, Archie

    Collins, Tim

    O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

    Conway, Derek

    Osborne, George (Tatton)

    Cormack, Sir Patrick

    Ottaway, Richard

    Cran, James

    Page, Richard

    Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

    Paice, James

    Djanogly, Jonathan

    Paterson, Owen

    Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

    Pickles, Eric

    Duncan, Alan (Rutland & Melton)

    Price, Adam

    Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

    Prisk, Mark

    Duncan Smith, Rt Hon Iain

    Randall, John

    Evans, Nigel

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Fabricant, Michael

    Robathan, Andrew

    Fallon, Michael

    Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

    Field, Mark (Cities of London)

    Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

    Flight, Howard

    Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

    Flook, Adrian

    Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

    Forth, Rt Hon Eric

    Roe, Mrs Marion

    Francois, Mark

    Rosindell, Andrew

    Garnier, Edward

    Ruffley, David

    Gibb, Nick

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Goodman, Paul

    Selous, Andrew

    Gray, James

    Shepherd, Richard

    Grayling, Chris

    Simmonds, Mark

    Green, Damian (Ashford)

    Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

    Grieve, Dominic

    Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

    Hammond, Philip

    Soames, Nicholas

    Hawkins, Nick

    Spelman, Mrs Caroline

    Hayes, John

    Spicer, Sir Michael

    Heald, Oliver

    Spink, Bob

    Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

    Spring, Richard

    Hendry, Charles

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    851

    Steen, Anthony

    Watkinson, Angela

    Swayne, Desmond

    Whittingdale, John

    Swire, Hugo

    Wiggin, Bill

    Syms, Robert

    Wilkinson, John

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

    Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

    Wilshire, David

    Taylor, Sir Teddy

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

    Tredinnick, David

    Yeo, Tim

    Trend, Michael

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

    Tyrie, Andrew

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Viggers, Peter

    Mrs. Cheryl Gillan and

    Waterson, Nigel

    Dr. Julian Lewis.

    Question accordingly agreed to.

  PROCEEDS OF CRIME BILL [MONEY]
  Queen's recommendation having been signified—
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a),
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Proceeds of Crime Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

  (a) any expenditure incurred by any Minister of the Crown under the Act;

  (b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other enactment.—[Mrs. McGuire.]

  Question agreed to.

  PROCEEDS OF CRIME BILL [WAYS AND MEANS]
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a),
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Proceeds of Crime Bill, it is expedient to authorise—

  (a) the imposition of charges by provisions relating to financial investigators and to training:

  (b) the imposition of charges to tax (including charges with retrospective effect) by provisions allowing a source of income not to be identified or specified;

  (c) the imposition of charges to tax by provisions relating to the vesting of property by recovery order;

  (d) payments into the Consolidated Fund.—[Mrs. McGuire.]

  Question agreed to.

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

    DESIGNS
    That the draft Registered Designs Regulations 2001, which were laid before this House on 19th July, be approved.—[Mrs. McGuire.]
    Question agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

    NORTHERN IRELAND
    That the draft Northern Ireland Act 1998 (Transfer of Functions) Order 2001, which was laid before this House on 16th October, be approved—[Mrs. McGuire.]
    Question agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

    INVESTIGATORY POWERS
    That the draft Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Technical Advisory Board) Order 2001, which was laid before this House on 17th October, be approved.—[Mrs. McGuire.]
    Question agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

    AGRICULTURE
    That the draft Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce (Abolition) Regulations 2001, which were laid before this House on 16th October, be approved.—[Mrs. McGuire.]
    Question agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

    CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
    That the draft National Assembly for Wales (Transfer of Functions) Order 2001, which was laid before this House on 16th October, be approved.—[Mrs. McGuire.]
    Question agreed to.

PETITION

  Fireworks
  10.13 pm
  Mr. Bob Laxton: I wish to present a petition sent to me by one of my constituents, Sue Williams, on behalf of AFFA—All Fireworks Frighten Animals. It is from the residents of Derby, Harrow, Wembley and other places and declares that
  "animals face unnecessary terror for weeks surrounding 5 November due to the indiscriminate use of fireworks.
  The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons pass legislation to place further restricts on the sale of fireworks to the general public.
  And the petitioners remain, etc."
  To lie upon the Table.

  Flooding (Braintree)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mrs. McGuire.]
  10.20 pm
  Mr. Alan Hurst: I am very pleased to have the opportunity to raise the important issue of the recent flooding in Braintree. I am pleased also to see the hon. Members for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) and for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) and other hon. Members in the Chamber. I am particularly pleased that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, are presiding over our proceedings, as I know that you will appreciate the difficulties that have occurred in the Braintree and Saffron Walden districts. I know that you have been very active in your own part of that district on behalf of those who have suffered from the flooding. I presume to hope that you will agree with some of what I say and what I urge upon the Minister in this debate.
  I pay tribute particularly to Braintree district council and its work force for the way they responded to the flooding in the towns and villages of Braintree district, for the devotion that they showed to the task in hand, and for their complete commitment to those who were suffering from probably the worst floods in 100 years in some of the villages along the rivers in Braintree district.
  Braintree district is entirely inland, although at one time we had a sea coast; the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford now has that sea coast and we do not. However, the tidal part of the river comes as far as Langford and is a few miles from some of the villages that were affected. I shall not presume to give a scientific opinion specifically on the effect of a high tide coinciding with the heaviest rains that have been seen in probably a very long time—we had a month's worth of rain in 24 hours—but various factors came together, and I hope that we shall receive some explanation in the near future, particularly from the Environment Agency.
  As you will know well, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the rivers concerned are the River Blackwater, with its tributaries the Pant and the Brain; the River Chelmer and its tributary the Ter, both of which eventually run into the Blackwater; and the River Colne, which exits into the sea at Colchester. There was flooding on both those river systems, which of course do not stand alone, as each has running into it ditches, dykes and streams. It is a mosaic of causation, producing the near disaster that we had barely a week ago.
  In my own parliamentary constituency there are the principal towns of Braintree, Bocking and Witham and innumerable villages, but those that suffered most were the old market town of Coggeshall, Kelvedon, Feering, Silver End, White Colne, Bardfield and Finchingfield. Each of those villages in varying ways suffered flooding more extreme than most of those who have lived there most of their lives have ever known.
  Last week, immediately after the floods, I visited the affected areas. My first point of call was Coggeshall, which is right on the River Blackwater. Directly next to it is the tributary Robins brook. As it was described to me by those who were present at the height of the downpour, the water seemed to come first off the fields. However, I think that that was the overflowing of Robins brook, which was flooding West street in Coggeshall.
  854
  Members of the parish council were out there with local residents doing what they could to protect the houses on West street. By Sunday evening, they believed that the situation was under control and that the water was going down. But in the night there was a second onslaught when the "back-ditch overflow" of waters coming down from the fields and Robins brook joined the River Blackwater itself, and the Blackwater overflowed. I went to Foundry house, the home of Mr. and Mrs. Norris, soon afterwards. I had been in their kitchen only a few weeks before, but I would have needed waders to get into it this time. The whole ground floor was uninhabitable, as was the case in many properties on the Blackwater.
  There has been a long-running problem in Coggeshall that highlights the difficulties with co-ordinating and separating responsibilities. There is a road called The Gravel, with a drainage ditch. The Environment Agency, the county council and the district council all deny responsibility for the ditch, and eventually everyone says that it must lie with the neighbouring owners, but it is difficult to see those owners' deeds unless they specifically volunteer to show them. As many of the properties will pre-date compulsory land registration, it is not easy to ascertain the legal position. That was not the cause of last weekend's flooding, but it exacerbated it, because the water is not running down to the Blackwater at the speed it should. That is a small example of the difficulties of tracing who is responsible for what.
  I pay tribute again to the co-operation among the villagers, who tried to help one another. In Coggeshall, Kelvedon and White Colne, I saw people asking each other what they could do to help. To have one's belongings ruined and to be forced upstairs in the middle of the night is completely devastating. People living close to the river had no way of knowing how high it would eventually go.
  I have worked hard at trying to understand who is responsible for what. The main river courses are the responsibility of the Environment Agency, and the rivers that I have described are the responsibility of the Environment Agency, save for Robin's brook. It may not be at the forefront of everyone's minds as one of our national rivers, but I note that only the first part of it is the responsibility of the Highways Agency. Beyond West street, presumably the riparian owner is responsible.
  The phrase "riparian owner" is flipped out with comparative ease by those who are familiar with these questions. I pay tribute to my old Latin master for the fact that—I hope—I have been able to work out what it means: those who own the land by the side of the river. Of course, there are many owners by the side of the river. There may be 10 good owners who act entirely responsibly, but if there are two less responsible owners, the whole course of the water flowing in that stream can be severely interfered with, with considerable consequences downstream or upstream.
  We need greater clarification of responsibilities. The Environment Agency, as the overall body responsible for the flow of water in our rivers and streams, needs to have greater powers and duties beyond the main watercourses themselves. To leave it at the main watercourses is almost like considering a lake in isolation and ignoring the fact that it is fed by a stream.
  The name "Environment Agency" is in some ways unfortunate, as residents often think that it is a department of the county council—because we have an environment

  855
  committee or an environment department—which has created a confusion in the public mind about who is responsible.
  Let us consider the forecasting of the coming flood. In earlier times, our forebears would have studied the bird movements, the changing leaves and other signs of approaching heavy and wet weather. Now we have satellites, which show on our television screens banks of cloud and rain moving across the continent of Europe. One would have hoped that predictability was much more accurate than it once was and that we could say when the heavy rain was coming, where it was going, and how severe it was likely to be. We have made advances in that direction and we rely on automatic telephoning to those properties at risk.
  I am concerned, however, that properties further back from the high-risk areas may not have the necessary degree of warning. I was formerly attracted to the idea of the siren, and there is still a case for that in certain places. But I was speaking to Councillor Arthur Mascall from Earls Colne, who formerly worked in matters of flooding and water control. He advised me that, in former times, they had what were effectively street runners or wardens who would advise all the neighbours of the imminent danger; rather like when, in the political times before telephoning canvassing, we had street wardens and knockers-up. Probably we need the same sort of approach in smaller communities to alert people at an earlier stage than happens now.
  The Environment Agency should now instigate an immediate appraisal of why the water came so fast and went so high so quickly. There are various speculations upon which I cannot comment because I do not have the knowledge. However, it is conceded that the A12 was pumped off at some point during the rain and that the water was pumped off into the Domsey brook, which runs into the River Blackwater adjacent to Kelvedon, which was badly hit by flooding. I am assured that the amount of water going into the Blackwater from the brook would not have substantially affected what occurred, but I am not in a position to say whether that is or is not so. We need clear answers, because these questions are being put to me.
  It has also been put to me that we might assess the situation if we were to create flood parks: a phrase I have not heard before. These are flood plains artificially created to drain off water when it is coming in at a particular speed. I am told that when Harlow and Basildon were built as new towns, they were constructed with such flood parks in place to control the flow on the rivers adjacent to them.
  We need to look at as many measures as possible, and we need a clear plan for dealing with future flooding of the kind that we have had in Braintree. This needs to be costed; at this point, it would be appropriate to ask the Minister to intercede with the Chancellor and to ask for more funds to be made available for flood control.
  A matter on which the Government have made considerable progress is planning guidance, and the recommendation in PPG 25 that local authorities should not grant planning consents on the flood plain. My district authority tells me that it has not granted such consents within the last decade or so, but all of us will know of situations—certainly within memory—where properties clearly have been built on the flood plain. I urge my hon.
  856
  Friend the Minister to go further: where such a consent is now granted, there should be an automatic call-in to the Secretary of State to consider that decision before it becomes effective. We can do little about properties that have been in the flood plain for hundreds of years, other than to do what we can to protect them by way of flood defence. We would be foolish to grant consents for more properties to be built in such hazardous positions.
  An interlocking issue is the sewer system which, in many areas, is decades old—sometimes 100 years old. In rural areas and small towns, the sewage system was built when the population and the volume of water used in households were much smaller. When the rains are heavy, the water will find its way into the sewers and out again, thus creating the health hazard of sewage splattered across and inside people's properties.
  Moreover, citizens—and motorists in particular—should exercise some common sense when flooding occurs. I have been given two or three examples of high vehicles and four-wheel drive vehicles creating waves in flooded roads and streets powerful enough to blow open cottage doors and let the water rush in. I hope that the people responsible for dealing with flooding can devise systems that mean there are wardens available to control traffic and minimise the risks that I have described. The damage to some of the cottages was certainly caused by irresponsible action of the type I have described.
  To conclude, I recently met representatives of one of the major insurance companies. For the moment they are holding the line, so to speak, and my constituents tell me that claims are being dealt with expeditiously. However, the problem put to me is that flooding, if it happens every year, ceases to be a risk and becomes a certainty. Such a certainty cannot be insured against, and thus cannot be mortgaged. A property that cannot be mortgaged cannot be sold. Action therefore needs to be taken to identify those properties most at risk, in order to ensure that the difficulty that I have described does not come about.
  Flood control is a relatively modest expenditure, compared with the whole of Government spending, although it is large in personal terms. My constituents feel that a good winter will put the matter fairly well down the list of priorities, but that a bad winter will put it high up the list. We want a good winter, but we want the question to be high on the list of priorities.
  Since last Sunday, my constituents have listened to weather forecasts and studied the skies with greater concentration than before. I hope that their foreboding is not fulfilled, and that we are spared further flooding for the rest of the winter. I know however that my hon. Friend the Minister will look at these matters with attention, so that the worst may be avoided in future.
  10.37 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Elliot Morley): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) on securing this Adjournment debate. He has made some important points on behalf of his constituents, and raised some important matters. I wish to put on record my sympathy for all his constituents who have suffered in the recent flooding. In addition, Mr.

  857
  Deputy Speaker, I understand that your constituency of Saffron Walden was affected, as were areas in the constituencies of the hon. Members for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) and Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale), who are also present for the debate.
  As my hon. Friend rightly said, there was exceptional rainfall in the catchment area on Sunday 21 October. Up to 109 mm—well over 4 inches—of rain were recorded in the one day. That resulted in the recorded river levels in the area being the highest ever, and caused the known flood plain to be extended by a considerable amount, with the result that the flood risk maps and flood plain maps will have to be redrawn. To put it simply, as my hon. Friend rightly did, a month's rain fell in 24 hours.
  That was a rare and dramatic event, and one that we would expect to happen only once every 120 to 300 years. The Environment Agency reported that 72 premises were flooded in Braintree and Bocking, and that most were outside the known flood plain. The River Blackwater at Bradwell and Coggeshall reached levels that would be expected only once every 200 or 250 years.
  After such an event, the Environment Agency will undertake a study of what happened and decide whether there are options that can be applied in a sustainable way. I was interested in my hon. Friend's remarks about flood parks and the use of flood plains. In some cases, there may be no easy, technical, engineered solutions to flood defence. I am very interested in some of the work being carried out. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is funding studies of whole catchment areas to examine whether we can use flood plains or reinstate them to take some of the pressure off the peaks of water going down rivers and how we can apply them to flood defence.
  My hon. Friend is right about non-main watercourses. They are generally the responsibility of riparian owners. Local authorities have permissive powers to do work on non-main river courses but there is the issue of funding. I recognise that there is a problem with regard to the responsibility for non-main river courses. I give an undertaking to look at who has responsibility for main and non-main river courses. We are proposing to publish a report in the very near future that reviews the funding mechanisms for flood and coastal defence and looks at some of the institutional arrangements. It will not be unreasonable to look at my hon. Friend's points in that review.
  After the exceptional floods last winter, the Government immediately made an extra £51 million available over the next three years. In the current financial year, we have made £16.5 million immediately available to pay for the repair and reinstatement of flood defences that were damaged as a result of those floods. I accept that there is an issue of funding. We have commissioned independent studies to give the Government an idea of what kind of financial commitment will be required over the coming years, taking into account the implications of global warming and climate change. We will consider the results very carefully; they will influence the bids that we make in the 2002 spending review.
  I accept my hon. Friend's point about PPG 25. It has given local authority planners clear guidance about tighter planning control in relation to flood plains. My hon.
  858
  Friend is right that although it does not say that there should in no circumstances be development in flood plains—in some cases developers may have to contribute to defences—it also makes it clear that in other cases applications should be turned down because they are not sustainable in respect of the risks that go with them. That has been made clear to the planners.
  My hon. Friend referred to sewers and drains. It is worth remembering that in last year's floods, about 40 per cent. of the flooding was caused not by river courses but by sewers and drains backing up and overflowing. There is a need for the sewerage and drainage companies, local authorities and highways authorities to look at the maintenance of drains and consider whether their design is satisfactory. We are talking with them to ensure that we take an holistic approach to flood and coastal defence.
  I was very interested in my hon. Friend's point about people driving through floods. I have visited many flood-hit areas, and the point has been made that sometimes, even where the flood water is not that deep and people think that they can get their vehicle through it, they do not understand why roads have been closed off. They forget that driving a vehicle through a flood creates a bow wave which can cause a great deal of damage to people who live alongside the area.
  I accept my hon. Friend's point about insurance. We meet regularly with the Association of British Insurers, and are talking to the association about the provision of insurance cover. The Government's job is to reduce risk, and we are doing that, but we also expect the insurance companies to ensure that people have insurance cover. That is an important issue for my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey), as areas of his constituency were severely hit by last winter's floods. We take the issue seriously and are addressing it.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Braintree also raised a point about warnings, and I acknowledge that because some people were outside the previous indicative flood plain, a number of premises did not receive a proper warning. That was because warnings are provided only to properties that lie within the known flood plain, and the floods exceeded that level so properties were flooded that were at much less risk of flooding. I know that that is of little comfort to the people who were affected, and obviously we must review the situation in relation to flood warnings for those people.
  I listened carefully to my hon. Friend's comments about sirens and other flood warning methods. I am sure that the Environment Agency will consider those perfectly legitimate points; I will certainly discuss them with the agency.
  It has been pointed out that the flooding affected areas beyond Braintree. I recognise that the severe rain caused flooding elsewhere in Essex and Cambridgeshire, particularly in and around Cambridge and Saffron Walden. The Government's sympathies are with everyone affected by the flooding and I am aware that in your own constituency, Mr. Deputy Speaker, areas such as Halstead, the Hedinghams, Great Yeldham, Sturmer and Steeple Bumpstead were affected by the floods. I know that although your duties make it difficult for you to raise these issues in the House, you will certainly raise them with, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs We take them very seriously and we shall certainly look into all these issues.

  859
  I very much regret it when anyone has been affected by floods. No Government can guarantee that floods will not happen. We constantly seek to reduce the risk of flooding and we shall continue to do so. Where there have been these extreme events we shall ask the agency to review the situation and consider ways, if at all possible,
  860
  to reduce the risk of flooding which hon. Members' constituents have experienced. We shall continue to give our commitment to that task, financially and politically.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at thirteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.

Preamble
[SIR MICHAEL LORD in the Chair]

Sexual Health
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Angela Smith.]
9.30 am
Dr. Gavin Strang: I start by welcoming the publication of the national strategy for sexual health and HIV. It is the first such strategy, and the Government are to be commended on their work. The document is not the end of the story: it is out for consultation, and the policy development work continues.
Hon. Members might be aware that my interest is in HIV-AIDS, on which I shall focus in the main. I am sure that other hon. Members will talk about other sexual health matters. My interest in HIV was triggered in the 1980s as a result of my being an Edinburgh Member of Parliament. Hon. Members will be aware that Edinburgh had a huge problem with HIV transmission caused by injecting drugs. In 1985 and earlier, 81 per cent. of HIV diagnoses in Scotland were for infections caught in that way. That has all changed. Injecting drug use accounted for 11 per cent. of diagnoses in the first half of this year, while sex between men is now the largest exposure category.
Many people have been tempted to see HIV as a threat of the past, but that is far from true. It would be helpful to take a quick overview of the HIV epidemic in the UK. There were 3,550 new HIV diagnoses last year—the highest number on record. The majority of cases stem from heterosexual sex, mostly in high-prevalence countries—the number has been rising steeply for several years. However, the majority of transmissions in the UK still arise from sex between men, and there is little evidence that the number of new infections is declining.
The UK's performance in limiting HIV transmission from mother to baby has been poorer than that of several other European countries, but there is evidence that rates have begun to improve. The number of cases that result from intravenous drug usage remains low, but the rate of works sharing is thought to be worsening.
The Government have said that the rise in the total number of HIV diagnoses could be accounted for partly by increased antenatal testing, and I would be grateful if my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the Member for Salford (Ms Blears), could elaborate a bit further and tell us what proportion of new diagnoses results from antenatal screening.
The final point that I want to make in this overview was mentioned in the Government's strategy document. HIV is not distributed equally through the population. The Terrence Higgins Trust recently published a report showing the association between HIV infection and social exclusion.
The life expectancy of people with HIV has been transformed by combination therapy, and as a result many people with HIV are alive today who would
184WH
otherwise not be. However, it is equally vital to prevent the spread of HIV. Against the background of the progress made in previous years, it is a matter of great concern and disappointment that high numbers of new infections occur in this country every year. In this day and age, every new HIV infection represents a failure of prevention.
I do not want to exaggerate—it is not all bad news. The HIV epidemic here is not as bad as that in many comparable developed countries, and there has not been the explosion in numbers that many people feared in the 1980s. Prevention work in the early years of the epidemic achieved successes—for instance, needle exchanges, which were controversial at the time, and the high-profile public information campaigns. I am concerned that such prevention work has been allowed to go off the boil in the latter years of the epidemic. In 1998, Peter Piot, the executive director of the joint United Nations programme on HIV-AIDS—UNAIDS—said that, at the very moment when we knew most about preventing HIV infection, there had been a weakening of the global effort to do something about it.
My hon. Friend will be well aware of the National AIDS Trust paper "HIV at the Crossroads" by Professor Peter Aggleton. Professor Aggleton said:
"Almost without exception, governments in the developed world no longer see HIV prevention as a top priority, and there has been a progressive weakening of support for the provision of public information and other prevention initiatives … In Britain, prevention initiatives for the population as a whole are presently conspicuous by their absence, and because there has not been a significant heterosexual HIV epidemic, many health authorities across Britain have sought to 'mainstream' their HIV and AIDS work into other programmes and activities."
Hon. Members may be aware that the Department of Health funding for prevention has not kept up with inflation since the mid-1990s. Funding in Scotland was frozen for several consecutive years, until this year. Good people are doing good work in HIV prevention, but there is a real sense in which prevention work has not kept up with the changing nature of the epidemic.
I draw attention to the words of "John", a gay London man in his 30s, who was diagnosed HIV positive on 10 July. When interviewed by BBC News Online, he said:
"Clearly the message about safe sex is missing the target, if it is being delivered at all. In one internet chatroom used by many gay men in London you can find an area where up to 50 men a night are looking for unsafe 'bareback' sex. I think the reasons behind the rise in unsafe sex are complex. The fear of HIV and AIDS has undoubtedly subsided, making many people complacent. The appeal of taking a risk alongside sexual excitement is another factor. So is the belief among many gay men that sex without a condom is 'better'. Drink and drugs are also part of this potent mix. Lack of self-esteem among many gay men plays its part as well. Two years ago I rarely met people who wanted unsafe sex. In the last six months the numbers grew significantly. If we are really to challenge the spread of HIV and do it in an intelligent and effective way, we need to get to the heart of those issues."
John managed to capture many of the key points. The epidemic—or epidemics—among gay men are complex and changing, and the safe sex message is simply not getting through.
I am aware that these matters are now largely devolved, but I should point out that Scotland might suffer a second wave of HIV infection. This summer,

185WH
Dr. Jamie Inglis, director of public health at the Health Education Board for Scotland, called for prevention campaigns to be stepped up and warned that if there were a delay in taking new steps to raise awareness about the dangers of unprotected sex, it could be too late to stop a dramatic increase in the spread of HIV.
Derek Bodell, chief executive of the National Aids Trust, said that people becoming sexually active now will not have been influenced by the campaigns of the 1980s. He said:
"I think people are starting to think we don't need to think about this anymore. There is a danger that people don't remember the safer sex messages about wearing a condom which are so important."
Meanwhile, as Professor Roy Anderson of Imperial college London said,
"you get a growing body of evidence that suggests that young people believe the threat of HIV is much less than it was because there's effective treatment. Well that's very far from the truth. This organism, this disease, is in my view the biggest threat human society has seen."
HIV prevention work aims to prevent the suffering and hardship associated with HIV infection. Even with combination therapy, life with HIV is often hard. Resistance to the drugs is growing: around 20 per cent. of newly infected individuals are infected with a resistant virus. HIV is a young person's disease, and while other diseases that rightly attract funding priority tend to affect people in later life, those most vulnerable to HIV have their whole lives ahead of them. It is also fair to make the point, as the Government do in their strategy document, that the monetary value of preventing a single onward transition is estimated at somewhere between £500,000 and £1 million in individual health benefits and treatment costs.
I welcome the Government strategy and the additional money that they have announced. The Minister may be aware that there is some concern, which I share, that very little of the new money attached to the strategy is intended to increase HIV prevention efforts on the ground. I would be grateful to receive assurances on that point.
"Mainstreaming" has been a buzzword in the HIV field for a few years now, and it has several aspects. The mainstreaming of HIV policy is nowhere better illustrated than in the subsuming of the proposed HIV strategy into the current strategy for sexual health and HIV.
I understand the motivation behind the integration of HIV policy with other sexual health policy. Benefits may be secured from an integrated approach. However, there are dangers. We must ensure that the policy framework is not so tightly integrated that the specificity of HIV-related concerns is mainstreamed away, and that the growing skills and knowledge base acquired around HIV is lost.
Funding is also mainstreamed. From 1 April 2002, the HIV-AIDS budget ring fence in England will be scrapped, so the only central mechanism that has required health authorities to spend in this area will be abolished. The worry is that while good work will continue to be done in some areas, HIV work will disappear in others. The most vulnerable spending areas
186WH
will be the unpopular ones, such as health promotion among gay men and African communities, and voluntary sector grants for social care.
Although the Government's strategy document contains helpful proposals, there are no mechanisms to ensure that they are implemented. I hope that the Government will consider delaying the removal of the ring fence, because it is the main weapon that ensures that the money set aside for the purpose is spent on tackling HIV. There is enough concern about it to justify further consideration and consultation.
As well as the removal of the HIV budget ring fence, the existing health authorities will be scrapped on 1 April 2002 and commissioning responsibility will pass to primary care trusts. That will give rise to two dangers. The first is the risk that we will lose the expertise in HIV-AIDS that some health authorities have developed. A great effort must be made to equip the primary care trusts with the knowledge and resources that they will need. The second is that, in the upheaval of the changes, we may lose sight of the areas for action on HIV that are set out in the strategy.
We can all agree that what is important for HIV prevention is what works, but that is where agreement ends. I read with interest in the strategy document that the Government's view is that the evidence base for HIV prevention is still dispersed and unsystematic. It is regrettable that that is still the case, but it is good that the Government have recognised it and that the Health Development Agency has been commissioned to address the problem.
The Minister knows that I piloted the AIDS (Control) Act 1987 through the House of Commons as a private Member's Bill. I hope that she is also aware that I have set out proposals to bring the Act into the 21st century, so that its provisions for accountability and information are improved, and it allows a better vision of what should happen regionally and nationally. The all-party group on AIDS has also recommended that the Act be updated to include a requirement to report more widely than within the health sector, to provide for greater consultation and to require health authorities to account for discrepancies between spending and local epidemiology. Accountability and communication are as necessary now as they were in 1987. The reports have a valuable role to play in that regard. The strategy promises that the Act will be reviewed, and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has in mind.
The Government announced in December 1997 that they would draw up a strategy on HIV. The membership of the strategy steering group was announced in April 1999. The strategy was published in July 2001 and the Government are now embarking on further consultation to refine it, as is right and proper. However, the situation is urgent, and I hope that the publication of the strategy and its implementation, combined with the work of the Health Development Agency, will prove to be a landmark in the efforts in the UK to reduce the spread of HIV.
Some countries have worse epidemics than we do. However, that is largely thanks to the work that was done in the earlier years of our epidemic. The commendable effort of those years has not been sustained. That complacency might be because combination therapy has allowed many people who

187WH
would not otherwise be able to do so to lead relatively normal lives. Whatever the reason, complacency is a mistake. Every new HIV infection is a failure. We should take the opportunity that the strategy offers significantly to step up our efforts, especially in higher-risk groups, and to reduce the number of people who become infected with HIV in future.
9.44 am
Mr. Michael Weir: I congratulate the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh (Dr. Strang) on securing this debate. As he rightly said, the health service in Scotland is a devolved matter, so my comments will be relatively brief. Although the matter is devolved, there is the possibility of a second AIDS problem arising in Scotland very quickly. AIDS is a worldwide problem and the virus does not respect borders. Given that we are all travelling more, we should consider the problem more on a pan-European and worldwide basis, not just in terms of the UK or Scotland.
The right hon. Gentleman stated that the highest rate of HIV infection in Scotland was originally among intravenous drug users. However, that has changed over the years. Last year saw the highest levels of HIV infection on record in Scotland, and the number of new cases of HIV diagnosed among heterosexuals was almost the same as among gay men—60 compared with 61. That shows that AIDS has moved out of the groups that were originally hit, and is hitting people throughout the population.
It has been suggested that Scotland's young heterosexual middle classes are becoming the new victims of AIDS. Why is that happening? The right hon. Gentleman hit on it when he said that the message of safe sex has been lost to some extent. Those of us who are now in our 40s remember the almost apocalyptic advertising about the dangers of AIDS that appeared in the 1980s, which had a great effect on young people at that time. That effect has largely disappeared, and many young people have become complacent about the dangers of AIDS. That is shown by the rising number of infections in Scotland and throughout the UK.
There may be other reasons for that increase. I draw the Minister's attention to an investigation carried out by the Sandyford initiative in Glasgow, which found that the recent rise in HIV cases in Scotland may be set to accelerate dramatically. The institute specialises in sexual health matters. It carried out tests on 59 people who were receiving the highly active anti-retroviral therapy HIV treatment. Its study, which was published in The Lancet, showed that 11 of the 43 men and 16 women had become infected with sexually transmitted diseases while they were receiving the treatment, so there is evidence that people infected with HIV are not practising safe sex. The right hon. Gentleman hinted at that.
The Government Minister and Ministers in the Scottish Executive must consider how to retarget the message at young people who are becoming sexually active. Young people are travelling much more than they would have done many years ago, so if there is a problem in other countries, it can be imported into the United Kingdom. Moreover, the message about the importance of practising safe sex should be reinforced
188WH
for those who are already infected with HIV. The right hon. Gentleman quoted John, a young man in London. That was a frightening intimation of what might happen if the safe sex message were not reinforced. I urge the Minister to meet health officials in England and Wales, members of the Scottish Executive and our European counterparts to consider a strategy to cover the whole area, because the virus knows no borders.
AIDS is not the only sexually transmitted disease with a rising rate of infection: there has been a dramatic rise in instances of chlamydia over the past few years. The figures from my own area of Tayside show that infections have more than doubled during the past three years. The reasons for that worrying trend may be complex, but I suspect that the safe sex message is at the root of it. If the message has been lost in one area, it has probably been lost throughout the population, and that has led to the rises.
Although sexual health is a devolved matter, it concerns everyone in the United Kingdom and Europe. I welcome the Government's strategy. More funds must be made available. Ultimately, the message of safe sex must be put across to our young people. We must be on guard for changes in how the disease appears in Scotland and in the UK as a whole.
9.50 am
Mr. Neil Gerrard: I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh (Dr. Strang) has secured the debate, as it is important that we consider the strategy on sexual health and HIV. As he said, the strategy is long overdue. It was announced in 1997, and progress appeared to have been made in 1999. I want to concentrate on HIV, for which we initially had a separate strategy that struggled to make any progress until it was merged with the sexual health strategy. That led to the publication of this strategy document earlier this year.
I recognise that the strategy covers many issues other than HIV. There are obviously relationships between actions on the prevention of HIV and those on the prevention of other sexually transmitted infections, such as hepatitis B. Some subjects not mentioned in the strategy may not be directly relevant, such as hepatitis C, which is not sexually transmitted but which remains an important issue and one that the Department of Health needs to tackle.
Anyone who read the strategy would accept that its scope was comprehensive and that it covered a wide range of issues. Someone described it to me as ticking all the right boxes, and it picks up on all the questions that need to be answered. Few would disagree with the key aims in the section on objectives and targets, which are to reduce the number of newly acquired infections, to discourage the practice of unsafe sex, and to raise awareness of services. Nor would many disagree with the methods that it proposes to achieve those aims, such as work in collaboration with health authorities and the voluntary sector, improvements in outreach services, and enhancing the role that HIV treatment and care services play in prevention. We have tended to regard treatment and care as a separate service from prevention, but it can affect prevention so we should ensure that it plays a role.

189WH
My right hon. Friend mentioned the building of an evidence base. It makes sense to find out precisely what has worked. When we develop new programmes, especially to prevent HIV and other diseases, we often do not consider what has been effective in the past.
The strategy document for the first time sets specific targets. Paragraph 3.12 sets a target
"to reduce by 25 per cent. the number of newly acquired HIV infections and gonorrhoea infections by the end of 2007".
I am not clear exactly how that target will be achieved, and I shall return to the problem of implementation. How was the figure of 25 per cent. determined? Why was not 20 or 33 per cent. chosen? I suspect that the figure has been plucked out of the air, especially in the light of what has been said about the evidence base, and the uncertainty about what works. We clearly need to monitor progress towards the target.
Few people would fundamentally disagree with much in the strategy. However, the Department of Health will not be directly responsible for implementing most of it. That will be carried out by health authorities, primary care trusts and the voluntary sector, which has a significant contribution to make. It is unclear to me how some of the proposals will be put into practice and what mechanisms will be used to ensure that that happens.
Much of the strategy is about encouraging health planners to do the right things, but it is unclear how some of their actions will be monitored. We know from experience that monitoring is necessary. For example, it became clear from a survey by the National AIDS Trust in 1999 that money from the prevention budget, which has existed for some years, was not necessarily being targeted at the groups most at risk.
My right hon. Friend mentioned the AIDS (Control) Act 1987, and I am far from clear how that will operate within the new NHS structures. At present it requires reports from health authorities. I do not understand how the new structures will relate to the Act—as it is now or as it might be if reformed—if there are changes as to where commissioning takes place, and in responsibility for commissioning.
I am concerned about mainstreaming, which my right hon. Friend mentioned in opening the debate. We know that as from April there will be mainstreaming of all HIV budgets, at least within the health service. Various budgets exist, including the care and treatment allocation, the prevention budget, section 64 grants to voluntary organisations and the AIDS support grant to local authorities. The different allocations are not always planned together terribly well. However, we are told that the money will be mainstreamed. As my right hon. Friend said, that will remove the central mechanism that requires spending by health authorities on particular areas of work.
I understand the argument that ring-fencing does not apply to many other medical conditions, and I know that people ask why HIV should be considered unique. However, one of the achievements of the ring fence was to ensure that the money was spent on HIV. Without that pressure, some health authorities may not have spent it on that. The approach has led to the development of services that may not otherwise have
190WH
existed. It has been a factor in developing the work of non-governmental organisations, including service delivery, and in developing the interest and involvement of many people in NGOs in what is happening with respect to HIV. Money can be tracked to see where it is being spent.
It is particularly worrying that the change to mainstreaming is happening while health service structures are in a state of flux. Primary care trusts and the new strategic health authorities are moving from the present system towards much more commissioning. Although I have read the strategy, I am still very unclear about how HIV commissioning will fit into the new structure. Most commissioning is expected to go to PCT level, but HIV services such as care and treatment have been regarded as specialisms. Will the new strategic health authorities have a role in commissioning? Will commissioning responsibilities be split in any way? I am not at all clear about the new structure of the health service.
As my right hon. Friend said, if mainstreaming and changes to the structure take place at the same time, there is a danger that we may lose some expertise. Such expertise usually involves a fairly small number of people providing specialist HIV services for a health authority. Some of those people are not clear where their jobs will be in a few months time, or whether they will even exist. Some GPs are well aware of what HIV means, and what type of services and prevention should be provided. However, many are not. If a lot more commissioning is to take place at PCT level, how will we ensure that services are developed and that GPs and PCT boards are aware of what is happening?
My right hon. Friend mentioned the worries that do indeed exist throughout much of the sector. Mainstreaming is an issue that we must think about very carefully. I realise that we cannot argue for ever that HIV should be funded in a unique way, but perhaps we should at least delay removing the ring fence for a year or two, until the new structure has settled down and we are clear about where the money will go and where the responsibilities will lie.
The strategy recognises that HIV is not simply a medical issue. It refers to social care and support for those living with, and affected, by HIV, and to how access to education, employment, leisure, housing and advocacy could be provided. It also refers to the Department's efforts to help deliver social care and support, but it makes little reference to other Government Departments. It discusses developing standards in consultation with the social services inspectorate, local authority commissioners, service users and voluntary organisations, but it says little about the involvement of other Departments.
Earlier this year, the all-party group on AIDS published a report on the United Kingdom, HIV and human rights, which made recommendations about what we should be doing. The report, and all of us involved in its production who talked to those working in the field, made it clear that HIV is much more than a medical issue. We made recommendations about the way in which other Departments should be involved. The Department of Health must clearly take the lead in certain areas, but the Home Office and Departments responsible for employment and for education have a

191WH
role to play. As we develop the strategy, I would like clear indications of how links between Departments will be built up.
There must also be links with international policy. In his opening remarks, my right hon. Friend mentioned that many people diagnosed in the UK acquired their infections overseas. At the United Nations Special Assembly in June, at which the Department for International Development played an important role, it became clear from the discussions that domestic and international policy must be related, even though strategies may differ. We must make sure that those policies are linked.
Given yesterday's announcement on changes in the asylum system and the setting up of reception centres, perhaps the Home Office could re-examine what health checks could be carried out in those centres to help to deal with the problems affecting asylum seekers with HIV infection, who do not always find it easy to disclose that fact.
Those are the areas that concern me. There is a great deal in the strategy document to be welcomed, and I am glad that it has been published. I think that there is very little in it that people would fundamentally disagree with, but we need to consider how it will be implemented, how to ensure that its targets are met and how we can drive its policies forward within the new structures in the health service.
10.7 am
Dr. Evan Harris: I should like to thank the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh (Dr. Strang) for securing this debate. His long-standing interest in HIV and AIDS is known by all hon. Members. The Edinburgh clinical community has played a leading role, and its paediatric work on identifying the epidemiology of maternal transmission from the intravenous drug-using community was staple education for those of us in medical school at the time. I remember the papers authored by Dr. Jacqueline Mok, who was active in the Edinburgh clinical community.
We have heard useful contributions from the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir), and the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on AIDS, the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard). He has been tenacious in' advocating the need to address the issue of HIV-AIDS, as he has been over the issue of refugees, which he mentioned in the last part of his speech. The two issues come together, especially over heterosexually acquired infections that are acquired abroad.
The right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh made the point that new infections represent a failure of prevention. I want to concentrate my first remarks on why there has been such a failure, as the number of infections increases, and why the Government delayed introducing the strategy. Information was available from an early stage that made clear the extent and the shape of the epidemic. While we have been waiting for the strategy, all the key indicators have shown that the sexual health of the nation has worsened.
Figures covering 1995 and 1996, which showed the worsening situation, were known to Ministers by 1998. Since then, the number of new cases of sexually
192WH
transmitted diseases has increased dramatically while the Government were delaying the publication and release of their report. Figures from the Public Health Laboratory Service show that between 1998 and 1999 diagnoses of syphilis rose by 58 per cent. in males. It more than doubled in males between the ages of 20 and 44, and rose by 27 per cent. in females. The number of new cases of gonorrhoea in England rose from 12,462 in 1997 to 15,572 in 1999, with the sharpest increases in males aged 20 to 24 and females aged 16 to 19. Genital chlamydial infection has increased by 76 per cent. from 38,997 in 1997 to 51,083 in 1999, with significant increases in both the female and male populations. Asymptomatic HIV infection has risen from just under 1,500 in 1997 to well over 1,600 in 1999, and the position with regard to newly diagnosed HIV infections is worsening and is of serious concern.
Projections made by the PHLS clinical diseases unit suggest that cases of HIV infection are set to increase by 50 per cent. between 1999 and 2003. According to what they describe as conservative forecasts, the total number of people diagnosed with HIV or AIDS may increase from 20,800 in 1999 to 29,000 in 2003. Within that, the figures for heterosexually acquired HIV infection are projected to increase from 6,579 to 11,215. Those figures show a worsening situation. The commentary by the PHLS points out:
"Perhaps the most consistent trend throughout all countries and regions in the UK has been the gradual and sustained increase in STI diagnoses since 1995. Prior to the rising numbers of diagnoses of many STIs in the UK throughout the late 1980s and early 1990s, figures had been declining or were stable, possibly reflecting the changes in sexual behaviour brought about in response to the HIV epidemic. The subsequent rises suggest that recently these behavioural modifications have not been sustained.
The highest rates and increases in STI diagnoses are focussed in those aged 16 to 24, peaking earlier in females than males. Young people are behaviourally vulnerable to STI acquisition as they are more likely to have higher numbers of sexual partners and a higher frequency of partner change than older age groups. Young women may be at particular risk through lack of skills and confidence to negotiate safer sex resulting in inconsistent use of barrier contraception."
Even the Government noticed the urgency of the problem. In July 1999, the public health White Paper, "Saving Lives: Our Healthier Nation", stated:
"Sexually transmitted infections are increasing, particularly chlamydia and gonorrhea".
It then set out the figures, and continues:
"HIV and AIDS remain serious threats to health … we cannot afford to be complacent."
However, there has been significant delay in bringing forward a strategy: not in starting the work—that has been announced and is under way—but in making progress. The public health Green Paper of February 1998 contained only two paragraphs on sexual health and no mention of STDs generally, only of teenage pregnancy and HIV and AIDS. The absence of that information was explained away by the sentence:
"The Government is preparing a separate strategy to combat the spread of HIV infection and to meet the challenge to services which HIV and AIDS present."

193WH
Plans for a new strategy—the first promise—were set out in a keynote speech by the then Minister for Public Health, the right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Tessa Jowell), at an HIV and AIDS strategy meeting in October 1998. She said:
"The policy development process started today will be overseen by a Steering Group whose membership I will announce shortly. But I hope that it will be possible to issue a draft strategy for wide consultation early next year."
However, no draft strategy was issued during 1998, 1999 or 2000, and the membership of the steering group was not announced until April 1999.
The second promise was also made by the then Minister for Public Health at a conference of the Family Planning Association in March 1999. She said:
"The Social Exclusion Unit's work on teenage pregnancy and parenthood … has highlighted what we already knew—how much we need an integrated health strategy … Over the next 12 months, the Government will be developing a framework that takes the radical approach that provides for the first time, a strategy that covers the whole of sexual and reproductive health … We will publish it next year"—
that was to be 2000—
"but I want to get cracking on it now."
Of course, there was no sign of it. The public health White Paper described the strategy on HIV-AIDS as "forthcoming".
The third major promise, which was announced in a Department of Health press release on 24 April 2000, was of an integrated strategy. The Minister for Public Health, the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), announced the integration of the HIV-AIDS and sexual health strategies into a single programme. She said:
"We need to make rapid progress … This is important public health work and I want to see it progress as rapidly as possible. I take a keen personal interest in this work, and look forward to working closely with Mike Adler and Sheila Adam to ensure an agreed strategy is in place by next spring."
She was referring to spring 2001, which came and went without the strategy being published.
The fourth promise was made in June 2000 by the Minister for Public Health in a written answer. She stated:
"A draft strategy will be issued for consultation in the autumn."—[Official Report, 19 June 2000; Vol. 352, c. 59W.]
Autumn became winter, and still no strategy was issued. On 6 February 2001, in another written answer, she announced:
"We plan to issue the strategy for consultation shortly."—[Official Report, 6 February 2001; Vol. 362, c. 508W.]
Finally, at the end of July, we got the strategy.
I understand from members of the steering group that during the time they were appointed they never saw the draft strategy. One member publicly criticised it after it was produced, which was presumably the first time that he had seen it. Derek Bodell, the chief executive of the National AIDS Trust, is quoted in The Guardian on 27 July 2001 as saying:
"For such an important public health issue this strategy is far too limited in its scope, and fails to look at the broader social impact of HIV such as employment, education in schools and housing. We are disappointed that this strategy is not as far-reaching as we would have wanted."
194WH
Although the Government, in their holistic approach, talk about "education, education, education", we appear to have had procrastination, prevarication and yet more procrastination. The signals were not good, because the Health Education Authority was abolished and its replacement, the Health Development Agency, has had a lower profile than its predecessor. Perhaps that was the Government's aim because they were embarrassed by the messages being sent out by the Health Education Authority, but it was a pity that that professional unit was abolished when there was such a challenge in this area, and in many others.
As the hon. Member for Walthamstow said, there is much in the strategy that is unarguable, and can be welcomed and agreed with. It is important to state that—but I want to stress that we have been waiting an awfully long time to make the point—many of the Government's ideas can be welcomed. The Government point out that little clear evidence on prevention has been gathered. It is sad that the Health Development Agency has only now been asked to gather evidence to find out what works. One would have hoped that that had been done from 1997 to 2000.
Despite recognising that little evidence is available, in paragraph 3.5 of the strategy the Government state that various initiatives, including
"the Department for Education and Skills' revised Sex and Relationship Education Guidance are all helping to expand young people's knowledge of and understanding of sexual health and relationships."
I am sure that that was the intention, but I do not believe that there is any evidence that it has worked. Indeed, people working in the field, who were disappointed by the guidance, suggest that it may not be working. We need to ensure that we do not limit ourselves in our examination of what might work. In that respect, the Government have been timid when considering European models that have worked. In paragraph 3.15, the Government state:
"An evaluation of safer sex campaigns in Holland shows attitudes and intentions towards safer sex were affected positively but that the effect was lost when the intervention ended."
We do not have much in the way of a co-ordinated Government health promotion campaign related to safer sex. It is not a question of worrying about behaviour changing when intervention ends; we want intervention actually to start. As the document makes clear, the Government have not set out a health promotion strategy with an advertising campaign or a sustained, co-ordinated programme through schools and youth activities.
Is the Minister convinced that helplines, such as the national AIDS helpline and Sexwise, are coping with demand? Is too much or, as I suspect, too little money being spent on those helplines? As the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh said, the Government cut funding in real terms for prevention work in earlier years, and that has made it very difficult for professionals in the field.
Reference has been made to targets, and I want to question the Government further. I have always wondered whether setting targets is sensible because they are targets also for Opposition parties who are more interested in making attacks than examining policy—I do not include myself in that. They are also a

195WH
distraction to delivery. I have never pressed for rigid targets in this area because they may confound policy. More HIV testing would produce more positive HIV test results, and that would not help to meet a target to reduce the number of detectable newly acquired HIV infections. It is difficult to explain the context of increased HIV infections against a background of decreasing prevalence in anonymous testing, and it will be difficult to get the message across. Setting a target is unhelpful and I would not criticise the Minister for downplaying the target, so long as we agree what the policy should be. The danger is that, ultimately, the target may become the symbol. If professionals believe that their performance will be measured on the outcome, they may decrease their outreach work in the hope of escaping censure.
A fascinating meeting took place last week to examine the national strategy on HIV and sexual health. A number of matters were raised, and I should be grateful if the Government would respond to them. There is potential tension between the PCT's commissioning of sexual health services and specialised HIV treatment and care that is planned at the appropriate strategic level, which may not be PCT level. Split level commissioning following abolition of the health authorities and the need to involve the strategic health authorities will not lead to integration. There is also tension between open access and local funding, because people may congregate on one service and funding may not follow that flow.
The hon. Member for Walthamstow hinted at a significant worry about funding. Money has been announced, but it is only for two years, and if we are to develop new services in this area a commitment to long-term funding and a 10-year funding strategy would be most welcome. The fear is that money is available only for projects and not for the necessary major systemic change. Indeed, primary care organisations have been asking when the money will arrive and when they will know exactly how much they can do. There is also a significant worry that the organisations that currently deliver the service are about to be abolished. The Minister must accept that the effect of continuous change is causing major difficulties.
A spokesman for the Association for Genito-Urinary Medicine has said that general practitioners do not want, or are unable to, become more involved in genitourinary medicine. Diverting funds to GPs who are not motivated to deliver the service would diminish the service in the short term. Education and training of GPs is needed, but genito-urinary specialists are already overloaded, so who will provide the training?
There are many other issues but not enough time to raise them. I shall finish by asking the Minister some specific questions. It is well recognised that the presence of section 28 on the statute book impedes the ability, whether legally or not, of teachers and other professionals in schools to deliver effective sexual health education. During the previous Parliament, the Government were committed to its repeal, so it is reasonable to ask the Minister whether that will happen sooner rather than later and, if sooner, how. When will the health promotion strategy start, and will it take the shape of a national advertising strategy as well as local initiatives that are properly funded? Will she say whether she thinks the prison service is winning or losing
196WH
the battle on HIV infection, whether it be sexually transmitted through men having sex with men, or through intravenous drug use?
I want to finish on the same point as the hon. Member for Walthamstow. I am no great believer in ring fencing and bids for funds; I would be inconsistent if I were. There should be more flexibility locally to deliver services. It is wrong to worship on the altar of eternal ring fencing. However, there will be significant structural changes when ring-fencing ends, so will the Minister consider retaining ring-fencing for one year so that we can track whether funding is being retained in the services?
10.25 am
Mr. Simon Burns: I congratulate the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh (Dr. Strang) on securing an extremely important debate. Given that it has been 20 years or so since the emergence of HIV-AIDS, it is depressing that in the area of sexual health, which is dominated by HIV-AIDS and other important issues, many of the problems of 20 years ago remain. In that time there has been a move forward, although sadly not far enough, in research, in the development of drugs to alleviate medical problems and in the work done by the voluntary sector, charities, the health service and the Health Department to improve public health.
Unfortunately, three critical areas remain that I think are unacceptable: stigma and prejudice; ignorance and complacency; and delay and procrastination, to which many hon. Members have referred. The first is a matter not only for government; we need to deal with attitudes throughout the country. Any hon. Member who receives constituency mail on the subject is left in no doubt about the prejudice and stigma attached to those suffering from sexual ill-health, particularly, but not solely, from HIV. We all have an important role to play in that area. We must provide a lead to break down the barriers caused by prejudice and to help to educate public opinion. The media also have an important role to play.
While listening to the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh, I was reminded that 10 years ago, when the House of Commons was sitting, I was living in London not 20 yd away from where Freddie Mercury died. I was appalled that the paparazzi and tabloid photographers turned up before his death and patrolled the area for six weeks until he died. To be able to remove his body after his sad death, the coffin had to remain in his home for 12 hours until the Sunday evening. The police then emerged to clear the street of the press so that his body could be removed with dignity and without the glare of press photographers. Photographers and the press would not intrude on other people's private grief if it involved any other illness that has resulted in death. That is all part of the picture of prejudice.
Mr. David Borrow: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has seen submissions to the Government on these issues, particularly on prejudice. Most submissions call for the abolition of section 28, and point out that however symbolic it is, it makes it more difficult for those working in this area to deal with

197WH
prejudice and the prevention of HIV and AIDS. Has the hon. Gentleman taken account of that, and has he given serious consideration to the sexual health consequences of his party maintaining its position on section 28?
Mr. Burns: I confess that I had expected a question on section 28 if certain hon. Members were in the Chamber. I sincerely believe that a genuine difference of opinion on an issue does not necessarily mean that there is prejudice. That there is ignorance may seem staggering to many of us, given what has happened in the past 20 years, such as the campaign to explain the problems and to show the preventive measures that people can take in their active sexual lives.
The Government's strategy document for sexual health and HIV shows that the extent of the problem is depressingly formidable, even now. The number of visits to departments of genito-urinary medicine has doubled in the past 10 years. According to Public Health Laboratory Service statistics, since 1995 syphilis has increased by 143 per cent.—by 225 per cent. among gay men—chlamydia by more than 106 per cent. and gonorrhoea by 99 per cent. The number of new diagnoses of HIV last year was the highest for more than a decade. The 3,616 people diagnosed last year represented a 20 per cent. increase on the previous year.
Although the United Kingdom can be reassured by the fact that it has one of the lowest rates of HIV in Europe, it is estimated that more than 30,000 people in this country are HIV positive. Every year, about 400 of them die, although, as has been said, it is reassuring that developments in medical science and drug treatments are helping people to live longer and to sustain a better quality of life than was possible a decade ago. That is a step in the right direction, but until a vaccination is possible or a cure is discovered more must be done to try to reduce the death rate.
Sadly, it is estimated that by 2003 HIV prevalence in the UK will be 40 per cent. higher than in 1999. More worrying in some respects is that, as predicted many years ago, the problem has increased in the heterosexual community to a greater degree than in the gay community. In 75 per cent. of cases recently diagnosed the disease had been picked up abroad. Far more must be done to bring it home to people that they are playing Russian roulette with their lives if they do not heed the message of safe sex, or are ignorant of it, and do not know how to minimise the risk of contracting sexually transmitted infections.
The extent of ignorance and complacency is staggering. Recent studies show that between 33 and 50 per cent. of teenagers do not use contraception when having intercourse for the first time. A 1999 survey of gay men showed that 58 per cent. under the age of 20 did not always use a condom, and that of the 44 per cent. who were HIV positive who had sex with a new partner, 40 per cent. reported that they inconsistently, if ever, used a condom. That is partly due to a lack of advertising, particularly on television. In the mid to late 1980s, advertising on television and in newspapers, magazines and specialist communications was considered highly controversial and, as I understand it from reading political biographies and autobiographies, it presented a squeamish problem for some of my former
198WH
colleagues. However, the fact is that the advertising was effective: it was hard hitting and got the message across. People began to understand that they should consistently practise safe sex.
Sadly, time and the lack of constant reminders has dulled the message, and we have slipped back considerably. It is a dangerous position and the Government must act quickly, so that they do not undermine work being done in other sectors. For example, a survey showed that 90 per cent. of teenagers thought that the pill would protect them from sexually transmitted diseases. That is equally staggering and shows the depth of their ignorance. I urge the Minister to do more to back up other work and her Department's strategies by ensuring that the message is brought home to people across the board that they cannot afford not to indulge in safe sex.
Dr. Evan Harris: Some people have said that there is too much sex education in our schools. On the basis of what the hon. Gentleman has just said, does he identify himself with those of us who believe that there is too little or the quality is too poor? Does he believe that what we require is not a return to Victorian ignorance, but more information for young people?
Mr. Burns: As the hon. Gentleman will know, I accept that the question of sex education in our schools is controversial. I believe that it is up to individual parents to decide whether they wish their children to attend sex education lessons in schools. As a parent, I would want my children, at a suitable age, to gain the benefit of impartial sex education from both their parents and schools.
The final strand of my speech concerns delay and procrastination. I have great sympathy with what hon. Members have said about that. The Government announced the idea of a strategy in 1997. Four years later, in August this year, the strategy document was published. It is now out for consultation and has not yet been implemented. We must await the end of the consultation process and the Government's final decisions. On an issue so crucial to the country, that was an unusually long delay and a wasted opportunity.
Steve Jamieson, a key sexual health adviser to the Government, told delegates to a conference earlier this summer:
"The Government sat on the strategy for a long time before finally launching it at the end of July. That was a political decision because Tony Blair and his government were so embarrassed by the level of STIs in this country.
He went on to say:
"While they were sitting on the strategy, there were still people out there who could not access services and who were contracting STIs. I also believe the lack of a government advertising campaign has been a factor in the rising levels of STIs."
He also suggested that the strategy was launched on a Friday in mid-summer in an attempt to ensure minimum media interest. I am quoting not an Opposition spokesman, but one of the Government's key advisers on sexual health. I emphasise that we cannot tolerate such a delay any longer. It is time for the Government to act quickly and put the strategy in place, and to make sure that it is backed up by a proper advertising campaign to start to reverse the trend.

199WH
It is crucial that we have a strategy to deal with such a problem. However, given the four-year delay, it is slightly surprising—it shows an odd sense of priorities—that the Government spend time telling people to eat more vegetables rather than producing a coherent strategy to minimise sexually transmitted infections. I accept that the sum of £47.5 million has been described in the strategy as an initial investment, but I echo the comments of other hon. Members that it could be seen—if the Government are not careful—as too little money overall to develop the programme. I urge them to keep an eye on the position, particularly as that investment was described in their in-house NHS magazine as comparatively modest. I am sure that few hon. Members here today would dispute that description.
The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) referred to targets. The Government seem to need a target for everything. Their target for the waiting list initiative led to gross clinical distortions. It would be a disservice to this area of health care if targets were imposed that caused clinical distortions. I therefore warn the Minister against having targets. Has an assessment been made of the extra work that the strategy will place on GPs? We already know of the pressures that are placed on them, so if the strategy is to be delivered successfully, what consideration has the Department of Health given to their extra work load? How will the Government ensure that GPs are not so burdened and overworked that the whole strategy falls flat on its face because of their inability to deliver?
The Minister will know of the worries that have been expressed by GPs in the past few months. For example, how confident is she that they will be able to provide the sophistication that is required for them to undertake HIV counselling? It is a crucial area, and I hope that the Government have given some thought to it.
Given the publication of the strategy three months ago, it is extremely fortunate that the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh has enabled us yet again to discuss this subject and to explain our genuine worries to the Minister. We are united in wanting the problem to be tackled successfully. We want help to be provided to bring down the figures and to relieve the suffering that STIs have caused to far too many members of our population.
10.44 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Hazel Blears): I, too, thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh (Dr. Strang) for having given us the opportunity to debate this subject. I also thank all hon. Members for supporting and welcoming the strategy in spite of the issues that they have raised today.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh has a tremendous record on the issue. Indeed, it was he who brought the AIDS (Control) Act 1987 on to the statute book through his private Member's Bill some 14 years ago; and he has continued to take an active interest in the development of policy on the issue. He wrote to the Department when the strategy was first announced, suggesting that a review of that Act would be timely. We entirely agree. Experts have already started reviewing the Act, and the review will be
200WH
undertaken as part of the process to implement the strategy. In particular, we need to consider appropriate reporting mechanisms. Tremendous progress has been made in collecting data and analysing the treatment that is available, but changes to the national health service have shifted the balance of power and commissioning has been devolved to primary care trusts, so the reporting elements of the Act will need to be reviewed.
I thank the all-party parliamentary group on AIDS for its comprehensive report, to which reference has been made this morning. It is entitled "The UK, HIV and Human Rights: recommendations for the next five years" and was published almost simultaneously with the strategy, at the end of July. Work on several of its recommendations is being pursued as part of the strategy implementation. The report is extremely helpful and contains several practical recommendations that we shall be extremely keen to pursue.
As hon. Members said, the strategy is the first ever national strategy for England. It recognises the need to take a holistic approach to sexual health. It covers HIV and AIDS as well as the broader issues of contraception and sexually transmitted infections.
Several hon. Members mentioned delay and procrastination and the fact that the strategy has taken some time to emerge. Some delay was perhaps inevitable with the merger of the sexual health strategy and the HIV issue. We also wanted to make absolutely sure that we consulted extensively with voluntary groups, NHS organisations and service users to try to ensure that the strategy was in touch with the experience of people in the field. In spite of the delay, I am pleased that they gave the strategy a broad welcome. The Terrence Higgins Trust welcomed the proposals, and although the National AIDS Trust expressed reservations about the need to join up the proposals throughout government, it has given the strategy broad approval.
Many hon. Members asked what is being done to promote the safer sex message to the groups that are most at risk. A fundamental part of the strategy is to improve health promotion work with those most at risk and those who already have HIV, and to try to reinforce safe sex messages for both those groups. Several contracts are already in place that are designed specifically to target those at risk from HIV and sexually transmitted infections. Health Promotion England undertakes sexual health promotion work aimed specifically at young people aged 16 to 24. The Terrence Higgins Trust undertakes work with community-based groups directed towards those most at risk of HIV and AIDS, including gay and bisexual men in England. The Department of Health has funded health promotion work for African communities, including a pilot African AIDS helpline, a Health Africa radio show, a website and printed information resources. We have used the mass media and funded the National AIDS Trust's work to support World AIDS day. We are funding a National AIDS Trust project to tackle the stigma suffered by people with AIDS, which the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) mentioned. It is important for that work to continue.
A great deal of health promotion work is already being done. A key aim of the strategy is to build up an evidence base on effective promotion work, but little is done in the field. It will be important to draw together the evidence on what succeeds, otherwise there is a

201WH
danger that we will not get maximum value from the proposed new investment. We also lack evidence on which information campaigns work, other than those that concern sexual health. For instance, the same issues apply to drugs. We must discover where messages are best targeted, what media to use and how messages are most likely to be conveyed to those at greatest risk. We are determined to do that.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh asked about the effect of antenatal testing on the number of diagnoses. He is correct to say that diagnoses are increasing as a result of the introduction of the test. However, it is right to offer a test to mothers. If it is part of normal health care—not special or singled out but treated as part of general good health—it will reduce stigma, and we should continue it.
Many hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard), raised worries about the effect on funding of removing the ring-fenced budget and putting the money into mainstream health authority budgets. I assure hon. Members that the Government are determined that when the funding goes into mainstream allocations, it will continue to be monitored through the service assessment frameworks that performance manage all NHS funding. We will closely monitor where and how money is targeted. In the future, health authorities will receive a fair share of the funds. The distribution of HIV infection is uniquely skewed and we want to ensure that allocations take account of that. Money should go to the areas in which there is greatest need and the most people who need treatment. We will ensure that we follow the money through the mainstream budgets.
All hon. Members asked how HIV services will be commissioned, following shifts in the balance of power and the creation of strategic health authorities. Services will be commissioned at primary care trust level, and we will ensure that a number of primary care trusts come together to share their expertise and knowledge. Perhaps one primary care trust in each area could take the lead and develop the expertise that is the key to specialist commissioning. Such an arrangement will apply not only to services for people with HIV and AIDS, but to other specialist services, such as those for burns and haemophilia. The development of specialist commissioning expertise in primary care trusts is crucial if people are to rely on the quality of those services. That will require support, and that is already provided in the system. We must ensure that the experience gained at specialist commissioning level is available to primary care trusts, so that their commissioning process is of a high quality and provides correct services to local people.
The hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir) asked whether there is a strategy for Scotland. I am delighted to tell him that the Minister for Health and Community Care has committed the Scottish Executive to producing a strategy for Scotland, and preliminary work on that is under way. Obviously, we keep close contact with colleagues in the devolved Administrations to ensure that expertise and knowledge is available for developing strategies. The hon. Gentleman also asked about chlamydia screening, and the extent of that disease in the community. A phased roll-out of targeted screening will
202WH
start next year. A couple of pilot projects are under way, and we will learn from those experiences to try to deal with the disease.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow asked, as did other hon. Members, why we have a target. Clearly, that is a matter of controversy, but it is difficult to persuade an organisation to focus its work without having a target. Targets were drawn up following extensive consultation with voluntary groups and service users, not just plucked out of thin air by the Department of Health. Targets were developed that were intended to be realistic but challenging, so as to have a major impact on public health. We want to maintain focus on those targets, but accept that that must not distort our other policy objectives. We have to get the balance right. Having done that extensive consultation—we did not simply decide on a figure ourselves—we hope that the targets will have broad support within the community.
My hon. Friend the hon. Member for Walthamstow raised the issue of commissioning. I hope that he will be reassured that we intend to make the role of primary care trusts as robust as possible. He also referred to cross-governmental work on education, housing and social care to support people in the community with HIV and AIDS. The strategy has a health focus—we did not want to dilute the health focus message—and mechanisms at official and ministerial level will ensure that we implement the strategy across the board. We are learning from the teenage pregnancy strategy, in which those mechanisms are already in place and which, two years on, is beginning to show some real results.
I can tell the hon. Member for West Chelmsford that our strategy on teenage pregnancy has resulted in a downturn in under-18 conception rates. Under the Conservative Government, teenage pregnancies went up by 25 per cent., but I am delighted to say that our strategy is beginning to work.
Mr. Burns: I did not mention teenage pregnancies, but it is nice to know that the Minister can blame the Conservative Government even for that. Will she comment on the work load placed on GPs, which is far more important in the context of this debate?
Ms Blears: The achievements of the teenage pregnancy strategy are a matter of record.
Training for professionals will be a key part of the Government's HIV strategy not only for GPs but for people involved in supplying the full range of services for people with HIV and AIDS. However, we want to mainstream not just the finance but the general approach to HIV and AIDS. It is a serious health problem but it should be treated like many other health conditions. We should not single it out, but should provide support and training for a whole range of professionals, which they can integrate into their practice. That commitment is part of our strategy.
The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) raised the issue of repealing section 28. The Government remain committed to that, although we will clearly need to find appropriate parliamentary time for it. He also referred to the Prison Service. It is fair to say that the message we are receiving on the Prison Service's practice of supplying condoms in prisons is

203WH
that it is pretty variable, and a great deal of work remains to be done to ensure consistency. That will be an important part of our work.
The hon. Gentleman also asked us to delay the ring-fencing issue for a year in order to track the funds. I hope that he will be reassured that our commitment to track the funds through the single assessment process will ensure that funds are targeted where they are needed for best effect.
The strategy is the first ever to cover such matters. It has been improved by the length of time taken to involve all the interest groups, and there will be a further period of consultation until 21 December. Comments from people in the services and the voluntary sector, and from users themselves, will be welcomed as they will inform the development of the implementation plan. We have been encouraged by the work that has been done on our campaigns to target teenage pregnancy, and we want to learn from them. The evidence base for information campaigns is poor, but we are beginning to build that base and we hope that we can continue to make similar progress with this strategy. The consultation period will enable us to learn even more about building evidence of what is effective.
People with HIV who live in the community clearly need the best services that we can provide. I want to make sure that the strategy helps us to make a real difference to essential services in the community, such as care, treatment, support, counselling and screening. We have a real opportunity to make significant step changes in the way in which services are provided. I look forward to working with all hon. Members to implement the strategy and to ensure that we improve services for people with HIV.

Transport (South-East)
11 am
Chris Grayling: Since 1997, the Government have painted a rosy picture of the future of our transport system. Their commitment to public transport meant that road schemes were dropped, and huge figures were bandied about for a 10-year plan to transform our transport infrastructure. Their plan said:
"Our vision is that by 2010 we will have a transport system that provides modern, high quality public transport, both locally and nationally. People will have more choice about how they travel, and more will use public transport."
However, eight and a half years before 2010, in the fifth year under a Labour Government, the problem is that that glorious vision is anything but a near-term reality. The practical experience of the traveller in the south-east is worse than ever, and improvements are nowhere in sight.
Anyone who commutes into London daily by train, as I do, knows how overcrowded virtually every peak-time service is. Anyone who drives to work knows how full our roads are. Anyone who relies on buses knows how vulnerable they are to the vagaries of our traffic, but our roads do not have the capacity to create long bus-only routes without making the motorist's life impossible.
The Conservative Government started—I emphasise the word "started"—to get to grips with the problem. For the first time in 30 years, services were opened, not closed, on the rail network. For the tube, we built the Jubilee line extension, rebuilt the Central line and introduced new trains on the Central, Jubilee and Northern lines. Even the latest, very welcome tube project—the extension of the East London line, which has been confirmed—had its origins under the Conservative Government. We oversaw the introduction of fast modern train services to London's three airports, and started the process of introducing them at Luton. We encouraged the development of light rail in London's docklands, and of the highly successful Croydon Tramlink, London's first street-level tram for decades.
On a smaller scale, stations, such as Haddenham and Thame Parkway in Buckinghamshire were opened, and lines such as that to Bicester town were reopened. There were also major improvements on existing lines, such as the service from London to Southampton.
As regards the roads, we widened the M25 and set out plans to expand the most overcrowded stretches still further. We turned the M20 into a modern link through Kent to the continent. We set out plans and began to buy land to end the bottlenecks on the A40 into London. We turned the A14 into a high-speed route from Essex to the midlands.
Then, in 1997, despite the Deputy Prime Minister's continual statements that he would get motorists off the roads and on to public transport, and despite the high-sounding words about an integrated transport policy, everything seemed to grind to a halt. Since then, words seem to have taken over from action. We have enough multi-modal studies to employ an army of civil servants. We have 10-year plans that are scheduled for review months after they are launched. We have a Government who are keen to pass new regulations for rail companies to adhere to, but who avoid giving them any long-term

205WH
commitment. Roads were out, but now seem to be slightly acceptable again. New schemes are in the pipeline, but only after five wasted years.
As for the tube, it has taken five years to get where we are with the public-private partnership, which means that modernisation has not started, and discussions and planning are continuing. In the meantime, investment is being squeezed, and not a single new train has been ordered.
What can we expect to be done to solve the problems that so many people face when trying to travel in the south-east? What can we expect to be open for business by the end of this Parliament, almost 10 years after the Government took power? The Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) kindly gave me some of the answers in a written answer in the summer.
Let us start with the railways. The Government said that without major investment in the network to meet growing demand, levels of service would deteriorate and overcrowding would increase on many lines. By 2006, only two schemes that affect passengers in the south-east are likely to have been implemented: the first phase of the channel tunnel rail link, and the widening of the Chiltern line between Princes Risborough and Bicester, which was singled for no good reason in the bad days of British Rail, and is being restored to its previous state.
Among the passengers still waiting will be the hapless users of the South West Trains routes into Waterloo. The company says that the hiatus in rail financing means that even its less ambitious plans, to lengthen trains from eight coaches to 10, cannot be implemented for at least another five years. Last week, the south central franchise postponed its upgrade to the Brighton line for similar reasons. Other schemes, such as the modernisation of the Uckfield line, seem a country mile away from starting, let alone being completed.
Then there are the bigger projects. Yesterday, I received another answer from the Minister, for which I thank him, about the projects likely to be built under the 10-year plan. He wrote:
"We look to the Strategic Rail Authority's forthcoming Strategic Plan to prioritise investment projects that deliver the greatest value for money for both rail users and the taxpayer."
With the 10-year plan well under way, we are having another strategic review to decide what to do. The Minister's response makes no mention of the schemes that could make a difference to the south-east. What about the next generation of large-scale projects to follow on from the Jubilee line, the docklands light railway and the Croydon Tramlink? Thameslink 2000, perhaps the easiest and most achievable of the bigger ideas for improvement, and part of the original 10-year plan, is nowhere near starting, let alone being completed. Now I fear that it may have disappeared altogether from the Government's planning. According to the Minister, even if they press ahead straight away, it could not happen until late 2007—and that is the optimistic spin. Will it now be dropped? Perhaps the Minister could deal with that question today.
According to Bob Kiley, the transport commissioner for London, crossrail is the project that would make the most difference to London. However, according to the
206WH
Minister's response last week, that project cannot be completed and open for business for at least a decade, whatever happens. I fully expect the Minister to offer me some history lessons about the structure of the privatised rail industry, so let me anticipate his comments by making three points.
First, when the Government took office they were fiercely critical of seven- year franchises, which they said were a disincentive to invest. If that was true, why have they failed to use section 54 of the Railways Act 1993, which was designed to provide a mechanism to give the operators long-term security to invest? Section 54 has been used only a handful of times—small wonder we have waited so long for new trains. If short franchises are such a bad idea, why is the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions now granting franchises of only two years? How will that encourage rapid investment of the kind needed by our commuters?
Secondly, the Government set out in their strategy a clear role at the head of the industry for their new creation, the Strategic Rail Authority. The SRA, they said, would decide what quality and capacity improvements were needed, and would work to directions and guidance from Ministers to provide a bigger and better railway. So why is the head of the SRA leaving his job early, criticising Ministers for not being willing even to talk to him? Last week Sir Alastair Morton told the Transport Sub-Committee that he had placed a memo about the future of the industry on the Secretary of State's desk the day after the election—but to date he has received no response.
Thirdly, if the structure set out for the industry by the previous Conservative Government was so fundamentally flawed, why have the Government not taken advantage of the expiry of the initial franchises and the placing of Railtrack in administration to launch a major restructuring of the industry? If they believed that we should have kept the railways in public ownership, they could simply cease to issue new franchises—or if they believed that we should have had regional companies with control of the tracks and the trains, they could now do that, too. However, they seem not to be choosing to do so.
There is the potential to improve matters with light rail. The 10-year plan states clearly that we will have more light rail systems. After the success of the Croydon Tramlink and its counterparts in Manchester, Birmingham and Sheffield—all started under a Conservative Government—we might have expected a rush to build new schemes. Instead, the only scheme on the way in the south-east is in Hampshire—very welcome for that area, but not likely to provide real solutions for some of the most overcrowded routes in that part of the United Kingdom.
The Mayor of London, to his credit, is exploring one or two possible routes in central London—but only as part of a long-term consultation exercise. For now, once again, we have words and not action. At last the Government seem to be beginning to realise that they cannot drive motorists off the roads if there is nowhere else for them to go. The Minister's response to me suggested that the M25 widening is on the way, but most of the schemes that the Government promote and that the Minister listed are outside the south-east, away from areas where congestion is at its most acute. My list of the

207WH
schemes initiated by the Government and due for completion by 2006 that involve road improvements in the south-east is extremely thin.
According to the Minister's list, the only scheme due for completion by 2006 in my county, Surrey, is the introduction of a school bus initiative. That is an admirable scheme originated by the Conservatives on the country council to try to reduce congestion by starting an American-style yellow bus service. The Minister will no doubt say that he has recently announced funding for the A3 improvements at Hindhead. That is very welcome, but for much of the rest of the decade, even that will not be open.
What about other parts of the south-east? Hertfordshire and Buckinghamshire each receive a bypass. Berkshire gets nothing, despite all the growth in the Thames corridor. West Sussex is given one scheme, but East Sussex none at all. Only Kent and Essex do better, with five schemes between them. On the fringes of our region, Oxfordshire, Cambridgeshire and Hampshire will have no road improvements at all by 2006, according to the Minister's reply to me.
Do not get me wrong; I am not clamouring for road improvements at the expense of rail, as I too want people to be able to use public transport rather than their cars. I want longer trains into London, light rail schemes and other ways to improve public transport. However, the motor car is a fundamental part of our national and regional life. Supporting public transport does not mean that we should have no road improvements at all, and we are getting precious few of them in this overcrowded part of the country at the moment.
Many authorities consider buses their only short-term option. They set aside road space for more bus lanes or, in the case of London, set aside huge areas of the capital as congestion-charging zones to free up space for buses and reduce traffic. But will shoppers in places such as Guildford choose to carry all their shopping on the bus? Will the delivery vans that clog up central London bring their goods on the bus? Motorists who can afford congestion charges will grumble and pay, but those who cannot will clog up roads in the suburbs and make it even less practical for passengers to travel by bus through the congestion into the centre. We must be careful about what we do in city centres. Every retailer whom I have spoken to in a town or city centre says that in today's world, being anti-car kills town centres. People will ask why they should dodge the bus lanes on the way in to town centres if they can go to Lakeside or Bluewater instead.
The south-east of England is already too congested. It is becoming worse all the time, and its people want solutions. They want not more consultation, studies and reviews, but some alternatives that have a fighting chance of being open for business before we have all retired. The Government need to stop trying to wrap inaction up in seemingly endless consultation exercises. They should take some decisions and begin construction on some projects that can make a difference. They say that they have the money, so it would be nice if we saw some of it used.
In a report this summer, the Institute for Public Policy and Research stated:
"If in five years time, after a sanctioned period of increased funding, customers feel that services are still failing to deliver, there could be a major political backlash."
208WH
The funding appears to be stalled, and the projects that could make the difference are not happening. In 2006, Labour will have been in power for nine years. After such a time, people have a right to expect something to have happened. On the current rate of progress, they are likely to be sorely disappointed.
11.14 am
Mr. John Horam: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) for securing the debate. He could not have raised a subject more dear to the heart of my constituents, as thousands of people commute from Orpington to the west end or the City. Their concerns are my concerns. I apologise to my hon. Friend and to the Minister as, unfortunately, I have to go to a funeral, so I might not stay until the end of the debate. In view of that, I shall be brief. Many of my colleagues will be able to stay until the end of the debate, and it is important for them too.
I should like to back up my hon. Friend's comments about what we now call cattle truck commuting—the necessity for people to make their daily journey to and from work in conditions that are worse than those for cattle. They have to stand shoulder to shoulder and back to back, and often have to allow more than one train to pass before they can even get on one going to or from London. A young constituent told me that he had started a new job three months ago in central London, full of the optimism and enthusiasm of the young, but was horrified by the conditions that he endured going to and from work. The worst thing was that after three months he had become inured to it—he accepted the miserable journey, packed like sardines or cattle in old Connex stock, as the daily routine.
What my constituents complain about most is overcrowding. The other enervating factor is that not only is there no prospect of immediate improvement, there is no prospect of medium or even long-term improvement. As a result of their maladministration of transport over the past five years, the Government cannot reasonably hold out any prospect of improvement over the next five years.
What possibilities are there? They do not inspire optimism or enthusiasm in the hearts of my constituents. One is to have fewer seats and more people standing in the trains. Ironically, some of my constituents would welcome that, after all the trouble that they have had in recent years. A second is to put up prices—to price people out of the rush hour scramble. Does that not conflict with what the Deputy Prime Minister has always reckoned is his true test—the number of people he can get off the roads during the lifetime of a 10-year transport plan? Anything that we consider in the short term is confounded by such difficulties. The real solution is to have more and longer coaches. That means longer trains, and therefore longer platforms, and the resiting of signalling between areas such as Orpington and central London. That requires investment, probably of millions of pounds.
As I understand it, in the debates during the summer, Connex—and perhaps others too—was talking to the Strategic Rail Authority and Railtrack about precisely such detailed improvements, and exactly what the planning and investment would be.

209WH
Can the Minister tell me—again, I apologise because I might not be here to hear his reply, but I shall read Hansard with close attention—about the talks that were to be held in September between the SRA and a number of railway companies in the south-east of England about an investment plan to cover such improvements as lengthening platforms and resiting signalling to allow for longer trains, and thus less overcrowding? That is what I was expecting to happen this autumn—and what Connex told me that it was expecting.
The decision that has been taken about Railtrack does not redound to the credit of the Government. Whatever their criticisms may have been of what the Conservatives did, they have had five years in which to get Railtrack off the ground, but instead have driven it into the ground. Their comments over the years, and their continual trashing of the company, destroyed the morale of the managers and the workers, contributed enormously to the difficulties that we now face, and delayed investment. As a result, there are now no discussions going on about the matters that I have mentioned, and I read in the papers that discussions with the company that runs the line to Brighton have been put back by at least three months. I do not know what is happening on the Connex South Eastern routes.
Will the Minister tell us the time scale for decisions on the issues of daily concern to my constituents? They come into the centre of wealth-making in the United Kingdom, and must start their ordinary day after putting up with such journeys. When they leave in the evening they face a journey of equal horror in the rush hour. Ironically, the only immediate hope is recession, which might lessen the overcrowding. What a prospect, to have to rely on recession in the City to achieve that. This is an absurd state of affairs, and the Government must tackle it in a time scale that will bring my constituents some hope.
11.19 am
Sue Doughty: I want to talk about roads and traffic, and the general mayhem in Surrey. The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) made a wide-ranging speech covering many issues affecting the south-east, but we need to think much harder about what should be done in Surrey.
We have several difficulties. One is that there is a great deal of inward commuting into places such as Guildford, as well as outward commuting. The high cost of living means that we need to bring in the people who can only afford to live in cheaper areas outside. Our problem is the increasing congestion because employees do not live close by. There are constant problems for the Arriva bus company in managing a service. We experience regular reduction in cross-county routes, such as Guildford to Kingston. In Guildford there are not even enough bus drivers, because of housing issues.
In an ideal world, people would live close to their work. The reality is that as people's jobs change and they are required to go all over the country, or to travel internationally, that is not always an option. Although many people hate commuting long distances, they do not have a choice about it, especially if they have children settled in schools or partners in local jobs.
210WH
We have heard much about overcrowding on trains and I shall not repeat it, but I support all that has been said on the matter. However, we should appreciate that parts of Surrey would be in easy reach of London if tube routes could be extended. The East London line to Wimbledon could be extended as far as Chessington, through an area of very heavy traffic. It would not even be necessary to build new track for much of the way. Raynes Park would need additional track and an additional platform, but in other areas existing assets could be re-used. We should examine such approaches, in strategic travel plans and multi-modal studies.
With more underground trains serving the Chessington branch, the odd slot to Waterloo could be released. That would be good news for commuters travelling through Surrey. There would be two slots an hour in and out of Waterloo. There could be more frequent services to Hampton Court and Guildford. Perhaps the Chessington line could be taken out to the World of Adventures and the new Epsom housing cluster, through centres of population and traffic movement. It might be possible to move the traffic on to public transport.
Chris Grayling: I am grateful for the hon. Lady's comments. Can I take it that she and her party will offer their support to my campaign for the extension, with a view to bringing public transport to the Epsom cluster? Although substantial longer-term issues arise about the Chessington line and the possibility of reintegration into a different part of the London network, as opposed to making it a simple branch line on the Waterloo route, none the less the extension of the Chessington line to Epsom would attract significant popular support. The more support that is given, throughout the community, the more chance the plan has of becoming reality.
Sue Doughty: My understanding is that the proposal would receive support from Liberal Democrats across the county.
I raise the case of Epsom not simply because it is the hon. Gentleman's constituency but also because it is one of those places on the boundary between county transport and commuting transport. There are many people in the area contributing to the congestion, but who would like late-night buses to come out from London to the Epsom area. That also applies to people working late shifts. The cost of coming out to Epsom from central London is about £40.
There is chronic congestion on the A3. Although I welcome the improvements to the bypass at Haslemere, they will increase congestion in Guildford. Anybody who has ever tried to drive through Guildford during the rush hour, especially when it is raining, will recognise that it is not an option—the town is completely gridlocked and one has to crawl through inch by inch. That situation will only get worse when the improvements at Haslemere come on stream. We must consider what can be done to relieve traffic in Guildford.
There are many ways to improve the links between Surrey and London. The underground connection could be further improved by a link between the termini at Wimbledon and Richmond over the Kingston loop and back again towards Epsom, or by carrying out work on the tube line from Morden.

211WH
Bus services are important in areas such as Guildford. There is a perception that Guildford people are rich and that all they want to do is to drive their children to and from school in their Range Rovers. In reality, many people do not want to drive their cars around Guildford, either because it is expensive or because they would add to the congestion; however the fact remains that they have many journeys to make. We have a deeply unreliable bus service that continually lurches around.
Several factors are involved, including affordable housing. Bus drivers cannot afford to live in Guildford, and if there is no bus driver there is no bus. Another problem is the amount of overtime that bus drivers need to earn to make it feasible for them to live in the area.
We must consider the whole infrastructure of areas such as Guildford. Why are we destined to get more houses in Surrey? Why might 8,000 more houses be built in Guildford when the infrastructure cannot support them? Nobody disputes the fact that we need additional affordable houses, but large numbers of houses will make a bad situation much worse. Such matters must be considered in the context of transport. We cannot just say that it is a housing problem or a regional development problem—transport is right there in the middle of it.
When people draw up plans to impose housing on the south-east, they must ask how residents will get around. If some of that building is executive housing, it could bring with it two or three more cars per household, which would worsen the problem.
Mr Mark Hoban: The hon. Lady speaks eloquently of the problems of housing and traffic in Guildford, and having lived there until early this year I concur with much of what she said. However, I have a problem with her party's stance on the matter. Many Liberal councillors who represent boroughs in the Serplan group vote in favour of, not against, the Government's housing targets. Is she out of step with their views?
Sue Doughty: I reassure the hon. Gentleman that Liberal Democrats have reviewed those views and will not be voting in the same way again.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Mr. David Jamieson): A U-turn.
Sue Doughty: Indeed. It might be helpful to add that in the meeting to which the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) refers there were deputies present, and particular circumstances applied to the wording of the motion. Liberal Democrats do not vote in support of extra housing.
Mr. Mark Francois: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Sue Doughty: No. I have made the point that we do not support extra housing for the south-east other than affordable housing—not in Surrey, at any rate.
I turn to the problems faced by elderly people who do not wish to drive, cannot drive, cannot afford a vehicle or should not be driving. Although there are transport
212WH
schemes for such people, they need to know that buses will call regularly—that the bus that takes them to visit family members on a Sunday will always turn up. They do not want to be isolated and unable to go to, say, bingo on Sunday because the bus is not there. There are important issues associated with isolation, and they are getting worse for certain sectors of the community.
During the general election campaign, I was approached by an old lady who wanted to know only one thing: whether the Sunday bus between Guildford and Woking, which was extremely unreliable, would continue to operate. Shopping for her housebound friends was something that she, and they, looked forward to, but the loss of the bus would stop her helping them. Given the poor state of our bus services, a Sunday bus can make a lot of difference to one's quality of life.
Chris Grayling: As the Minister knows, one of the great problems for bus services in Surrey is that once outside the borders of London the subsidy from the public purse falls off a cliff. London buses with routes from the outer London suburbs across the border into Surrey are to charge a flat rate of £1. As a result, north Surrey buses, which lack the same subsidised support, will be hugely uncompetitive. In terms of bus operators' ability to provide services, there will be a knock-on effect across the county. Because the subsidy stops dead on leaving the borders of London, it is highly probable that in constituencies such as the hon. Lady's bus services will disappear.
Sue Doughty: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point.
One of the things that we in Guildford have done is to introduce cross-town buses and shuttle buses from the station. Regrettably, however, Conservative members of the council have voted against our having as many buses as we would like. As a result, the habit of catching the train and taking the bus up to the high street to go shopping will not be so easy to establish. Nevertheless, our cross-town buses are a start. Some of our employers subsidise them heavily and I welcome that.
However, the reality is that since deregulation—introduced by the Conservatives—bus operators are no longer required to operate on the less profitable but more socially desirable routes. As a result, continuity and reliability of service have broken down. Because they are unable to catch a bus home, people cannot go out after 8 o'clock at night, for example, to attend evening classes in an effort to get better qualifications. That tends to affect girls rather than boys, who often have their own transport. Girls in lower-paid jobs need to be able to rely on a bus to get home safely at night.
I ask the Minister to take a good look not only at expensive infrastructure projects such as rail and tube extensions, but at simpler ways to improve matters, such as better support for bus services in the counties, as well as in London. Older people, the less affluent and young students in my constituency need to know that, in future, they will be able to return home safely at night.
11.33 am
Mr. Gregory Barker: May I begin by apologising to you, Mr. Griffiths, and to the Minister for the fact that I must leave at noon because I am

213WH
leading a delegation to discuss flooding in my constituency with one of the Minister's colleagues at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs?
I would like to believe that the historical legacy of poor transport links in East Sussex is the result of successive Governments trying to strike the right balance between preserving the environment in a region heavy with areas of outstanding natural beauty and catering for the needs of the travelling public. However, that is not the case. Transport problems are in fact the result of a benign indifference that has turned into real and serious neglect. The whole county of East Sussex has only a few miles of dual carriageway. Train services from Hastings and Bexhill to London are now slower than they were in 1922. In terms of travelling time, Bexhill is further away from London than York.
As a result, the Rother area, especially around Hastings, has some of the worst social exclusion problems in the county. Hastings is a very visible sign of the decline in the county's economy, and its economic and social problems radiate out into my constituency of Bexhill and Battle and the whole Rother area. We all realise that any solutions to the problems of Hastings will necessarily involve my constituency as well.
There was, understandably, huge and bitter disappointment at the Government's decision in the summer not to build the Hastings and Bexhill bypass. After years of dither, the making of such an important decision immediately after a general election, at which the bypass was a crucial issue in a key marginal seat, has been viewed extremely cynically. However, I sincerely welcome, and am grateful for, Lord Falconer's encouragement of the initial responses of the taskforce, led by SEEDA—the South East England Development Agency—which was set up in the wake of that disastrous bypass decision.
Any future plans for Hastings and Bexhill will rightly look for a more holistic solution to the problems of regeneration, and will aim to balance care of the environment with economic development. New plans will put far more emphasis on environmentally sustainable regeneration. Education, a new university, information technology and broadband communications networks for both business and the community will help to deal with the problems of social exclusion.
However, the contrast between the area of Bexhill and Hastings and that of Brighton and Hove is marked: for example, there is a high-speed rail link to London from Brighton, which takes about 45 minutes; improvements have been made to the A23, most of which is now the M23; and there is easy access to Gatwick and the Crawley hub. By contrast, it takes nearly an hour to go from Bexhill to Gatwick, and nearly two hours by road or rail to London. It is not enough to rely on improved education, or improved IT and broadband links. Better transport links remain absolutely vital.
Despite that need, I echo some of the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty) about threats to local buses. Last week I met some of my constituents from Stone Cross, on the outskirts of Eastbourne, who are extremely concerned by the threat to local bus services. If those buses are withdrawn, thousands of people will be stranded in an
214WH
area whose incoming population is increasing as more and more houses are built. Unfortunately, the possibility is largely the result of the threat to rural bus grants from the Government, through East Sussex county council. The council has been left in a parlous financial position by the former Lib-Lab coalition that ran down reserves from £24 million to little more than £3 million. Fortunately, after the county council elections in the summer, a new Conservative administration took over, but some difficult financial decisions must now be made.
Tom Brake: Will the hon. Gentleman put on record the level to which he expects the new Conservative administration to increase those reserves?
Mr. Barker: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a specific figure, but I can assure him that the Conservatives came into office with a steely determination to restore the financial health of the county after the appalling years of Lib-Lab misrule.
We are looking for holistic regeneration in Bexhill, Hastings and across Rother. However, such regeneration must include a fast rail link to London, improvements to the A21 south of Lamberhurst, extending dual carriageways and widening bottlenecks and a new link road from Bexhill to Queensway that avoids the notorious Glynde gap and it must relieve the A259 and Battle's A2100 to end the appalling traffic jams that choke both residents and through traffic.
We must also make safety improvements to the A21. The safety record on the A21 in my constituency is wholly unacceptable. People are dying unnecessarily on that road year in and year out. One of the most difficult visits that I have made as a Member of Parliament was to serving officers at Battle fire station who have been called out time and time again to cut dead youngsters from cars on the A21. The blackspots must be eradicated regardless of the overall plans for the county or the regeneration of the area because they require urgent and immediate attention. Will the Minister tell us what he will be doing with respect to safety on the stretch of the A21 south of Flimwell?
I welcome any partnership with the Government, other parties or stakeholders that will deliver the prospect of regeneration to my constituency. The Government must recognise that regeneration still depends on better roads and better rail. We want to safeguard the terrific natural environment in Bexhill and Battle, and I will be extremely mindful of the environmental impact of any proposals, but we look to the Government to deliver: we want action, not spin.
11.42 am
Mr. Archie Norman: I add my commendation of my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) for obtaining this debate on a subject central to the quality of life for people who live not only in my constituency in west Kent, but in the whole of the south-east.

215WH
The subject should not be a matter of party political difference. It is common ground that the level of congestion and the state of public transport in the southeast is absolutely lamentable, and that it has deteriorated in the past four and a half years. It is also a shared view that the south-east has been the engine of the British economy. It incorporates the financial centre of Europe and the highest density of population in the country; indeed, it has one of the highest population densities in Europe. It provides the gateway for foreign investment and tourism into the United Kingdom.
That has all been recognised by the Government in their commitment to a huge amount of new house building in the south-east. Let us remember that the Government, through Serplan, are committed to building 900,000 new houses there. Approximately 50 per cent. of those houses will be occupied by families who have moved out of London or the cities of the midlands and the north to migrate to the south-east. By most estimates, half of those houses will be built on greenfield sites. The new houses will substantially add to the stresses and strains on existing public infrastructure, especially the transport system. Many families who will be relocating from deprived areas in inner London to Surrey, Kent or Sussex will want to commute back to London for work, yet no provision exists in the Government's plans for enhancing and increasing the capacity of the transport system. That is a fantastic example of unjoined-up government.
I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty) comment that the Liberal Democrats did not support new house building—apart from affordable house building. That represents a substantial change from their previous position. The Liberal Democrats supported the Government on Serplan and other matters.
Sue Doughty: In making that statement it would have been more accurate if I had said that we oppose the additional housing numbers announced, not all new building.
Mr. Norman: I thank the hon. Lady for her clarification—but I do not want to dwell on it, because that is not the main matter for debate. We welcome Liberal Democrat support in opposing, in whatever way, the absurd new plans to force councils in the southeast to build housing where no public infrastructure exists to support it.
Mr. Mark Francois: I appreciate that house building targets are not the main focus for this debate, but I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) and would like to ask him a question. Does he agree that as district and borough councils begin to anticipate their new local plans and look ahead 10 years, the capacity of transport infrastructure to cope with a large increase in housing should be a key element in the public inquiries that are likely to follow? As the Government continue to thrust such schemes down their throats against their will, local residents should make that important point about the difficulty that transport infrastructure has in coping with new houses.
Mr. Norman: I agree with my hon. Friend. A great anomaly is that county and borough councils must plan for new houses and communities, but do not have the resources to plan for the infrastructure to support them. That puts them in a highly invidious situation. Despite a commitment to an expansion in population, an increase in the number of houses, and incidental destruction of green fields, the Government have made no consequential commitment to public transport infrastructure.
The Minister may wish to contemplate the fact that one of the first actions taken by the Government when coming to office was to cancel almost all major road schemes in the south-east, including improvements to the A21, under the Weald and Downlands DBFO—design, build, fund and operate—scheme, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell referred. Those improvements would have directly met the concerns about safety that he raised, and would have saved many lives. They are now being contemplated again, and if they are implemented they will happen five to 10 years later than when they could have been brought into force.
The cancellation cost the Government some £6 million to compensate contractors—money that could have gone into road improvement. It has been replaced with a plethora of reviews, such as the trunks road review and the access to Hastings study, which produced almost nothing and, as my hon. Friend said, was a tremendous disappointment. Now we are told that a feasibility study into dualling the A21 at. Castle Hill and possible improvements south of Lamberhurst will be carried out.
Recently, I had a meeting with staff at the Highways Agency to discuss the new feasibility study. They were clearly suffering from severe review fatigue. They were the same people who undertook the public inquiry into the A21 in 1991. When I spoke to them, they said that they understood the issues exactly, because they had studied them consistently during the past 20 years and they had not changed at all. They told Ministers about them in 1990 and could produce the same study again in 2001. There is no need for reviews, because the answers are known. Some improvements are blindingly obvious—the A21, is a good example; there are many others in the south-east. Dualling the A21 at Castle Hill between two stretches of dual carriageway should have happened many years ago, and is not contentious. Economically and in terms of social benefit it will pay off many times over. We do not need a feasibility study. We need a private finance initiative, and we need to get on the with the job.
Another aspect is that in cancelling all the major programmes, and in a fit of centralisation, the Government have starved the county councils of funds to undertake minor reviews, with the result that all those environmentally acceptable and sensible minor actions that are required to ease traffic have not taken place either. That has added to congestion and reduced the power and effectiveness of local government to make a difference to transport problems.
Hon. Members have referred to the state of the bus industry. My only comment on that is that the southeast must have brought enormous benefits to the white paint industry, because thousands of miles of bus lanes have been painted on our roads. However, I think I am

217WH
right in saying—the Minister may want to comment—that the increase in bus passenger traffic in the south-east, excluding London, has been negligible during the past five to 10 years. The result of creating those bus lanes is that car passenger traffic has slowed down, but the response from the bus industry, which operates as a monopoly in many parts of the south-east, has been so poor that there has been no increase in bus passenger traffic. As a public transport initiative it has been a disaster.
Even worse is the state of the rail industry. It is important to say that, following recent developments, almost all the improvements to which Railtrack was committed as part of the network maintenance statement are now at risk. The investment holiday that is likely to result from the period of administration following the demolition of Railtrack means that investment will not be available. The plans for improvement to the infrastructure of the railway lines that we have discussed today—including the London to Hastings line, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Barker) referred—are negligible for the next five or 10 years. There is no plan to create a high-speed railway line to Hastings, an area with 10 per cent. unemployment.
Connex South Eastern plans to introduce new trains. The Minister may believe that that is a good thing, as most people do, but those new trains will have no more passenger-carrying capacity than the old trains—with the result that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell said, the queues and the number of people standing on those trains will increase. Our commuter capacity will, if anything, diminish. We have no investment for longer platforms. We do not have investment in stations. Access for disabled people is appalling, and would be unacceptable elsewhere in the private sector. Will the Minister tell us specifically whether the Government have any serious commitment to ensuring that commuter train infrastructure improvements will start to take place? Will the period of administration and the extraordinary period of chaos in the rail industry result in a complete holiday for that investment programme, or can any of the schemes now proceed?
It is also worth making the point that all those schemes that have buoyed up the hopes of commuters in the south-east—for example, Thameslink and the Crossrail project—are at risk. Most experts on the rail industry now believe that they will not proceed during the next 10 years. Perhaps the Minister will comment on that. The situation of commuter railways seems desperate.
Where does that leaves us? The lead time for major transport projects means that the legacy of eight or nine years of Labour Government will almost certainly be slower travel in the south-east, with more congestion. The level of congestion will be unprecedented, and among the worst in Europe. We shall have a worse public transport infrastructure. The standard of road maintenance will be the poorest we have ever seen, with reduced expenditure on road maintenance since 1997.
218WH
We are looking at standstill Britain, and it is vital that the Government get serious about matching their commitment to increase the overcrowding in the southeast with breaking the deadlock on public transport and intitiating some of these projects. They are not contentious, and they are necessary to improve the road system and get the south-east moving again.
11.54 am
Tom Brake: I congratulate the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) on securing the debate. Transport in the south-east is a cause of concern to Liberal Democrat and Conservative Members of Parliament—I do not extend the concern beyond those two parties.
As I waited on the platform at Wallington this morning, I pondered the key issues in this debate. The station board showed that a train had been cancelled, and a notice stated that the 8.10 am train would be late because it was a slam-door stopping train; people therefore take longer to get on and off, or it goes slower—I do not know which. Presumably, the train will be late for as long as it remains in use.
Yesterday, I was at Carshalton Beeches station, just one stop up the line, as a constituent had invited me to look at the large number of missing or broken knots—I do not know what they are called in technical railway terms; they lock the rails on to the sleepers—along the track. Such anecdotal experience of the public transport infrastructure confirms that it is in appalling state of disrepair and disarray. I could dwell briefly on the Tory legacy, but even Conservative Members have confirmed today that they recognise that their party's performance on transport infrastructure was not good. I suppose that if one believes in the great car economy, it is inevitable that public transport infrastructure will suffer.
Chris Grayling: I mentioned a range of significant schemes introduced by the Conservative Government that made a difference to the transport infrastructure—light rail, rail and so on. I emphasised that they were a start; they stopped abruptly in 1997.
Tom Brake: I am well aware of the list. However, my experience, and that of commuters in London in the past 20 or so years, is that despite that list, public transport has been deteriorating for many years and there is no sign of improvement. I shall not dwell on the Tory legacy—
Mrs. Theresa May: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Tom Brake: I shall give way shortly.
As the train I was travelling on this morning was at a standstill somewhere between stations, I started to dwell on the Labour Government's responsibility, as they have been in power for four and a half years, and on the impact of the GoVia franchise, which affects large parts of the south-east. I am interested in the fact that the Labour Government have been in power for five years; I do not know what happened in the last six months of Tory Government—not very much, presumably.

219WH
I tabled a parliamentary question asking what assessment had been made, before the Government made the Railtrack announcement, of the impact on GoVia's existing and new franchise. The answer was that the Secretary of State's announcement
"was intended to pave the way for those issues to be better addressed."—[Official Report, 24 October 2001; Vol. 373, c. 235W.]
I think that means that the Government did not actually consider the impact on the GoVia franchise before they made the Railtrack announcement. A further Government response to a similar parliamentary question stated:
"The recent Railtrack developments will not impact on the existing or new franchise."—[Official Report, 29 October 2001; Vol. 373, c. 478W.]
The Minister is an honourable man, who will want to take this opportunity to apologise for what is at best an extremely misleading answer to a parliamentary question. It was reported in the newspaper Metro recently that GoVia, the owner of the south central franchise, has already suspended a £330 million upgrade of track and signalling on lines into Victoria. Far from the Railtrack developments having no impact on the existing or the new franchise, we know that the plans have been put on hold. This is an opportunity for the Minister to apologise for that statement, and I hope that he will.
Mrs. May: The hon. Gentleman attacked both the Government and the Conservative party for their records on improving public transport. Will he tell hon. Members how much of the tax increase that the Liberal Democrats proposed at the last election would have been spent on improving public transport?
Tom Brake: I am sure that the hon. Lady is familiar with our tax plans, which were limited. They focused specifically on education.
Mrs. May: Nothing on transport.
Mr. Jamieson: Nothing on transport.
Tom Brake: Our proposals for Railtrack and the establishment of a not-for-profit trust, and for London Underground, would have addressed the problems that we see on rail and tube today much more significantly and quickly.
The GoVia-Connex handover, which is another area of Government responsibility, demonstrated a lack of joined-up government. The Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions—as it was then—approved the awarding of the franchise to GoVia. Unfortunately, that was then held up by the Department of Trade and Industry as it considered the details. The impact of the stalled handover was that more drivers left Connex, while there were no recruitment proposals to take on additional drivers. Negotiations took place about terms and conditions for Connex drivers, into which GoVia had no input because of the extended handover. When GoVia eventually took over the franchise, it needed to recruit more drivers just to stand still, because of the enhanced terms and conditions that had been agreed by Connex. There were major failings in areas for which the Labour Government have responsibility.
220WH
These are early days for the Crossrail proposal, and the Minister will know that Cross London Rail Links Ltd. had its first meeting yesterday. Have the Government decided whether to proceed with a transport and works order or a hybrid Bill as the means of taking the project forward? Can the Minister guarantee any funding beyond the £154 million that has been agreed for the feasibility work? That work is welcome, but if nothing will be there to take the project further forward once that budget is exhausted, it would be a major disappointment.
The Government's responsibility for the tube is well publicised, and continues to be a source of embarrassment. The public-private partnership has achieved nothing in the past four years, other than the production of enormous and complicated documents at great expense. I understand that the Government have now appointed Ernst and Young as the accountants to examine whether the public-private partnership represents value for money. I welcome the fact that they have not appointed PricewaterhouseCoopers as the arbitrator, because it is so closely involved with the Government. However, will the Minister set out if Ernst and Young is involved with any consortium bidding for a tube franchise? If it has a close connection with any group, there will be concerns that it will find the Government's proposals to be good value for money simply because a partner will derive some financial benefit. Will the Minister confirm that that question has been closely examined?
Other hon. Members have referred to the Hastings bypass. Given that it was difficult to demonstrate overwhelming economic benefits of the project, the Government have probably come to the right decision. However, the multi-modal study identified the need for substantial investment of about £240 million in other local transport improvements. I hope that the Minister will tell us what funds may be forthcoming to deal with that investment.
I understand that we may receive an announcement about terminal 5 tomorrow—if we do not receive one today. After a little less than four years, the inquiry finished in March 1999. A decision is expected imminently on the way forward. Liberal Democrats believe that allowing terminal 5 to proceed would be wrong. We are worried that it is unlikely to help the airlines that the Government presumably want to help—the United Kingdom's regional airlines that want access to Heathrow slots but are not currently gaining them. If terminal 5 goes ahead, our airlines may not benefit, and it will have a significant and detrimental impact on the communities surrounding Heathrow airport.
Chris Grayling: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that most of our regional airlines are part of foreign-owned airline groups?
Tom Brake: Many of our regional airlines are a part of British Airways, which is to be renamed City Express. Clearly, not all UK regional airlines are owned by foreign airlines.
Such issues are of a regional, national or even international nature. I echo the worries of other hon. Members about local transport schemes and Transport

221WH
2000. It is often local schemes, such as small road improvements and additional subsidies for bus services, that can make a significant difference at a local level. They can play a major part in reducing congestion in Reading, the Thames valley and a host of small areas in the south-east. Indeed, there is a strong demand for a tram link in Sutton in my area. Will the Minister say what priority can be given to small local projects as opposed to the major regional, national or international projects that have been mentioned?
Mr. Griffiths—no, I mean Mr. Deputy Speaker—[Interruption.] I apologise, I should have called you Mr. McWilliam. It is always helpful to have a name-plate in position so that hon. Members have clear guidance on how Deputy Speakers like to be addressed.
Mr. John McWilliam (in the Chair): The sign has my name on it on the side facing me, too; I do not know what that says about me.
Tom Brake: Thank you for that clarification, Mr. McWilliam.
I should like to think that transport in the south-east will improve, but the evidence of the past 20 years shows that it has deteriorated, and continues to do so. I hope that that will not go on happening. As a daily commuter I, like the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell, suffer from such transport difficulties, just as others do. Unless the Government start to tackle such fundamental failings in our transport infrastructure, transport will deteriorate in this country to the point when a German diplomat can say in all honesty that the United Kingdom has turned into a third-world country.
12.9 pm
Mrs. Theresa May: It is a pleasure to speak in the debate. I am grateful for the opportunity to do so. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) not only on securing the debate but his excellent opening speech. He spelt out many of the transport problems that face the south-east, and referred to the Government's failure to deliver in that area. It is notable that the Government's lack of interest in the south-east's transport problems is shown by the fact that not one Labour Back Bencher has attended the debate.
I am pleased to speak, not only because I am a Transport spokesman, but because my constituency is in a part of the south-east that, as my hon. Friend pointed out in his opening speech, has done worse than many in receiving Government transport improvements. Berkshire does not receive much from the Government for road developments. We got a bus lane on the M4, but I am not sure that many people would call that a road improvement. The Minister looks excited, and I should certainly be grateful if he were to tell us that the Government were willing to support the local project pursued by Reading borough council and Wokingham district council to put another bridge across the River Thames. If he wants to give something to Berkshire, perhaps he could offer that to my constituents.
I remind the Minister why transport is so important: it is not only a key issue about the quality of life for individuals, as was pointed out by my hon. Friends the
222WH
Members for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) and for Orpington (Mr. Horam), who mentioned cattle-truck commuting. People face transport problems every day, and that has a real impact on their quality of life. People try to travel to get to and from work, and also for leisure and personal purposes.
Transport also relates to economic development in the south-east. Last week, I attended a meeting with a number of south-east business men and women who bemoaned the south-east's transport problems and the Government's lack of delivery. They emphasised that good transport infrastructure is necessary for the good of the economy, both to retain economic vitality and to develop economic growth. As companies look to expand or locate in the south-east the state of transport links will be a consideration when they make their decisions.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells and the hon. Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty) mentioned housing development and policy. That is a problem because when the Government consider the number of future houses, they do not examine the infrastructure requirements that the new developments will bring in their wake. Insufficient attention is given to infrastructure with regard to the transport system.
It is interesting to learn from the hon. Member for Guildford that the Liberal Democrats on Serplan who supported the Government's proposed housing figures for development in the south-east until 2016 did not mean to do so, and were deputies who did not know what they were doing. We were all confused by her intervention when she tried to clarify the point by saying that the Liberal Democrats are not in favour of additional houses, but are in favour of new-build houses. If the hon. Lady wants to intervene and explain the position, I will be happy to give way.
Sue Doughty: We accepted, with reluctance, the original figure of 35,000. We opposed the additional 13,000 for Surrey that was planned above that figure.
Mr. Jamieson: Eh?
Mrs. May: As the Minister says, that has obviously sorted things out. I also note that as far as the hon. Member for Guildford is concerned, any new housing should only be affordable.
Tom Brake: I invite the hon. Lady to reflect that when her party was in power, 60 per cent. of housing was developed on greenfield sites.
Mrs. May rose—
Mr. John McWilliam (in the Chair): Order. Before the hon. Lady replies, I remind her that this is a transport debate, although I understand the relevance of the points being made.
Mrs. May: Thank you, Mr. McWilliam. I return to my original point.
Transport links are essential for housing development and there is no point in the Government trying to build extra homes in the south-east without a transport infrastructure. That will create further problems and further deteriorate people's quality of life.

223WH
Several hon. Members referred to the misery of commuters. I emphasise to the Minister that the problem is not only about quality of life; people's jobs will be affected if the Government fail to improve transport infrastructure in the south-east.
In the past four and a half years we received from the Government only vague promises, plans, reviews and reports. It is typical of the Government to talk about something but not to deliver on it. In 1997, they promised to cut congestion and pollution but delivered the highest fuel taxes and the worst traffic jams in Europe. In 1998, the transport White Paper promised to make road maintenance their "first priority", but they have delivered a record backlog of poorly maintained roads and little prospect of constructing the hundreds of bypasses necessary. In 1999, the Deputy Prime Minister promised "Quality, quality, quality" for Britain's rail network, and now the Government have driven Railtrack into the ground. Finally, in July 2000, the Deputy Prime Minister produced his 10-year transport plan. Like a magician pulling a rabbit out of a hat, he expected his latest trick to silence his critics, but I fear that it was merely smoke and mirrors. A year on, there is real doubt about whether the Government will deliver the £180 billion of investment that we were promised as part of that 10-year plan.
After what the Government have done to Railtrack, it is now unlikely that private sector investors will be so eager to produce the necessary £34 billion of private-sector rail investment. If private sector investment is forthcoming, it will be at an extra cost. Indeed, by increasing the political risk to the private sector of being involved in major transport infrastructure projects, the Government may find that they now have to provide the very blank cheque, through guarantees, that they claimed that they could not provide for Railtrack.
The public spending sums promised last year may also be in question and may have to be re-evaluated, not least in the light of economic slowdown. The south-east will lose out if Labour does not deliver.
It is interesting to read Ministers' answers to questions on the future of rail projects in the south-east. For example, when asked about the future of Thameslink 2000, the Minister responded:
"The Government are keen to ensure that the Thameslink 2000 project should not be put at risk by Railtrack being taken into administration."—[Official Report, 24 October 2001; Vol. 373, c. 222W.]
That suggests that the Government paid no attention to the future of such projects when they put Railtrack into administration. They have no idea about the future of many rail infrastructure projects, as that answer shows.
It is evident in much of transport policy that Labour is still pursuing short-term political needs rather than making the long-term decisions necessary to get the country moving. An example from the railways is the decision made in July in awarding some of the new rail franchises. Instead of making the sensible long-term decision to grant 20-year deals to allow companies to plan future investment—when the Secretary of State could have demanded strict service improvements so that passengers would gain from the decisions—the Secretary of State opted for two-year contract extensions. He is kicking the problem into the long grass, and that means no improvement in services. The problems will not go away.
224WH
I hope that the Minister will confirm that that decision is not part of a wider agenda for train operating companies. In 1997, the Deputy Prime Minister said:
"If rail franchises come to an end, I will keep open the option of the public sector running the railway".
After what has happened to Railtrack, will the Minister assure us that that is not his plan: that the Government have no intention of taking any of the train operating companies into the public sector or of imposing the same structure on them as is being imposed on Railtrack, and that they will shortly take the long-term view and grant longer franchises for train operating companies?
Nor are the Government failing only on railways: my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Barker) gave a concrete example of how they are failing on rural bus services. London Underground is subject to strikes and strike threats, and is paralysed by disputes over funding. We have no aviation policy, in spite of having been promised one in 1998. The south-east has a huge congestion problem in aviation that the Government have done nothing to tackle.
We have had four and a half years of delay, dither and wasted opportunities. I hope that the Minister will give concrete examples of how the Government will deliver, with firm timetables, on getting the south-east moving. To give him some help, I have several questions.
When can we expect an announcement on the timetable for road building in the south-east? When will the Minister make an announcement on the long-term future of rail franchises in the region? Will he assure us that the Government's intervention in Railtrack will not set back the timetable for any planned rail or station improvements in the south-east, such as the Brighton upgrade, the Shortlands flyover in Kent and proposals to expand track capacity at Reading station? Will he set out the timetable for those improvements, and suggest where the funding will come from and whether it is assured? Many fear that the move to special-purpose vehicles will simply cause delay in such infrastructure projects, or even lead to some being cancelled. When can we expect an announcement on Heathrow's terminal 5?
My constituents and others in the south-east will listen carefully to the Minister's answers, not only because the problem affects their quality of life, but because it affects many of their jobs. The economic vitality of the south-east depends on the Government's answers to the transport problems. Plans are no good unless the Government are willing to deliver. People in the south-east have waited for four and a half years. Their quality of life is being affected day by day, so it is time for Ministers to stop talking and start delivering.
12.21 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Mr. David Jamieson): I congratulate the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) on securing the debate, and on raising matters of considerable importance to his constituents and others living in the south-east. Some of the bright young things from the Conservative Back Benches sat with him at one stage, and I read yesterday that the shadow Leader of the House had organised a group of them to create a

225WH
nuisance for the Government. That will be a considerable relief, after the extinguished volcanoes who usually occupy the Conservative Front Benches—of course, I make an exception for the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May), for whom I have enormous respect and regard.
One reason for increased congestion in the south-east, and many other conurbations in the country, is that the economy is doing so well, and so many more people are travelling to work. The hon. Gentleman did not have time to mention the fact that in his constituency the number of unemployed people has fallen from 1,032 to 363 since 1997. Throughout constituencies in the southeast, far more people are in work and travelling—a reason why there has been further pressure on the system. As the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) suggested, economic activity, certainly in the south-east, is at record levels. We are pleased about that, but it puts pressure on the road and rail system that we inherited from his party, which was in government before 1997.
Several hon. Members spoke about the funds available for local road schemes and transport plans. Listeners to the debate would think that nothing had happened at all. The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell said that improvements were nowhere in sight—but he needs to get out a little more, and speak to people in his local authority. His highways authority in Surrey has had a 91 per cent. increase in funding for local transport plans. In Kent, the increase is 76 per cent. In Berkshire it is 67 per cent., and in Windsor and Maidenhead 72 per cent. Funds for local schemes are available.
Mr. Norman rose—
Mr. Jamieson: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman. He spoke for long enough, and I have only a few minutes.
An interesting feature of the debate was the rapier-like intervention of the hon. Member for Maidenhead on the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake). As usual, he gave us 15 minutes of platitudes and huge wish lists of schemes. I lost count of the number of schemes and questions that he raised—but when it came to the question of where the money for the Liberal Democrats' schemes would come from, it turned out that their extra penny would go into education and there was nothing extra for transport. Members will have noted that carefully, and I thank the hon. Lady for teasing the information out. We hear much talk from the Liberal Democrats, but they never back it with action or appropriate funds.
I should briefly put some of the subjects for debate into context. The south-east has one of the United Kingdom's busiest and most important transport networks. Most of the country's international traffic passes through the region, via either the airports or the major ports, and about a quarter of the national motorway network is in the south-east.
Excluding London, the south-east accounts for more than 15 per cent. of the United Kingdom's GDP. Good strategic road and rail links have aided the considerable prosperity of the region, but they have also brought
226WH
severe congestion. Significant improvements are urgently needed to the road and rail infrastructure to enable this prosperity to continue.
Quality of life is equally important. As well as areas of economic success, there are areas of significant deprivation. In many cases, strategic and local transport improvements would contribute to their regeneration. However, such developments must not be at the expense of the environment. We should not forget that the south-east includes many areas of great natural beauty and environmental importance—6,500 sq km of the region are in designated "areas of outstanding national beauty".
I cannot agree with those who criticise the Government for not taking action. We are taking vigorous steps to tackle the transport problems that have been mentioned, and I would like to remind hon. Members of the measures that we are taking at national, regional, sub-regional and local levels.
The integrated transport White Paper, published in 1998, was the first White Paper on transport for more than 20 years; there had not been such a thing under the Conservatives. It set the broad policy framework for integrated transport policies. We followed this with the 10-year plan for transport, which announced national investment of £180 billion for new transport measures. Just as importantly, it made clear our objectives for transport. For example, by 2010 we want to reduce congestion below current levels on the inter-urban trunk road networks and in large urban areas. We shall achieve that by promoting integrated transport solutions and investing in public transport and the road network. We should also like to achieve a 50 per cent. increase in passenger rail use in Great Britain, improved punctuality and reliability, and the doubling of rapid transit use—that is, light rail and trams.
In the south-east, contrary to the impression that was given earlier, 11 major trunk road schemes are progressing as part of the Highways Agency's targeted programme of improvements. They will bring safety and environmental benefits. A further 15 improvements affecting congestion and safety will be made across the region by March 2002, and there is scope for much more. The 10-year transport plan will deliver substantial rail improvements to the region; the completion of the channel tunnel rail link to St Pancras will open up fast travel from London and Kent to Paris, and overcrowding on rail commuter services into London is to be targeted. Other improvements are under active consideration.
I shall answer some of the individual points that have been raised, but I fear that I shall not get through them all. If hon. Members wish, they can write me a note later, and I shall try to respond. The light rail scheme was mentioned. A number of such schemes are being considered by local authorities in the south-east—for example in Oxford, Milton Keynes and Reading, and on the Isle of Wight. Some of their bids are expected in the near future. It was always intended that the 10-year plan be reviewed, and it is proper that that should happen. It is nonsense to suggest that revising it is a panic measure.
What a grim picture the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell painted of his area. I wonder whether people reading his speech in Hansard would be attracted to invest there. Sometimes we should reflect on our words,

227WH
and the influence that they might have. His description was nowhere near reality as most people understand it. The hon. Gentleman almost told us that we should have renationalised the railway system when we first came into government in 1997. That was an interesting U-turn from the Conservative Back Benches. Perhaps we shall hear more about it at some other time.
I have very little time to respond to all the points in this debate, but it is clear that we cannot deliver any of our transport solutions without effective partnership. That is what we will have with agencies such as the Strategic Rail Authority and the Highways Agency. Most importantly, the local transport plans, which have been given so much extra funding—
Mr. John McWilliam (in the Chair): Order. Time is up.

Fireworks
12.30 pm
Joan Ryan: I am pleased to have secured this debate at such an appropriate time, as there is somewhat less than a week to go until 5 November and bonfire night. It is particularly appropriate to debate such a topic in this place. I enjoy firework displays. I have always taken my kids to see them and they have enjoyed them. It is right that we commemorate a momentous occasion in British history. However, some serious issues must be tackled.
The sale of fireworks through retail outlets should be prohibited. I would like the Minister to comment on that. I hold that view for three key reasons. The first is the level of injury to individuals, in particular young people. In the most extreme cases, fireworks cause fatalities—two were recorded last year. My second key reason is the incidence of criminal damage. For example, I have had conversations in the past couple of years with British Telecom, which recorded 5,000 incidents of firework-related vandalism involving public payphones last year. The criminal damage costs so far this year are running at about £1.2 million and the burden of those costs is ultimately born by the taxpayer and the consumer.
My third reason for seeking a prohibition on the retail sale of fireworks is that they make people afraid. Fear is a less tangible phenomenon than the other two that I have listed, but it is none the less profound. Fear, anxiety and distress particularly affect some of the more vulnerable members of our society. I receive letters every year from elderly people and their relatives, telling me that those people are very nervous about going out of doors when darkness falls. Some of them are frightened to go out at all at this time of year. I also receive similar letters from other groups, but I use elderly people as an example.
Tom Brake: Like the hon. Lady, I have received many letters on the subject, including a petition bearing many names. If the sale of fireworks from retail premises is not banned, would she agree that perhaps there should be some control over the time of year during which fireworks are used? Nowadays, it seems as though they are used throughout the year.
Joan Ryan: I agree. When I was thinking about this debate, I considered saying that firework accidents and attacks are now considered an inevitable, seasonal event, but in fact that is no longer the case. Fireworks are let off at new year and for other festivals, so it is not feasible to rely on the provision in the voluntary code for a three-week sales period before bonfire night. There are other festivals at other times of the year, so relying on that provision would not be fair and would not tackle the problem of the level of injuries and criminal damage. That is why I want a ban.
I have outlined three key reasons why a ban should be imposed. With respect to fear, many hon. Members, including myself, receive letters from people concerned about the distress and fear caused to their pets and animals by the—generally illegal—letting off of fireworks in the street.
David Cairns: My hon. Friend is right to focus on the number of accidents and

229WH
on the distress that animals can be caused. Is she aware of the increase in the use of fireworks as weapons? In two incidents in my constituency at the weekend, a cat and a dog were severely injured by gangs of thugs who were using fireworks as weapons, firing them at the animals.
Joan Ryan: My hon. Friend makes his point well. It adds further weight to my argument that we should consider the prohibition of sales through retail outlets, rather than regulation. That way forward has not proved effective.
The misuse and abuse of fireworks and the injuries caused by them continue, despite the well-intentioned Fireworks (Safety) Regulations 1997. Those most notably banned the sale to, and use by, the general public of aerial shells and similar devices. The statistics unfortunately and overwhelmingly demonstrate the impotence of the regulations in securing greater public safety throughout the firework season. The number of injuries from fireworks was higher in 1999 and 2000 than in 1998, which illustrates that the 8 per cent. reduction in casualties from 1997 to 1998 was merely arbitrary and owed nothing to the implementation of the regulations. The present legislation makes it extremely difficult for trading standards officers and the police to deal effectively with the sale and misuse of fireworks. Statistics demonstrate that tightening laws and increasing penalties for those guilty of the criminal use of fireworks will not be enough to curtail firework injuries.
For the past five years, the illegal use of fireworks has consistently been the second largest cause of firework-related injuries, but the primary cause has been family and private parties. Deliberate misuse is therefore not the only culprit; we must also consider the genuine use of fireworks as instruments of celebration. The evidence demonstrates that merely trying to eradicate the misuse of fireworks will not combat the high rate of firework-related injuries. It is therefore necessary to conclude that the thorough prohibition of the sale of fireworks to the general public is the only means by which firework-related injuries, accidents and damage can satisfactorily be tackled.
Those with vested interests, such as commercial manufacturers whose profits and employees would be affected, would obviously object to such a measure. Their economic gains are economic losses for others, such as the health service and ultimately, therefore, the taxpayer who must pick up the tab for firework-related injuries. Others who might face losses include individuals and private sector companies whose property incurs severe criminal damage.
Mr. Mark Lazarowicz: My hon. Friend will be aware that there was a serious incident in my constituency last week—a fire in premises where fireworks were being stored for the retail trade. Does she agree that attention needs to be paid to not only the immediate point of sale, but the whole chain of sale? Does she agree that such incidents require the Government and industry to reconsider their approach to the voluntary code of practice to prevent incidents at any point in the sale chain?
Joan Ryan: I agree with my hon. Friend. As I said, and my hon. Friend confirmed, regulation simply has not proved effective.
There is a fundamental assumption in any social democracy that commercial viability cannot go unchecked, but must be balanced against the wider principles of public welfare and safety. Although commercial vested interests would argue against prohibition, the weight of the argument is in favour of it and of protecting the public.
In response to a parliamentary question about firework-related injuries from my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy) in July, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry stated:
"We will further target this age group as part of the 2001 firework safety campaign."—[Official Report, 20 July 2001: Vol. 371, c. 606W.]
Indeed, that was so, and we should give credit for that campaign. It has been appropriately targeted, with a higher profile than any campaign that I have been aware of for many years. However, therein lies our problem. Legislation requires that consumers of fireworks be aged 18. Statistics show, however, that the greatest percentage of fireworks injuries—despite the 1997 regulations, which raised from 16 to 18 the age at which one could buy fireworks—are to those aged 15 and under. Those account for 40 to 50 per cent. of all fireworks injuries in the past five years.
The evidence clearly shows the effectiveness of the legislation. The Secretary of State's answer in July and the targeting of the safety campaign in the media are explicit acknowledgement that the under-15 group is at high risk of fireworks injuries. Simultaneously there is an implicit acknowledgement that current statute, namely the increase in the 1997 regulations of the age for purchasing fireworks from 16 to 18, does not prevent access to fireworks for people under the age limit.
Even aside from the problem that all age certification entails—that of unscrupulous retailers who sell merchandise to those who are under age—firework safety cannot be guaranteed by ensuring that statutes are more vigorously enforced. Age alone does not qualify someone in the responsible and competent handing of what are, essentially, explosives. We could use the analogy of driving licences. Someone who reaches the age at which it is possible legally to hold a driving licence cannot then just get in a car and drive down the road. They must take lessons and pass a test. However, on reaching 18 someone can buy fireworks whether competent to handle them or not. We should bear in mind that fireworks are explosives.
Mr. David Crausby: I have a 78-year-old constituent who was constantly bombarded, until she was forced to ask the council to move her. Youths as young as 12 have been involved. Should not such cases persuade us that the voluntary code is not working and that fireworks are available to anyone who wants to purchase them?
Joan Ryan: I agree with my hon. Friend. I am sure that most hon. Members could give instances of their constituents being subjected to intolerable fear and persecution as a result of the illegal use of fireworks by youngsters.
Mr. Bob Laxton: The problem is getting worse. I shall tonight present to the House a petition with about 28,000 names, from an organisation that is concerned about, for example, the impact on pets. I have tapes from individuals who need guide dogs. Fireworks can send the animals into complete panic, which restricts the ability of the people concerned to get out and about and lead normal lives at this time. The difficulty is not even restricted to this period of the year; it happens at other times, such as the millennium and Christmas, and at private parties. I believe that it is getting worse.
Joan Ryan: I am sure that some people would respond to a call for prohibition by claiming that there was a civil liberties issue to be considered. However, balance is necessary. One person's freedom is, after all, another person's prison. Human rights legislation also states that people have the right to quiet enjoyment of their property. Many people feel that that right has not been afforded to them. It is an issue of safety and balance, and safety must be paramount.
Legislation, despite its theoretical accuracy, is only as good as its implementation. Some would argue that legislation already exists that makes the misuse of fireworks an offence, which is correct. In reality, however, fireworks cause distress, anxiety and injury to an intolerable number of people as well as considerable criminal damage during every firework season and, more than ever before, throughout the year. We must emphasise that injury is not caused simply through the misuse of fireworks. Both the legal and illegal use of fireworks cause major problems, and that is why a prohibition is necessary.
I quote two examples that have already been quoted in the House and which show how legal and illegal use can cause loss of life. Dale Mitchell, a 10-year-old, died in 1996 after a lit firework was pushed through the letterbox of his family home. That is an example of the illegal use of fireworks. In the case of David Hattersley, however, fireworks were being used with the best of intentions. He was headmaster of Hazlemere primary school, and lost his life in November 1996, when he stumbled forward as he supervised the school's annual firework display.
Last year, 972 people were admitted to hospital as a result of firework injuries, but the actual number of injuries may have been significantly higher. Numerous statistics show the need for reform of the firework legislation. I hope that I, and my hon. Friends who have intervened, have made a case for it. The Government believe that it is required because in 1997 they supported a private Member's Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton, which was unfortunately talked out in 1998. They supported key measures in that Bill to deal with the licensing, training and qualification of those organising public and private firework displays. That is the way forward, along with a prohibition on the sale of fireworks. With those measures, we may all enjoy fireworks safely.
The British Retail Consortium will put to the Home Office later today its ideas for a national scheme to allow retailers to identify genuine proof-of-age cards. That may not solve the problem, but it might be a step in the right direction if we cannot achieve a complete prohibition.
12.47 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Miss Melanie Johnson): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, North (Joan Ryan) on securing this debate, which is clearly topical. I am delighted to say a few words on the issue, as I know from my postbag that many people have concerns about it, which my hon. Friend and other hon. Members have raised effectively.
The sale of fireworks, although it is important, forms only a part of the overall firework scene. I stress the fact that fireworks are well regulated in many regards in the United Kingdom. The Firework (Safety) Regulations 1997 were made under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 and played a significant role in reducing the number of firework injuries treated in accident and emergency departments around the firework season of 5 November. Through regulations, we have restricted the general retail of certain types of potentially dangerous fireworks to those who are qualified professionals. We have the regulatory powers to deal with the antisocial practice of letting off fireworks in the street, and other such practices—but that is a question not only of regulation but of enforcement.
Millions of fireworks are sold and millions used safely each year in people's back gardens, providing a popular form of family entertainment. Many others enjoy public displays, and I hope that people will continue to enjoy fireworks in such ways. The vast majority of accidents involving fireworks are caused by misuse—partly by people not following the fireworks code and partly by the action of irresponsible individuals and hooligans. My hon. Friend referred to the British Retail Consortium's possible proof-of-age cards. The statistics show that a large number of those injured are quite young and many are under the legal age for being able to acquire fireworks.
My hon. Friend made several important points about the sale of fireworks through retail outlets. Under the 1997 regulations and the other legislation that impinges on the retailing of fireworks, all fireworks have to comply with British standard 7114, which governs their construction, labelling, testing and so on. Any products on sale that do not comply with that standard can be removed by trading standards officers. No fireworks may be sold to anyone under 18 years of age. That rule is also enforced by the trading standards department. Those who break the rules are subject to prosecution. We must examine how effectively that enforcement is being carried out and in what ways people aged under 18 are acquiring fireworks, as many are.
The legislation that controls the storage of fireworks is the responsibility of the Health and Safety Executive, but the Act requires shops that keep fireworks to be registered with the local authority, thereby informing it of the premises where fireworks are kept and enabling them to undertake inspections to ensure compliance with the law. Considerable effort has been made under the present regulations to protect consumers from unsafe products and to ensure that the storage and handling of potentially dangerous products is controlled.
My hon. Friend asked about the period during which fireworks are available for sale. I know from my postbag that many people are worried that they are becoming

233WH
more prevalent throughout the year as consumers choose to celebrate occasions such as parties, weddings and 4 July with fireworks. The Government recognise that. Our regulation-making powers allow us to deal with the intrinsic safety of goods under the Consumer Protection Act 1987, including fireworks, but do not enable the regulation of periods when they can be sold or let off. Wider powers to allow for that could be made available only through further legislation. A voluntary code of practice works for a three-week period around 5 November and for a similar period around the new year. That is beneficial in that it contains the period during which many retailers—especially those on the high street such as local newsagents and post offices—sell fireworks. The voluntary agreement is not perfect, but it has generally worked well. Those in the industry and in trading standards have been reinforcing the agreement during this fireworks season by sending out reminders and circulars about retailer's responsibilities.
Several hon. Members have urged that we should not allow the retail sale of fireworks to the public. Every year my Department receives a number of requests for a total ban on fireworks for private use. I do not believe that that is the way forward. Millions of people still enjoy fireworks. In 1996, the Department reviewed and considered a total ban. There were several reasons for rejecting it, including the fear that it would lead to the development of an illegal market for fireworks and to more illegal imports, which would involve quality control problems. Nevertheless, the Government were prompt in trying to restrict the type and sale of fireworks through the 1997 regulations, which prohibit the sale to the public of dangerous fireworks such as bangers, mini rockets, those of erratic flight and some of the larger and more powerful fireworks, and bans all category 4 and some category 3 fireworks.
My hon. Friend discussed injuries, which we all take very seriously, and the thrust of the effectiveness of this year's campaign in getting the messages out. I recognise that she would like more to be done overall, but messages about firework safety are being sent out. Over the years, the number of people requiring treatment in hospital casualty departments has been cut by about a third from 1,530 in 1995 to 972 in 2000. We hope that that trend will continue. My hon. Friend quoted some
234WH
figures that showed a rise between 1997–98 and 1999. We suspect that that was due to the millennium period, which caused more fireworks to be used.
Statistics show reductions in certain categories of injury. Gains are being achieved because of steps that we have taken that have played a valuable role in keeping the number of accidents down. The annual firework statistics enable us to design the focus for the following year's campaign. This year, we have targeted people under 16 years old because they were particularly subject to injury during the 2000 firework period.
On the letting off of fireworks in the street, which we have all experienced, points have been raised about controls. To put it simply, it is illegal to let off a firework in the street: it is an offence under section 80 of the Explosives Act 1875. The police enforce that section and anyone found guilty is liable for a fine of up to £5,000. I recognise that enforcement is tricky, but legislation deals with the issue effectively.
Legislation also deals with distress to any domestic or captive animal, under the Protection of Animals Act 1911. Prosecution can be undertaken by the police or by trading standards authorities, and in some cases the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals can instigate prosecution. Again, the fine is £5000, up to six months' imprisonment or both. There is a legal underpinning for effective action where such problems arise and, on noise nuisance, we encourage all those who use fireworks to consider neighbours and inform them—particularly old people—of what is planned.
We recognise the concerns raised by my hon. Friend, other hon. Members and the public, but we have introduced a comprehensive package of legislation in the UK to cover the supply of safe fireworks. The effective enforcement of various regulations is crucial. It must not be an idle threat. Prosecutions must take place and I am sure that that will happen more often in future. I appreciate that resources are extremely pressed in some areas, but the police and local authorities will follow up complaints about the sale or misuse of fireworks.
I assure my hon. Friend that her arguments and those of other hon. Members have been well made in this worthwhile debate. I have listened carefully to what they have said about arising difficulties. We will continue to keep firework safety and usage under review, particularly in light of this year's experience.

Kent and Canterbury Hospital
12.58 pm
Mr. Julian Brazier: I am grateful for the opportunity to hold an Adjournment debate on the future of Kent and Canterbury hospital and on wider acute services in east Kent. I welcome the Minister to her place.
Immediately after the 1997 election, the East Kent health authority brought forward plans to run down Kent and Canterbury hospital so that it would become a nurse-led minor injuries unit, supplemented by a few beds for slow-stream recovery geriatric wards. EKHA, as the authority is normally abbreviated, argued that there was insufficient critical mass for doctor training on the three major sites in its area. It had submitted similar plans under the previous Conservative Government, with children's services as the first area to be considered. The plans were firmly rejected by the then Secretary of State, who insisted that critical mass training requirements for doctors should be met in a different way by a new concept of rotating training across all three sites.
In 1998, after a long and gruelling consultation process, the then Secretary of State for Health, the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), ruled on a compromise. It was unsatisfactory, because the most accessible accident and emergency unit in east Kent was lost. Canterbury is the hub of the bus and rail systems of east Kent where 37 per cent. of the population live in villages. To give one small example, the last regular bus service from Whitstable, a town in my constituency, to Margate is about to cease.
The compromise at least guaranteed the future of East Kent's joint cancer centre at the Kent and Canterbury hospital and of a limited cardiac service there, as well as 230 beds. The then Secretary of State wrote to me in December 1998 and September 1999. He asked EKHA to guarantee that on-site consultant anaesthetic, surgical and medical cover would be provided at the Kent and Canterbury hospital during the day, with full on-call cover out of hours, and that consultant medical cover would include cover for the coronary care unit. He announced expenditure of millions of pounds on a new linear accelerator to replace an old one at the cancer centre. That facility is now being installed at the Kent and Canterbury hospital and is a major part of the joint cancer centre shared with Maidstone hospital. That joint centre obtained the country's first cancer charter mark in 1998.
EKHA has continued to argue that, to meet requirements for critical mass, it needs to reconfigure services in Kent. The requirements for reconfiguration were denied in writing from the very beginning by the secretary of the Royal College of Physicians. None the less, the only available route, then and now, has been a private finance initiative programme. That would mean that our local health service would have to bear a heavy and perpetual financial penalty. Due to the sheer scale of the costs involved in the reorganisation, that must affect its ability to deliver capacity. Therefore EKHA logically recognised that a lower bed and nursing capacity would have to be accepted to achieve the reconfiguration of which it dreamed. Since then, for a number of reasons, the position has changed radically and it has become obvious, even to the health authority, that east Kent is suffering from a severe shortage of capacity.
236WH
Our local hospitals gained two stars out of three in the recent awards, and I congratulate the hard-working and over-worked clinical and nursing staff who helped to achieve that. None the less, as my postbag continually testifies, waiting times are getting worse despite changes made in the method of recording.
We have just come through summer, which is traditionally less busy than winter, but combined queues in the three accident and emergency units have sometimes totalled as many as 100 people. Behind the appalling statistics are the individual people waiting on trolleys, inevitably, without proper supervision. I could refer to several horrifying individual cases, but time allows me to mention only two.
Earlier this year, Mrs. Connie Jones, a woman of 97, waited two whole nights in casualty before she could be admitted to a proper ward. Much more recently, we had another terrible case. A Whitstable man, Ray Gilson, aged 81, was left in the accident and emergency department while he underwent tests for swelling and pain in his legs. He spent three whole days in the accident and emergency unit, being wheeled backwards and forwards between tests. He was refused a bath, presumably because no one was available to supervise him. His family had to come in and change his pyjamas when they became stained. Sadly, it became clear that he was in the last stages of terminal cancer, but the indignity of his last few days on this earth was so desperate that the family of that seafood shop owner from Whitstable—a much respected figure—scraped together the money to get him out of the Kent and Canterbury and into the private Chaucer hospital where he was able to spend his last few days with some dignity in a proper bed in a proper ward.
Although EKHA, and now the hospital trust, continue to talk the obsessive language of reconfiguration, half the consultants—81 in total—from across the three East Kent acute sites have attended a meeting. They passed a unanimous motion saying that shortage of capacity now threatened clinical standards. Even more amazingly, junior doctors—they have their whole careers ahead of them, so one would not expect them to go public—have almost all signed a letter saying the same thing. In doing so, they have put their careers on the line. In both cases, the concern relates to the shortage of capacity; they were not a call for a reconfiguration.
EKHA's response has been a new public consultation document, suggesting five options. Time precludes me from evaluating each singly, so I will just say that they range from option one, keeping the status quo—which EKHA effectively rubbished in its initial announcement—through to the Secretary of State's plan, which is now called option two. Option five, at the other extreme, is a reversion to the original 1997 plans to close the whole hospital apart from a nurse-led minor injuries unit, out-patient services and a few recuperation beds.
The halfway house on which the previous Secretary of State decided would have been very expensive, costing more than £100 million even by EKHA's estimates—and it seriously underestimated the cost of its last big private finance initiative. One can only imagine the colossal cost of the reorganisation proposed under option five. Yet that appears to be EKHA's favoured choice. It would mean not only the loss of the accident

237WH
and emergency unit, which proved so vital during the flooding when roads in both directions were blocked, but the loss of the beds and the coronary unit promised us by the Secretary of State. Perhaps most seriously, it would result in abandoning the necessary support for the cancer centre. Some cancer services would, of course, be able to continue, but services for the most dangerous cancers—those requiring more complex chemotherapy and radiotherapy—would be lost to East Kent completely if option five went through.
I believe that all east Kent MPs strongly oppose that option. The hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) has suggested that the loss of those services from east Kent would be unacceptable to him and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Hugh Robertson) will say something on the subject in a moment. Yet, incredibly, although at least one of the proposed options involves abandoning those services and would result in our walking away from the new linear accelerator that is just being completed, the options have been framed without any mention of cancer at all. Apparently, that is to be dealt with in a separate plan.
I want to give the Minister plenty of time to respond, so I will end by asking three simple questions. First, were the former Secretary of State's pledges to the people of east Kent worth anything to my constituents? Secondly, does the Minister accept that, even if substantial extra sums were made available, the addition of a gigantic financial burden to our current health budget—a PFI on such a scale must result in that—will lead to a lower capacity than could otherwise be afforded? Thirdly, does she accept that any move away from the status quo must mean a loss of access for people in Canterbury, Whitstable and Faversham and for those in villages who make up more than a third of the population of east Kent?
I urge the Minister to tell EKHA that it should reconsider it proposals. It should examine how it can increase the capacity of our already overstretched system, and not get involved in empire building through expensive reconfigurations.
1.9 pm
Hugh Robertson: I should like to add some brief comments to the excellent speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier).
My concern about the Kent and Canterbury hospital stems from three factors: I was born there; my parents, now retired, live in Canterbury; and the hospital has been the dominant issue in my postbag in the four months since my election. The matter affects approximately 20,000 of my constituents, so the extent of local anger should not be underestimated. There is anger that the hospital is being downgraded at a time when the public perceive that more money is going into the national health service. There is also massive local anger about the decision to row back from the commitments given by a previous Secretary of State. My hon. Friend has also alluded to the capacity concerns that many of us share.
238WH
Canterbury is a cathedral city. It has a large and growing student population and it is also an extremely popular retirement venue. In anybody's figures, the population in Canterbury and its surrounding areas can only rise over the next 10 to 15 years. In short, it is the dominant population centre in east Kent, and it needs its own hospital in the current configuration. I therefore support totally my hon. Friend's efforts.
1.11 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Hazel Blears): I congratulate the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) on securing a debate on a matter of great concern to him, to other Members of Parliament and, crucially, to his constituents. For many years, the hon. Gentleman has been a fervent supporter of his local hospitals. He, like the people of Canterbury, is eager to secure the best quality health services that any community expects. At the outset, I assure him that the Government share common ground with him. We are committed to providing a high-quality NHS for everyone, wherever they may live.
As the hon. Gentleman said, the provision of hospital services in east Kent has been the subject of much debate in the House and the local community. I am pleased that this debate gives me an opportunity to outline some of the changes that have taken place since the issue was last debated. I shall also try to outline some future plans for the development of services both specifically at the Kent and Canterbury hospital and generally in east Kent.
As the hon. Gentleman said, the former Secretary of State for Health, my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), originally made the decision on changes to the area's hospital services in December 1998. He also set out the conditions on which the changes should be based. The reasons why he made that decision have previously been debated by the hon. Gentleman, and I do not propose to go into them now. The chosen option for reconfiguring acute services, which was endorsed by my right hon. Friend, was right at the time that it was taken. However, we are three years on and we have seen the introduction of a whole agenda for clinical governance. We must therefore reconsider whether that configuration would still be able to meet present-day needs. I shall speak about the detailed options later.
As well as the need to meet the clinical governance agenda, I am well aware that the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members have raised concerns about the increasing pressure placed on the capacity of the local health economy as the demands for hospital services grow in that area. I should like to outline the progress that has been made since the original decision was taken. There has been significant extra investment at the Kent and Canterbury hospital. We have expanded renal inpatient beds at the hospital and the surgical ward block, and we have refurbished a day-surgery area. A purpose-built unit for the health care of older people has also been completed. It includes two rehabilitation wards, a stroke unit, a therapy centre and a day hospital. Elderly care services have been transferred from Nunnery Field hospital to a new elderly care facility, and a new daycare recovery unit has been opened. There also plans to open a new cataract centre at Canterbury in the next few months. Despite all that investment, I acknowledge that

239WH
the local health economy is still under pressure and that local people are concerned about the future of their hospital.
A key plank in the development of services is the major capital investment—the hon. Gentleman referred to this—in the Queen Elizabeth Queen Mother hospital, the William Harvey hospital and the Kent and Canterbury hospital. To achieve that aim, the East Kent Hospitals NHS trust submitted a strategic outline case for investment, which was approved in February. However, in the next stage of developing that business case, it became clear that were other ways in which to try to achieve the overall objective of providing first-class health services for the people of Kent and that those options should be reassessed. A rigorous reappraisal of the original endorsed option has taken into account the standards for current clinical work and the requirements for developing new hospital facilities.
However, I should like to take this opportunity to tell local people that there is no question mark over the future of Kent and Canterbury hospital. There are no proposals to abolish it or to prevent it from functioning; instead, we are reappraising the balance and mix of services that ought to be provided throughout the health community in trying to ensure that people have access to high-quality care. None the less, I acknowledge that physical and geographical access is an issue. It is always very difficult to decide on such matters, and to balance local people's need for access with the need for quality, accreditation and sufficient throughput of work to maintain clinical standards.
In reappraising the options, we have tried to ensure the involvement of front-line staff. Indeed, clinicians' support for some of the options has been an issue for many years. As the hon. Gentleman said, there are four options, all of which are based on the principle that there will be two main centres at Margate and Ashford, but a mix of services at Canterbury. Option one is the former Secretary of State's endorsed option; option two is to have an elective service at Canterbury; option three is to develop Canterbury as a community hospital; option four—perhaps the most substantial of those currently proposed—is for Canterbury to have an acute medical unit, a critical care unit, elective orthopaedics and a day surgery.
Mr. Brazier: Have the Government and the East Kent health authority abandoned the status quo—which was option one—in the past few days? As I understand it, such an option is a legal requirement in any private finance initiative submission.
Ms Blears: As far as I am aware, the options that are being developed are those that I have outlined. Of course, we have yet to begin a formal consultation process. If a further option emerges, I shall inform the hon. Gentleman. However, according to my information, the four options to which I referred are being developed.
I want to make it clear that none of the proposed options means that the Kent and Canterbury hospital will lose its ability to deal with emergency cases—an issue that I know has been of great local concern. There will be a full accident and emergency service on the Kent and Canterbury site until the William Harvey hospital
240WH
and the Queen Elizabeth Queen Mother hospital are able fully to accommodate patients from Canterbury. Under each of the four options that I outlined, a unit would remain on the Kent and Canterbury site. I understand that it will continue to treat between 70 and 80 per cent. of the patients that it sees. The impression has been given that a minor injuries unit will see only a minority of the cases that must currently be dealt with, but the reverse is true: it will deal with the majority of such cases.
As I understand it, there will be a three-month period of public consultation, so I cannot comment further on any of the options. However, I am sure that they will be the subject of intense debate in the local community.
The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of how the proposals will interact with cancer services. That is an extremely important point, and I can reassure him that proposals for public consultation on the options for the future of services in Canterbury will not be published until it is clear how they will relate to cancer services. I agree with him that we do not want consultation on one set of services to proceed in isolation. In developing services, we must fully take into account their clinical implications for the cancer services that are available at the Kent and Canterbury hospital. We have responsibilities in accordance with the national cancer plan to ensure that people in Canterbury have access to good, high-quality cancer services, but we must ensure that the proposals are not seen in isolation, and do not have a detrimental effect on developing cancer services for local people.
Mr. Brazier: That does not quite answer my question. Will there be consultation on the implications for cancer services, or will they simply be listed? At least one of the options, certainly the minimum option, means losing the cancer centre in Canterbury and probably in east Kent. It would be extraordinary if the Government consulted on that issue at the same time as the rest of the package.
Ms Blears: The proposals for the consultation will not be published until it is clear how they relate to cancer services. I cannot confirm that there will be a joint consultation on the services, but I take the hon. Gentleman's point about the minimum option. I make it clear to people in east Kent that I will urge the health authority to ensure that, if the proposals have implications for cancer services, it will not simply be a matter of including them and ticking a box. No decisions will be taken that could have a knock-on effect on cancer services from which it would be impossible to recover. We need to get the balance right.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned capacity, which is an underlying issue in the area. In April 1999, there were 1,627 acute beds in east Kent, and the number has increased slightly to 1,633 in 2000 and to 1,642 at present. I accept that the increase in the number of acute beds is slow, but it is going up. I acknowledge that services are under pressure, so it is crucial that the beds inquiry continues to monitor the number of beds available in the east Kent area. I am pleased that a new service, the east Kent bed bureau, is monitoring bed occupancy in the area, and that will result in a more efficient and effective use of the existing capacity. I do not say that it is an entire solution but, in many cases,

241WH
bed usage is not maximised because people do not have up-to-date, online information on the beds that are available in each hospital at a particular time. We are gradually developing more sophisticated systems to monitor bed occupancy in the NHS to ensure that the maximum use is made of the beds in the system.
Every hospital now has a medical acute assessment unit, and community assessment and rehabilitation teams, day hospitals and crisis outreach teams help to reduce the pressure on accident and emergency departments by supporting people, especially elderly people, in their own homes, thus avoiding emergency admissions when possible. A key plank of our strategy for hospitals is to support people at home and another is to tackle the important matter of delayed discharges, which is essential if we are to maximise hospitals' capacity.
I am pleased that the announcement of extra money to deal with delayed discharges will affect capacity in east Kent, not just this winter and for the next 12 months but for the next few years. We will put in £100 million this year and £200 million in the following two years and that money will have a real impact. Kent county council has been allocated an extra £2.1 million from the extra funds to try to ensure that people do not linger in hospital when they no longer need to be there. If people stay in hospital when they do not need to, other people cannot be treated, and it is bad for their health. Once people no longer need acute medical care, they should be either in intermediate care or supported by domiciliary care packages in their own homes so that they can maintain their independence. Putting all the measures in place will be essential in ensuring, as far as possible, that we relieve the pressure on the health economy in east Kent.
I acknowledge that staff in all the area's hospitals work incredibly hard and do their best to ensure that patients get the highest quality care and that we do not see repeats of the terrible incidents of the past. I am pleased to say that the trust has not reported any cancelled urgent operations in the past three months, and that is a tribute to its management and working systems. As the hon. Member for Canterbury said, the trust was awarded two stars, and it is delivering on its targets on many of the indicators that we monitor. It is important to say that, because I do not want to create the impression that there is an on-going crisis in the hospitals. They are doing a fine job in providing a high standard of care to local people.
242WH
I am concerned about the length of time that it has taken to reach a resolution on many issues in east Kent. Uncertainty for staff and the public can affect morale and recruitment, and does not ensure that people perceive their health services to be prospering and growing in the local community. Whichever option is decided on after consultation, the overriding concern must be that patients are treated in a safe environment and in facilities that are fit for the 21st century.
Mr. Brazier: Given that the decision may mean the abandonment of the former Secretary of State's pledges, is the Minister willing to commit the Government, rather than EKHA, to making it? Will she assure me that, if EKHA were to choose an option that involved abandoning even the minimal pledges made by the then Secretary of State three years ago, EKHA alone would not be allowed to make the decision and that it would require the new Secretary of State's approval?
Ms Blears: As I have said to the hon. Gentleman, the decision made then was the right one at the right time for the circumstances. Time has moved on and we have a new clinical Government agenda. It is right that further options are considered. He will know that there is a process through which every option must go, and that involves it being drawn up, public consultation involving the whole of the local community and, if there is not agreement, submission to Ministers for consideration. That is why it would be inappropriate for me to comment further on those options. If there is no local resolution, a central decision will be taken.
The modernisation of services in the area will go ahead. I acknowledge that there have been some problems and that they are a sign of the need to invest in new, modernised services for local people. That is exactly what we intend to do. I accept that there have been problems in the transition, but we have not simply stood still and not made progress. I have set out today the investments that have been made in Kent and Canterbury hospital for new surgery units and rehabilitation facilities. People in Canterbury and all east Kent have a right to expect to be able to rely on the best national health service facilities for themselves and their community. Consultation on the options will undoubtedly take place in the next few months, and hon. Members will have the opportunity to make further representations. I know that they will do their utmost to represent the views of local people and to ensure that we are thoroughly informed when we come to deciding on the crucial issue of the future of health care in the area.

Transport to School
1.29 pm
Mr. Huw Edwards: I am delighted to have the opportunity to debate transport to school.
The debate about home-to-school transport has been controversial, and many issues have been considered: the age and condition of contract buses, the provision of seat belts, the qualifications and competence of drivers, as well as three-for-two seating arrangements. During my time as the Member of Parliament for Monmouth, I have made representations to Ministers about school transport. One of my former constituents, Mrs. Pat Harris, formed the organisation "Belt Up School Kids"—BUSK—which has campaigned vigorously and with much success for the compulsory use of seat belts on contract buses and those used on school visits.
The safety of pupils on scheduled bus services and the problem of overcrowding in particular have caused me to request this debate on the transportation of pupils to Monmouthshire comprehensive school from the village of Llandogo in the Wye valley, the beautiful area of outstanding natural beauty in my constituency. People believe that it must be one of the most beautiful and tranquil routes to school that pupils could have. It is a journey of about six miles and meanders along the valley against a backdrop of fields and forests. The bus passes under a beautiful canopy of trees and crosses from the Welsh side of the Wye into the English side and back into Wales over the historic Wye bridge in Monmouth.
However, the 69 route from Llandogo to Monmouth on weekday mornings in term time has been described as "the nightmare journey". It has caused considerable anxiety to pupils and parents alike. In recent years, the village of Llandogo has grown and, on average, 60 to 70 pupils aged from 11 to 18 attend Monmouth comprehensive school. In rural areas, most pupils living in excess of three miles from Monmouth comprehensive school and other comprehensive schools are transported to school in designated school transport buses. In Monmouthshire, there is an extensive network of coaches, contracted to take pupils to school from communities where public transport is limited or non-existent. They are run generally by private, local bus operators.
In recent years, the regulations affecting the buses have changed to require them to have seats that are fitted with seat belts. Only one pupil is permitted to occupy a seat and no pupils are allowed to stand. Hence, no bus that is contracted for conveying pupils from home to school can legally accommodate more passengers than the number of seats on the vehicle. Llandogo lies on the scheduled bus route from Chepstow to Monmouth, which is operated by Stagecoach plc. Pupils are therefore expected to catch the scheduled service, and the costs are covered by the county council, which negotiates season tickets with Stagecoach. That arrangement makes sense in most cases, except for Llandogo. It avoids unnecessary bus journeys, it is good for the environment, it avoids a duplication of services and it keeps costs down.
The situation is different in Llandogo. The arrangement has caused parents and pupils several worries, which were aired at a public meeting in the spring convened by local parents, Avril Seabury and
244WH
Gail Reynolds. The main concern was overcrowding. The morning and evening buses are full to capacity, with some children sitting three to a double seat. Several pupils are required to stand for the entire half-hour journey, which has resulted in injury when they have been thrown around. Buses are often late arriving at Llandogo and, generally, pupils have been late for school. Recently, the bus was an hour late. As for reliability, the buses have broken down occasionally, a problem that has caused parents concern when it has happened in fairly remote country areas between Llandogo and Monmouth.
A few weeks ago I decided to experience the situation myself. I travelled on the bus with the pupils from Llandogo. It was a wet Wednesday morning. The No. 69 arrived about 10 minutes late. It was a 53-seater bus and, by the time it left the village, it was overcrowded with pupils. Some were sitting three to a seat. About 10 pupils were standing with me. Other passengers on the route boarded the bus although it was clearly overcrowded. Throughout the journey, the bus was carrying between 60 and 65 passengers. The bus was driven competently and within the speed limit, although some of the standing passengers lost, their balance on several occasions as the bus drove through the Wye valley or stopped in traffic in Monmouth. When we arrived at Monmouth comprehensive school, the pupils said, "This is a good day. We're only five minutes late."
I wrote to Stagecoach and Monmouthshire county council about the problem, and suggested that the pupils from Llandogo should have the use of a designated school transport bus. That seems an obvious solution. It would get the pupils to school on time in more comfort and safety, and in a mode that is similar to that used by most pupils who travel to school from the villages of Monmouthshire. It would also ensure that other passengers were not faced with a service that is overwhelmed by school pupils. The pupils of Llandogo are an exceptional case and should be provided with a designated contract bus as part of the school transport network.
A second solution to the problem is for Stagecoach to provide a duplicate bus to deal with excess passengers. Surely it feels a duty to provide an adequate service for not only the pupils, but other fare-paying passengers? Stagecoach has apparently refused to do that unless Monmouthshire county council funds it.
Both solutions have been resisted. At a recent meeting, which I requested, Stagecoach, the Gwent passenger transport unit and Monmouthshire county council decided that both of the solutions are unacceptable because they are too expensive and require breaching, or re-tendering, of the existing contracts.
The season ticket contract between Stagecoach and Monmouthshire county council for the Llandogo pupils is worth £22,000 per annum. If Stagecoach loses that revenue, the company cannot give assurances that the No. 69 service will be viable and it may be withdrawn. The contract for the No. 69 route also covers a further nine routes in Monmouthshire and applies for a further three to four years. Therefore, all of those routes may be in jeopardy. The pupils of Llandogo hold the key to the entire bus network in Monmouthshire. Stagecoach has driven a hard bargain and is abusing its monopoly. Not for the first time, it is holding the county council to ransom.

245WH
The proposed solution is to provide a larger bus—a double decker. However, double-decker buses cannot run in the Wye valley because of the overhanging trees, which are one of the route's attractive features. The quest is now on to cut the overhanging trees and to solve the problem of the overcrowded bus. Monmouthshire county council has admitted that the solution sounds complicated, but once it is achieved pruning from time to time would be relatively simple. However, it must cooperate with all the people who own land containing the affected trees and it must liase with Gloucestershire county council, which is the authority that controls the English part of the route.
Parents consider the solution to be laughable. Decisions to run larger buses were previously proposed and were not always adhered to. If the double-decker solution was so good, why was it not introduced before? Parents have little confidence that the use of double-decker buses will be an adequate solution. It appears that the safety of pupils from Llandogo who attend school in Monmouth will be dependent on a gang of tree surgeons—perhaps a company called "The Tree Fellas" could be employed to carry out the task.
Two main issues arise from the Llandogo case. The first is the abuse of Stagecoach's monopoly and the second is the legalised overcrowding of which it, and other scheduled bus service providers, may take advantage. In Monmouthshire, Stagecoach has used its monopoly by giving notice to withdraw virtually its entire bus network to lay claim to the increased public funding for rural bus services, which was introduced by the present Government. In effect, it has held the local authority to ransom. In the case of the No. 69 route between Chepstow and Monmouth, Stagecoach receives a public subsidy between £10,000 and £20,000 under the local transport services grant, which is given by the National Assembly for Wales and ring-fenced for procuring and enhancing existing services. Stagecoach also receives a guaranteed income of £22,000 from season ticket sales on the No. 69 route. In effect, it receives a double subsidy. However, it is not prepared to provide an additional bus to resolve overcrowding unless the county council funds it. To concede would mean that Stagecoach would receive a triple subsidy on the route. Surely that cannot be in the public interest or in accordance with best value practice.
Private bus operators on scheduled services can take advantage of legalised overcrowding. The issue raises serious public safety questions. Under the Education Act 1944, it is permissible for three pupils under the age of 14 to occupy two seats. However, new seat belt regulations have altered that ruling for contract buses such that if a safety belt is fitted there may be only one pupil per seat. However, that rule does not apply to scheduled bus services, which are exempt from the regulations governing the fitting of safety belts. Hence, bus operators can take advantage of that rule, which relates to legislation passed 65 years ago. Provided that the passengers are under 14, it is possible to seat 50 per cent. more passengers than the number of seats on the vehicle. What may have been acceptable in 1944 is clearly not acceptable in the 21st century, as the size of
246WH
children has increased and other school pupils are likely to be carrying bags and other items for school, including musical instruments.
A further worry is the permitted number of standing passengers. On the 53-seater bus on the No. 69 route—Chepstow to Monmouth—it is permissible to have 12 passengers standing. Theoretically, if every passenger were under the age of 14 and sitting three to a seat, it would be possible for such a bus to carry 90 passengers. On a 48-seater bus, it is possible and permissible to have 20 passengers standing. Therefore, again, if all the pupils were under 14, there could be 72 pupils in seats and 20 standing, and it would be within the law to carry 92 passengers.
Concern would be widespread if it were generally known that in 2001 it is possible under the law for a 48-seater bus to carry 92 children and young people, none of whom is required to wear seat belts on journeys to and from school. That reminds me of the case involving a school in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane), in which a contract double-decker bus was involved in an accident in which several children were injured. If there is another serious incident, will parents not ask why such overcrowding is lawful?
Why has the law relating to transport on school buses and scheduled bus services not been amended in 65 years? What assessment has the Health and Safety Executive made of the issue? I understand that the Northern Ireland Assembly is considering abolishing the three-for-two rule. If that can be done in Northern Ireland without primary legislation, why can it not be done in Wales? The law needs to be reviewed and amended. I propose that my hon. Friend the Minister should examine the matter with colleagues in the Departments for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, and for Education and Skills, and the National Assembly for Wales.
In recent years, the Government have introduced and supported some welcome initiatives on home-to-school safety. The safe to school initiative is welcome, although I understand that it is confined to walking and cycling and does not apply to school transport routes. The piloting in this country of American-style yellow buses is also welcome. Such buses are used only for the provision of school transport, and important safety regulations apply to such buses that do not generally apply in this country. The RAC should be commended for its work with local authorities and other agencies to improve home-to-school transport.
The pupils of Monmouth comprehensive who live in the village of Llandogo will this morning have travelled on the overcrowded No. 69 bus and will face similar overcrowding on their return home this afternoon. Their experience raises serious questions about the operation of the law in respect of bus safety and the monopoly position of private bus operators such as Stagecoach.
I ask my hon. Friend to liaise with the National Assembly for Wales and the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions to examine the impact of the monopoly position of private operators and to consider both the recommendations of the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and

247WH
Regional Affairs, which examined the tendering of bus services in 1999, and the law relating to the Transport Act 1985 which was chiefly responsible for the deregulation of the bus network.
I also propose that the Government use the forthcoming education Bill to amend the Education Act 1944 in relation to overcrowding and to abolish the three-for-two rule that applies to children and young people on scheduled bus services. Such a change would be inexpensive, achieve greater parity with the situation for contract buses and make a significant contribution to public safety.
I hope that the experience and discomfort of the pupils of Llandogo will lead to improvements in transport to school and will benefit all pupils.
1.45 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Wales (Mr. Don Touhig): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Edwards) on securing the debate. I have seen the news coverage of his campaign for many months and I commend him for his efforts on behalf of his constituents who, he feels, are at risk, given the way in which the service operates. As a Member of Parliament, I am acutely aware of the problems of home-to-school transport, and there are also difficulties in my borough and constituency.
Monmouthshire county council serves my hon. Friend's constituency. It is the local education authority and has a statutory duty to decide how best to meet its obligations in the matter of home-to-school transport. LEAs are obliged to provide free transport to the nearest school for pupils under eight years old who live more than two miles from the school, and for pupils above the age of eight who live more than three miles from the school.
As I learned during my time as a county councillor, LEAs can be more generous with that provision, and Monmouthshire county council already operates a 'more generous home-to-school transport policy. The relevant distances in Monmouthshire are one and a half miles for pupils under eight years of age and two miles for pupils aged eight years and over.
The LEA also operates a concessionary seat scheme under which pupils who would not normally qualify for free school transport may be allowed, for a charge, to occupy spare seats on buses. Obviously, that does not apply in the case of the bus that comes from Llandogo. The LEA also provides free school transport for pupils aged 16 to 19, whereas LEAs are statutorily obliged to provide free school transport only for children of compulsory school age up to the age of 16.
It is therefore reasonable for us to expect the LEA to ensure that pupils travel to and from school in safety and in reasonable comfort. The courts have stated that LEAs are obliged to provide non-stressful transport so that a child can travel to and from school without undue stress, strain or difficulty that would prevent him or her from benefiting from the education that the school has to offer. The transport provided should be appropriate to ensure that pupils travel in safety and comfort. It is therefore reasonable to expect LEAs, in their contracts with bus drivers, to ensure that transport that is provided for children is of a standard that would encourage them to use it and to use it safely.
248WH
Of course, the bus service to which my hon. Friend referred is not a dedicated bus service but a scheduled bus service. As the LEA is using that scheduled service as the provider of school transport for children from Llandogo to Monmouth comprehensive school, the same requirements apply.
Mr. Edwards: I thank my hon. Friend for clarifying the legal position. Does he agree that everyone who is making decisions in that matter—at Stagecoach and at Monmouthshire county council—should experience what I have experienced? They should go on that bus and assess whether it is stressful and causes the pupils strain or difficulty.
Mr. Touhig: I take my hon. Friend's point. He might care to invite the chair of education in Monmouthshire to travel on the bus with him and to see what he thinks of the difficulties of coming from Llandogo to Monmouth. On public service vehicles such as the one used on that route, the Public Service Vehicle (Carrying Capacity) (Amendment) Regulations 1994 permit three seated children under the age of 14 to count as two passengers. My hon. Friend made that point powerfully. That is a concession, and if bus operators such as Stagecoach wish to take advantage of it, they must ensure that it is possible to seat children in the manner prescribed by the regulations.
The concession applies only to children under 14, but my hon. Friend says that pupils attending Monmouth comprehensive school are aged between 11 and 18 years. I cannot see how the county council and the bus operator can ensure that the concession is not abused. To comply, they would need to check the age of every child and ensure that, where three pupils occupy two seats, they are under the age of 14. My hon. Friend may like to take the issue up with the county council and the bus operator, Stagecoach.
From 1 October, schools may be offered rear-facing seats with seat belts in new minibuses and coaches that comply with the European directive, but children must continue to be provided with forward-facing seats with seat belts in older vehicles that are used exclusively to provide home-to-school transport. Until recently, legislation required that seatbelts be fitted only in coaches and minibuses that carry children to and from school and on organised trips.
The regulations signal the beginning of the end of the concession that allows three children under the age of 14 to travel in two seats. My hon. Friend has painted a serious picture of what could happen if a bus of the capacity that he mentions has an accident. The county council and the bus operator must take account of that possibility. From what I have heard today, it seems that the arrangements for transporting pupils from Llandogo to Monmouth comprehensive school may be unsatisfactory. The county council and the bus operator may be failing in their responsibilities.
I cannot tell my hon. Friend that the Government will provide measures in the forthcoming education Bill that would answer his queries on the Education Act 1944, but we have made secondary legislation to implement new safety standards for seat belts. Additionally, Sue Essex, the Welsh Minister for the Environment, who has responsibility for transport, issued a consultation paper

249WH
in September called "Safe Roads, Safe Communities." She would welcome suggestions on road safety, including any that my hon. Friend or his constituents might make on school transport. The consultation period ends on 30 November, so there is ample time to make a contribution.
I am so concerned about what I have read in the newspapers, and more so by what my hon. Friend has said on the subject of the bus route, that I intend to ask the Welsh Minister for Education and Lifelong Learning, Jane Davidson, to contact Monmouthshire county council as soon as possible, to see how the problem can be overcome. It is unsatisfactory for the situation to continue as my hon. Friend describes it and
250WH
I will do all that I can to assist him and my colleague the Welsh Minister to bring that to a satisfactory conclusion.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at seven minutes to Two o'clock.

Transport to School

  MR. SPEAKER'S RULING (WRITTEN QUESTIONS)
  The following Private Ruling given by Mr. Speaker is published in accordance with Mr. Speaker's statement of 5 November 1981—[Official Report, c. 113.]
  With effect from 2 November, Departments may answer written questions put down for answer on Fridays from 9.35 am, rather than 12 noon as previously.

DEFENCE

  Pensions
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the cost of the retrospective recognition of pre-1975 military service for pension purposes. [10433]

  Mr. Ingram
  Before 1975, and currently, pensions were awarded to Service personnel who completed at least 22 years' reckonable service (or 16 years' reckonable service in the case of officers). Gratuities were awarded to those who did not qualify for a pension but had completed 12 years' reckonable service (or nine years in the case of officers).

  It has been the long-standing policy of successive Governments that changes to improve benefits from public service pension schemes should normally be implemented from a current date for future service only.

  In the case of the Armed Forces Pension Scheme, in order to calculate the precise cost of awarding pension rights retrospectively, my Department would have to identify and assess the potential entitlements of all service men who left service before April 1975 without completing enough service to qualify for a pension. There are probably several hundred thousand if not more than a million former service men in this category. An accurate estimate could, therefore, be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  None the less, we can be clear that the cost of awarding pensions retrospectively would be considerable. In addition, such a retrospection could not be applied solely to former service men, and would require a change for all public service pension schemes.

  Service Accommodation
  Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent assessment he has made of the overall standard of Single Living Accommodation. [9796]

  Dr. Moonie
  The condition of Single Living Accommodation has been examined in detail to underpin decisions on the major investment programme announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence on 14 March 2001,Official Report, column 600W, in particular the Single Living Accommodation Modernisation prime contract which we plan to award by the end of 2002. Recent surveys indicate that roughly half of the Single Living Accommodation is sub-standard. The Ministry of Defence's objective is to improve all Single Living Accommodation to single bedrooms with en suite shower, wash hand basin and toilet facilities. To this end, an additional £1 billion worth of investment is planned over the next 10 years.

  Veterans
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress he has made in publicising and demonstrating assistance offered to veterans of the armed services by central and local government. [10215]

  Dr. Moonie
  Since my appointment as Minister for Veterans' Affairs on 14 March significant progress has been made in publicising and demonstrating the aims of the Veterans' Initiative. The Ministry of Defence has established a Veterans' Affairs Secretariat and I have chaired two meetings of the Veterans' Forum comprising the Confederation of British Service and Ex-Service Organisations (COBSEO) executive committee members, and officials from Government Departments with an interest in veterans' affairs. I also chaired the first meeting of the Forum in Plenary session on 16 October, which was attended by 158 delegates from veterans' organisations, welfare providers and pressure groups. The Plenary programme included a presentation from the DTLR's National Housing Federation which gave veterans advice on how to get the most out of the "Supporting People" initiative currently being taken forward by local government. The Veterans' Forum has fully endorsed the Strategic Action Plan to take forward the Veterans' Initiative and I will now present the plan to my ministerial colleagues at the Veterans' Task Force on 6 November.

  A short press release was issued after each forum meeting and minutes of forum and task force meetings, including a copy of the Strategic Action Plan, have been widely circulated among the veterans' community and are available on the MOD website: http://www.mod.uk/vau

  Chinook Helicopters
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list(a) by date and (b) by aircraft serial number, all incidents of uncommanded flight control movements in Chinook helicopters since 1 January 1999: and what their cause was. [10638]

  Mr. Ingram
  Uncommanded movements are defined as an unusual movement of flying controls or rotors that are not caused by pilot inputs.

  The table lists the incidents of uncommanded flying control movements in Chinook helicopters since 1 January 1999 and their determined causes.

  Uncommanded flying control movements in Chinook aircraft since 1999

  Date

  Tail number

  Cause

  1999

  12 March

  ZA712

  Faulty AFCS

  17 March

  ZA718

  Faulty DASH actuator and directional gyro

  20 April

  ZD983

  Directional gyro out of tolerance

  29 April

  ZH775

  Faulty AFCS and directional gyro

  14 June

  ZA718

  Faulty directional gyro

  29 July

  ZA718

  Faulty AFCS and directional gyro

  29 October

  ZA711

  Faulty directional gyro

  18 November

  ZA711

  Faulty directional gyro

  2000

  6 January

  ZA714

  Faulty AFCS

  6 January

  ZA718

  Faulty AFCS

  11 February

  ZA682

  Faulty vertical gyro

  4 April

  ZA682

  Faulty DASH actuator gear assembly

  5 April

  ZA679

  Faulty DASH actuator

  5 April

  ZA684

  Faulty directional gyro connector

  565W

  Uncommanded flying control movements in Chinook aircraft since 1999

  Date

  Tail number

  Cause

  30 May

  ZA710

  Faulty AFCS

  24 July

  ZA679

  Faulty AFCS and DASH actuator

  5 August

  ZA674

  Faulty cables to AFCS

  9 November

  ZA671

  Faulty vertical gyro

  12 November

  ZA671

  Faulty AFCS

  2001

  17 January

  ZH777

  Units replaced following pitch oscillations

  1 March

  ZA709

  Faulty directional gyro

  1 May

  ZA674

  Faulty directional gyro

  24 May

  ZA680

  Faulty lower control actuators

  5 July

  ZD981

  Faulty attitude indicator

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list each occasion on which pilots have temporarily lost control of RAF Chinook helicopters during an uncommanded flying control movement. [10637]

  Mr. Ingram
  No such instances have occurred. Aircrew have retained full control of the aircraft whenever an uncommanded flying control movement has taken place by successfully mitigating the effects of the control movement.

  Defence Spending
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his estimate is (1) of the level of UK defence spending as a share of UK gross domestic product for each year from 1973–74 to 2002–03; and if he will make a statement; [10493]

  (2) UK defence spending as a share of gross domestic product for each of the last 25 years; and if he will make a statement. [10631]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 29 October 2001]: Following the introduction of resource accounting and budgeting (RAB) in the Ministry of Defence on 1 April 2001, future financial planning, management and reporting is conducted on the new resource basis.

  UK defence spending as a share of the UK GDP from 1973–74 to 2000–01

  Financial year

  Percentage GDP

  1973–74

  4.7

  1974–75

  4.7

  1975–76

  4.8

  1976–77

  4.7

  1977–78

  4.5

  1978–79

  4.4

  1979–80

  4.5

  1980–81

  4.8

  1981–82

  4.9

  1982–83

  5.2

  1983–84

  5.1

  1984–85

  5.3

  1985–86

  5.0

  1986–87

  4.7

  1987–88

  4.4

  1988–89

  4.0

  1989–90

  4.0

  1990–91

  3.9

  1991–92

  4.1

  1992–93

  3.7

  1993–94

  3.5

  1994–95

  3.3

  1995–96

  3.0

  566W

  UK defence spending as a share of the UK GDP from 1973–74 to 2000–01

  Financial year

  Percentage GDP

  1996–97

  2.9

  1997–98

  2.6

  1998–99

  2.6

  1999–2000

  2.5

  2000–01

  2.5

  Using defence based figures announced in the 2000 spending review, defence budget expenditure is expected to represent the following share of GDP for 2001–02 and 2002–03.

  Financial year

  Percentage GDP

  2001–02

  2.4

  2002–03

  2.3

  Sovereign Bases
  Mr. Hague
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the status of Sovereign Bases under UK law. [10502]

  Mr. Ingram
  The legal status of the UK Sovereign Base Areas on Cyprus is as set out in the Cyprus Act 1960 and the 1960 Treaty of Establishment. Under the Act, the Sovereign Base Areas were retained as UK sovereign territory when the Republic of Cyprus achieved independence.

  Frigates and Destroyers
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the predicted total number of frigates and destroyers will be in the Royal Navy after the final type 45 destroyer comes into service. [10116]

  Mr. Ingram
  On current plans and based on the outcome of the Strategic Defence Review, the number of frigates and destroyers in service after the final type 45 destroyer comes into service will be 32.

  NATO
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made by his Department in implementing each of the decisions of the NATO Defence Capabilities Initiative. [11454]

  Mr. Hoon
  I am pleased by the progress achieved by NATO in improving military capabilities in line with the 59 Decisions of the Defence Capabilities Initiative (DCI), although I acknowledge that much still remains to be done.

  A number of DC1 Decisions propose action for the Alliance as a whole, rather than for individual nations. Often these address standards and procedures rather than specific capabilities. The UK is working with Allies and the NATO International Staffs to achieve success in these areas.

  The UK's own DCI performance has been relatively strong. It compares well with the Alliance average and reflects capability enhancements such as the introduction

  567W
  of the C17 strategic transport aircraft, the acquisition of a greater sealift capability and development and procurement of new precision guided munitions.

  Helicopter Accident (Sierra Leone)
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the recent fatal helicopter accident in Kenema, Sierra Leone. [11451]

  Mr. Ingram
  At approximately 7.15 am local time on Friday 19 October, a HIND helicopter belonging to the Sierra Leone armed forces crashed about fives miles south west of Kenema, Sierra Leone. Regrettably, a British Army Officer, Major Vanessa Lang, sustained head injuries in the crash, and subsequently died of her injuries in hospital in Kenema. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I extend our deep condolences to Major Lang's family.

  Major Lang was working from the British Military Headquarters in Freetown as a media adviser to the Sierra Leone armed forces. She was travelling in the helicopter to provide advice to the Sierra Leone Army on their information strategy in relation to a planned border security operation. The other five occupants of the helicopter included a British Non-Commissioned Officer and an Australian Major: none received serious injuries in the accident. British accident investigators are assisting the Government of Sierra Leone in the investigation into the precise cause of the accident.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Human Rights Commission
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many additional appointments are to be made to the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission; and on what date these appointments will be made. [10560]

  Mr. Browne
  I intend to announce the outcome of the recent competition for appointment to the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission in the near future.

  Semi-automatic Weapons
  John McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the criteria are for the granting of a licence for a semi-automatic weapon in Northern Ireland. [7836]

  Jane Kennedy
  Firearms licensing in Northern Ireland is the responsibility of the Chief Constable under the Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 and is generally more restrictive than in Great Britain. For example, all firearms, including shotguns and air guns, require a firearm certificate. The Chief Constable shall not permit a person to hold a firearm certificate unless he is satisfied of certain statutory criteria—that a person is not prohibited by law from possessing a firearm and that the requirements in respect of fitness, good reason and public safety have been met.

  The Chief Constable has advised us that the term "semi-automatic weapon" is not specifically defined in the legislation and can therefore be open to wide interpretation, eg shotguns (including pump action),
  568W
  .22 rifles and handguns (not revolvers), target weapons and prohibited weapons. To provide an answer to this question would require an in-depth search of police records and incur disproportionate cost.

  John McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) how many applications have been registered for semi-automatic weapons in the last 12 months in Northern Ireland; [7834]

  (2) how many licences for semi-automatic weapons were granted in the last 12 months in Northern Ireland. [7835]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Chief Constable has advised us that the term "semi-automatic weapon" is not specifically defined in the legislation and can therefore be open to wide interpretation, eg shotguns (including pump action), 22 rifles and handguns (not revolvers), target weapons and prohibited weapons. To provide an answer to this question would require an in-depth search of police records and incur disproportionate cost.

TRANSPORT, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE REGIONS

  Railway Network
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how much public money has been invested in the railway network in each of the last 10 years. [8877]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The information requested is contained in the latest (September 2001) edition of the Strategic Rail Authority bulletin "National Rail Trends".

  Thameslink
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if the timetable of the Thameslink investment programme will be affected by Railtrack going into administration. [9378]

  Mr. Spellar
  I refer the right hon. Member to the reply given by the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) on 24 October 2001,Official Report, column 222W.

  Ministerial Visit (Brazil)
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what was(a) the itinerary for and (b) the cost of the Minister for Housing's visit to Brazil of 4 to 8 November 2000. [9891]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I led a successful trade mission to Brazil and Chile from 5–10 November. We visited Rio de Janeiro, São Paulo and Santiago. Accompanying me were around a dozen representatives from the British construction industry. The purpose of the mission was to promote British construction exports.

  In Rio de Janeiro we met with the Municipal Secretary for Housing, representatives of Town Hall's Favela Bairro Programme, representatives of the UK and Brazilian Oil and Gas companies, the President of SINICON (Association for Heavy Construction), the British Chamber of Commerce, the State Secretary for Sanitation and Water Resource, representatives from CEDAE (local

  569W
  water company), and ABES (sanitary engineers), a group of top architects from Rio, and local British and Brazilian businessmen. I also visited the Copa D'Or Hospital where I met with the President of D'Or Group.

  In São Paulo we met with SABESP (Water Company) the Brazilian Trade Association for the Construction Industry, PINI Publishers, the Brazilian British Centre, ABRAS (retail association), the State Secretary for Transport and the President of Cia do Metropolitano de São Paulo Metro. We also made a site visit to a major road construction scheme with Rodanel and contributed to a PFI Seminar for representatives of the construction and finance sector in Brazil.

  The total cost to the public funds of the mission to Brazil was approximately £9,800. This covered the cost of my travel and accommodation, local transportation, incidental expenses, interpreters' fees and that of my Private Secretary who accompanied me.

  Railtrack
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what research his Department has conducted into the impact a not-for-profit Railtrack will have on rail safety, reliability, ability to raise funds for investment purposes, and its own public acceptability. [9892]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Our proposed company limited by guarantee (CLG) would be able to make an operating surplus, which would be re-invested in establishing reserves and in developing the network. Our proposals are now being developed and we will work to ensure that the CLG would be able to raise funds for investment and have a positive impact on rail safety and reliability.

  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment he made of the financial position of Railtrack before deciding to apply for an administration order. [9833]

  Mr. Spellar
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given today by the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) to the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban),Official Report, column 572W, and to his answer of 23 October 2001, Official Report, column 195W.

  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what meetings he held with officials from the IPPR to discuss their model for a not-for-profit trust prior to his decision to take Railtrack into administration. [9835]

  Mr. Spellar
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) to the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) on 18 October 2001,Official Report, column 1319W.

  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if the Safety and Standards Directorate of Railtrack will be transferred to the new railway industry safety body. [9824]

  Mr. Spellar
  On 1 January this year the industry-wide functions of Railtrack's Safety and Standards Directorate were incorporated into a separate, non-profit making company, within the Railtrack Group—Railway Safety.570W
  Lord Cullen has recommended that most of the functions carried out by Railway Safety should be undertaken by the new Rail Industry Safety Body.

  We shall publish in this parliamentary Session our plans to take forward Lord Cullen's recommendation to establish a fully independent industry safety body.

  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he has received confirmation from the European Commission that his plans for Railtrack are compatible with European law. [9829]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Secretary of State will ensure that any proposals for restructuring the railway industry are compatible with European law.

  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if Railtrack's administrators will be permitted to dispose of non-operational assets and return the proceeds of any such disposals to Railtrack's shareholders. [9828]

  Mr. Spellar
  The administrator is required to manage the transfer, as a going concern, of as much of Railtrack plc's undertaking as it is necessary to transfer in order to ensure that the relevant activities may be properly carried on. The administrator's proposed transfer scheme must then be passed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for consideration and approval. It is then for the administrator to determine whether any residual value can be distributed, and on what basis.

  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what information was given by his officials to Railtrack executives in their meeting on 3 October about his intentions to take Railtrack into administration. [9840]

  Mr. Spellar
  None. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State took the decision to refuse Railtrack's proposal for additional funding on 5 October.

  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will place in the Library(a) a copy of written statements from Railtrack substantiating its requests for extra subsidy and (b) an analysis of the decisions of the Regulator on such funds. [9837]

  Mr. Spellar
  Documents provided to my Department by Railtrack relating to the company's requests for extra funding remain commercially confidential. These documents have not been analysed by the Rail Regulator.

  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when and how he informed the Strategic Rail Authority of his decision(a) to put Railtrack into railway administration and (b) to replace it with a Government-owned non profit-making company. [9830]

  Mr. Spellar
  My officials informed the Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) on 6 October.

  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what representations he has received from City firms about future private investment in the national railway network since 11 September. [9858]
  571W
  Mr. Spellar
  My officials and my Department's advisers have had a number of contacts with financial institutions since Railtrack plc was placed into administration.

  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, if he will provide Railtrack plc with sufficient funds to complete the modernisation of train protection systems. [9827]

  Mr. Spellar
  I refer the hon. Member to the Deputy Prime Minister's statements to the House on 20 July 2000,Official Report, column 549, and 24 October 2000, Official Report, column 136.

  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how much private money was invested in equity share issues by Railtrack; what is the cumulative value of dividends paid out on that equity; and if he will estimate the cumulative interest payable on the same amount of gilt edged stock. [10147]

  Mr. Spellar
  The flotation of Railtrack Group Plc on 20 May 1996 raised gross proceeds of f1.93 billion from equity investors.

  Since 20 May 1996, Railtrack Group Plc have paid out £709 million in cash, or equivalent, dividends.

  The amount of interest payable on gilt edged stock is dependent on the coupon and maturity of the stock that is bought.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what recent meetings he has had with the Strategic Rail Authority to discuss recent developments affecting Railtrack. [10173]

  Mr. Jamieson
  My officials are in regular contact with the Strategic Rail Authority.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions under the new arrangements proposed for Railtrack and the railway sector, to what extent(a) train operating companies and (b) Railtrack would have responsibility for safety. [10174]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The successor company to Railtrack plc would need to meet the same safety requirements as its predecessor. Train operating companies' safety responsibility would not be affected.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment he has made of the implications for the planned improvements to the east coast main line of the decision to put Railtrack into administration. [10172]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The decision to put Railtrack into administration will have no immediate implications for the planned improvements to the east coast main line (ECML). The development studies for the ECML upgrade are being jointly carried out and funded by the Strategic Rail Authority and Railtrack. This will continue unchanged until the end of this financial year. The review of the upgrade objectives is a continuous process as part of the project's development. Decisions on planned improvements will be subject to the outcome of these reviews regardless of whether or not Railtrack is in administration.
  572W
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to compensate Railtrack employees holding shares in Railtrack plc. [9906]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 24 October 2001]: The Government will do their utmost to ensure shareholders get fair value for money but they will not use additional taxpayers' money to create value.

  As my right hon. Friend made clear in his statement on 15 October, no further taxpayers' money will be put into Railtrack to compensate shareholders.

  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will place in the Library the calculation supporting the statement he made on 15 October that Railtrack would be in deficit by £700 million by 8 December this year and £1.7 billion by the end of March next year. [10195]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 25 October 2001]: The figures are those stated in the report at Exhibit "DR3" in the bundle of High Court papers, copies of which have already been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what his estimate is of the cash needs of Railtrack plc(a) between now and its next year-end and (b) for the following year; and how much of this will be supplied by the Treasury. [9780]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 23 October 2001]: The Government have committed to provide the Railway Administrators with the financial support necessary to ensure that the rail network can remain fully operational throughout the administration of Railtrack Plc. The Administrators, who are currently undertaking a thorough review of Railtrack's business and cost base, will determine the overall case needs of Railtrack Plc during this period.

  In respect of the funding arrangements, I refer the right hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Lawrie Quinn) on 17 October 2001, Official Report, column 1230W.

  Services for Deaf People
  Kate Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if local authorities are obliged to adhere to a minimum standard of service provision with regard to providing interpretation services for deaf residents. [9878]

  Dr. Whitehead
  Part three of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 applies to services to the public provided by local authorities. Where access to a service is impossible or unreasonably difficult for a disabled person, a local authority will be under a duty to make a reasonable adjustment to the way the service is provided. This might involve providing British Sign Language interpretation for a deaf person.

  We would expect local authorities to consult deaf people as necessary over the provision of all services as part of best value reviews. Statutory guidance emphasises the need to consult all groups: these will include those who are deaf and their representative bodies.
  573W
  Kate Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to implement a London-wide translation service for deaf residents. [9877]

  Dr. Whitehead
  There are no current plans to implement a London-wide translation service for deaf residents. The provision of services is a matter for the London boroughs in the light of local needs. We are actively encouraging authorities jointly to review services under best value, and there is nothing to prevent a review being carried out London-wide, perhaps co-ordinated through the GLA or the LGA. However, this is ultimately a matter for the boroughs.

  Ladbroke Grove Rail Inquiry
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how much funding is necessary to provide the signalling and safety equipment suggested by the Cullen Inquiry into the Ladbroke Grove accident; and over what period he expects this funding to be delivered. [9839]

  Mr. Spellar
  I refer the hon. Member to the Deputy Prime Minister's statements to the House on 20 July 2000,Official Report, column 549 and 24 October 2000, Official Report, column 136.

  Rail Investment
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how much investment has been made in the(a) east coast main line and (b) west coast main line in each of the last 15 years. [10128]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Figures for infrastructure expenditure on the east coast main line and west coast main line are only readily available since 1998, when Railtrack first published its Network Management Statement (NMS).

  1998–99

  East coast main line—£75 million

  West coast main line—£250 million

  1999–2000

  East coast main line—£95 million

  West coast main line—£461 million

  2000–01

  East coast main line—£181 million

  West coast main line—£823 million.

  Until publication of the NMS, Railtrack, and previously British Rail, recorded expenditure by zone, or sector, not line of route.

  Mandatory Services
  Mr. Mark Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will introduce greater freedom for local councils to charge for mandatory services. [10071]

  Dr. Whitehead
  In the Green Paper "Modernising Local Government Finance" (September 2000) we said that in addition to extending local authorities' power to charge for services they provide at their discretion, we would, in the longer term, review the policy on charges for mandatory services.

  Housing Stock (Borrowing)
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what proposals he has to allow local authorities to borrow against the value of their housing stock; and if he will make a statement. [10127]

  Dr. Whitehead
  We announced on 21 March 2001,Official Report, column 250W, our intention to abolish the present system of local authority capital controls. This will be replaced by a system under which local authorities would be free to borrow without obtaining Government approval; the new arrangements will apply to borrowing for housing expenditure. Legislation will be introduced as soon as parliamentary time allows.

  The amount of borrowing that an authority can undertake will depend on the resources available to service debt and be subject to a Prudential Code which is currently being developed. The impact of the new freedom will, therefore, depend on what revenue resources an authority can make available for this purpose while meeting other liabilities.

  There is no proposal to remove the present prohibition on the mortgaging of local authority capital assets. Loans by authorities are secured on all the revenues of the authority and that will remain the position.

  Public Interest Trusts
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what meetings were held by officials of his Department to discuss(a) Project Ariel and (b) not-for-profit public interest trusts; and when these were held. [10192]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 25 October 2001]: Under paragraph 2 of Part 11 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, it is not the practice to disclose details of internal communications.

  Vehicles (Pedestrian Protection Standards)
  Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will publish a chronology of(a) research undertaken by and (b) proposals for pedestrian protection standards for cars for the Transport Research Laboratory. [11137]

  Mr. Jamieson
  A major programme of research into pedestrian protection was carried out by TRL between 1992 and 1999 under project S220C/VF. This project covered TRL's input into the work of EEVC Committees WG10 and WG17 including the development of test tools, an early cost-benefit analysis, and some work on the additional problems caused by pull bars. The completion of this work coincided with the presentation of the final report of WG17 to the European Commission, covering recommendations for test tools and procedures for assessing the pedestrian protection offered by cars.

  A copy of the final report of this work, "Pedestrian protection test procedures and design: Final report (April 1992 to March 1999)—TRL report 480", which gives full chronological details is being placed in the Library.

  Since 1999 further work by TRL in the area of pedestrian protection has concentrated on further refinement of the test tools, some analysis of the Honda

  575W
  Civic and a preliminary comparative benefit analysis of phase 1 of the ACEA proposals. This work will be incorporated in the final project report in late 2002. The following interim reports are being placed in the Library:
  "Assessment of the damped, production version of the TRL pedestrian legform impactor (unpublished project report PR/SE/030/00)"
  "Assessment of TNO's new child and adult headform impactors for EEVC (WG17) (unpublished project report PR/SE/097/00)"
  "Summary of progress towards pedestrian protection test procedures—April 1999 to March 2001 (unpublished project report PR/SE/143/00)"
  "Development of a biofidelic pedestrian and vehicle model for reviewing the EECV upper legform test energies (unpublished project report PR/SE/309/01)".

  TRL have not made any proposals for pedestrian protection standards for cars.

  Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what parliamentary procedure he will adopt for(a) the proposed mandatory test standards for vehicles protection for pedestrians and (b) the voluntary proposals; and what procedure will be adopted by the European Parliament. [11133]

  Mr. Jamieson
  There is no formal proposal from the European Commission for the introduction of mandatory pedestrian protection test standards for vehicles. The proposal for a negotiated agreement with manufacturers is subject to full parliamentary scrutiny, and an Explanatory Memorandum was submitted on 10 October. The proposal is also currently being considered by the European Parliament.

  Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when COREPER will discuss pedestrian protection standards for vehicles; what the UK objectives are at COREPER on this issue; when Ministers will next meet in the European Council to discuss it; and if he will make a statement. [11132]

  Mr. Jamieson
  COREPER plan to discuss pedestrian protection on either 7 or 9 November. Our objective at COREPER is to bring about improvements in pedestrian protection in Europe. The issue will next be discussed by Ministers at the Internal Market, Consumer Affairs and Tourism Council on 26 November.

  Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make it his policy to adopt the highest proposed standard for pedestrian protection standards for vehicles. [11136]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Our policy is to bring about the introduction of effective European measures to make car fronts safer for the benefit of pedestrians. In practical terms this means finding a reasonable balance between the technical standards proposed in the initial stages and ensuring early implementation.

  Road Schemes
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions which major road schemes each highway authority has included 576W
  in its full local transport plan and first annual progress report where funding is not being sought in the Local Transport Settlement 2001. [10487]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Not all local authorities have included in their full local transport plans or first annual progress reports information on those road schemes for which they are considering making a bid for LTP funding in future years. In many cases they have yet to make decisions on whether to make such a bid. We know of a number of schemes where the authority has forewarned us that they may be making a bid and in some cases has provided us with some information. These include:

  A171 Burniston/Cloughton Bypass

  A19 Shipton/Beningbrough Bypass

  A24 Ashington to Southwater Route Safety Strategy

  A228 Leybourne and West Mailing Bypass

  A228 Ropers Lane (Phase 2)

  A260 Hawkinge Bypass

  A38/A390 Link Dobwalls

  A391 Corridor

  A418 improvements including a Rowsham Bypass

  A418 Wing Bypass

  A605 Stanground Bypass

  A684 Leeming/Aiskew/Bedale Bypass

  Botley Bypass

  Chickenhall Lane Link Road

  East Kent Access (Phases 2 and 3)

  Newhaven Port Access Road

  North-West Relief Road, Shrewsbury

  Tunstall Northern Bypass.

  There are other schemes which have been bid for in the past but which were not accepted for funding. Where such schemes were not rejected outright authorities are free to bid for these schemes again. These include:

  A57 Cadishead Way

  Heysham—M6 Link Road

  Wylye Valley Relief Road.

  In other cases, authorities are seeking decisions in December 2001, although the planned spend profile of the schemes concerned means that no funding is sought for the 2002–03 financial year.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when(a) English Nature, (b) the Countryside Agency and (c) English Heritage (i) were and (ii) will be consulted on local road schemes being considered for funding in the Local Transport Settlement 2001. [10485]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Local authorities bidding for road schemes under the Local Transport Plan system are required to consult the four statutory bodies—English Nature, English Heritage, the Countryside Agency and the Environment Agency—before submitting their bids. In addition, once the bid documents were received by my Department in August the Appraisal Summary Tables for all road schemes were sent to the four bodies to seek their further views on the schemes. The bodies have been kept informed of alterations to the tables.
  577W
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) if he is presented with appraisal summary tables for each of the options before deciding whether to approve a major road scheme; [10633]

  (2) if his Department requires appraisal summary tables to be submitted for more than one option when a local authority seeks funding for a major road scheme. [10634]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Before major local road schemes can be accepted for funding, local authorities need to demonstrate that they have considered alternative approaches. Submission of appraisal summary tables for each alternative is not required but decisions will only be taken once we are satisfied that these have been subject to proper consideration. Decisions are based on all of the evidence available to the Department.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the major new road schemes submitted by local authorities for funding(a) by 31 July and (b) after 31 July. [10488]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The following major new road schemes were submitted for funding by(a) 31 July:

  A1 South East Northumberland Link Road

  A1198 Papworth Everard Bypass

  A182 East Durham Link Road

  A228 Main Road to Ropers Lane (Phase 1)

  A24 Horsham-Capel Improvement

  A34 Alderley Edge Bypass

  A350 Westbury Bypass Town Centre Scheme

  A36 Codford-Heytesbury Improvement

  A52 Grantham East-West Bypass

  A57(T) M1 Junction 31-Todwick Crossroads

  A6096 Ilkeston Awsworth Link

  A612 Gedling ITP Scheme

  A628 Cudworth and West Green Bypass

  Aston Northern Bypass (Phase 2)

  Bletchley Link

  Central Route, Sunderland

  Central Somerset Access Package

  East Middlesbrough Corridor

  Junction 11 M4 Improvement Proposals

  Kiln Lane Link, Surrey

  Markham Employment Growth Zone

  Northern Gateway Stage 2, Newcastle

  Oakham Bypass

  Poole Bridge Regeneration Initiative

  Roscommon Way Extension, Essex

  Selly Oak Relief Road

  and (b) after 31 July

  Luton East Corridor.

  Information on the scheme listed in (b) was submitted after 31 July with the full agreement of the Department.

  In some cases revised information on the schemes listed in (a) was sought from authorities after 31 July.
  578W
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if the New Approach to Appraisal applies to(a) national and (b) local major road schemes which are financed by private capital. [10486]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The New Approach to Appraisal (NATA) applies to all trunk and local major road schemes that have some element of public funding. For developer-funded trunk road highway works, the principles of NATA apply, though the form of application may vary. For developer-funded local road schemes, local highway authorities have scope to decide on the appropriate approach and may apply NATA.

  Chiltern Line Franchise
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he expects to reach a final decision on the renewal of the Chiltern line franchise; and if he will make a statement. [11449]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Strategic Rail Authority is, I understand, close to concluding negotiations and will then seek the Secretary of State's consent to their entering into a new agreement.

  Travel Concessions
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) if he will include travel concessions on Isle of Wight ferries in forthcoming legislation; [11463]

  (2) what further provision he proposes to make for travel concessions for elderly people in forthcoming legislation. [11462]

  Ms Keeble
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply of 10 July 2001,Official Report, column 339W.

  Pensioner Journeys
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what information he has collated on the annual number of pensioner journeys(a) by train, (b) by coach, (c) by underground. (d) bus and (e) as foot passengers on ferries. [11464]

  Ms Keeble
  It is estimated that there were 10.5 million people of pension age (65 and over for men and 60 and over for women) in 2000.

  The number of annual journeys made by pensioners, averaged over the years 1998 to 2000, were (a) 46 million by train, (b) 790 million by bus, (c) 26 million by coach, and (d) 30 million by London Underground. No data are available on journeys by ferry.

  10-Year Plan for Transport
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what provision has been made for local road maintenance in the 10-Year Plan for Transport. [11643]
  579W
  Mr. Jamieson
  The Government are providing £30 billion for local road maintenance over the next 10 years, not £10 billion as I stated in my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Peter Bradley) on 23 October 2001 Official Report, column 136.

  Housebuilding (Hertfordshire)
  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what representations he has received from councillors concerning housebuilding targets for Hertfordshire. [5570]

  Ms Keeble
  [pursuant to the reply, 23 October 2001, c. 132]: My right hon. Friend has received no representations from individual councillors since comments were invited in December 2000 (and not November 2000 as originally stated) on the proposed changes to housing distribution, although local authorities made representations.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what is the target, in tonnes, of the delivery of food to Afghanistan; by what means the food is being delivered; and what obstacles have to be overcome to increase the supply of food to Afghanistan. [10795]

  Hilary Benn
  The World Food Programme's monthly target for food delivery into Afghanistan is 52,000 metric tonnes. WFP is trucking food to Afghanistan by land routes from neighbouring countries. It continues to make progress on increasing the supply of food to Afghanistan, but obstacles do remain.

  In addition to the physical challenges of distributing food to distant villages on poor roads, obstacles include: a lack of hauliers willing to undertake the work; local NGO staff unable to show up for work to oversee secondary distribution; limited communication with local staff; and the fact that case load lists are becoming outdated due to further population displacement. The fear of harassment and looting of supplies by some elements of the Taliban is further compounding an already difficult situation.

  We are doing all we can to support WFP in overcoming these obstacles, so that food delivery can continue to increase now and over the winter. WFP is looking into all options for delivering food, including opening up new land routes from the north, as well as air operations, to support the people of Afghanistan in the coming weeks and months. We have already allocated £3 million to WFP for its response to the Afghan crisis.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the dietary content is of the foodstuff being delivered to Afghanistan; and who assesses it. [10793]
  580W
  Hilary Benn
  The food being dispatched to Afghanistan by the World Food Programme (WFP) to feed vulnerable people is primarily made up of wheat and wheat flour. This is being supplemented in some areas by other foodstuffs provided by local and international non-governmental organisations (NGOs), such as pulses, oils, and fresh foods where available. Individual agencies are responsible for assessing the dietary content of the food that they dispatch. Availability of food stocks and logistical constraints play a large part in determining what they are able to deliver.

  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the humanitarian situation in Afghanistan. [8821]

  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on humanitarian relief to Afghanistan and Afghan refugees in Pakistan and the surrounding regions. [9981]

  Hilary Benn
  I refer the hon. Members to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development to the House on 24 October 2001,Official Report column 283.

  North Korea
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what contribution her Department made to the World Food Programme and other agencies for famine relief and food distribution in North Korea in the last financial year. [9816]

  Hilary Benn
  The Department for International Development did not make any contribution to the World Food Programme (WFP) for North Korea in the last financial year. However we did provide a total of £500,000 towards famine relief and related activities in North Korea. This included £200.000 through World Vision for restoring the food production capacity of six co-operative farms under the United Nations Development Programme's Agricultural Recovery and Environmental Protection Programme. We also allocated £300,000 directly to UNDP in support of two parts of AREP.

  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what measures are taken by the World Food Programme and other multilateral agencies that distribute famine relief in North Korea to ensure that the food is consumed by those for whom it is intended. [9817]

  Hilary Benn
  The World Food Programme (WFP) is the only multilateral agency involved in the distribution of food aid in North Korea, apart from a small input through UNICEF. WFP's food aid programme is targeted at vulnerable groups including children under five, primary and secondary school children, orphans and children in other health institutions, pregnant women and the elderly. WFP work only in provinces to which they have access (currently 167 out of a total of 211). This is essential for carrying out assessments of need, and to undertake monitoring. WFP run an intensive programme of monitoring visits to beneficiaries.

  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps are taken to monitor the distribution of food for famine relief by the agencies responsible in North Korea. [9819]
  581W
  Hilary Benn
  The World Food Programme (WFP) is the lead UN Agency for food relief distribution within North Korea. WFP works with the Food Aid Liaison Unit within the Government's Public Distribution System which co-ordinates the work of non-governmental organisations involved in the sector. This includes the monitoring of food aid through these agencies. WFP monitors food both on its arrival in North Korea and at distribution points. The programme averages 300 monitoring visits per month.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Terrorist Attacks
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the economic impact on(a) the UK aerospace industry and (b) UK airlines of the events of 11 September. [9389]

  Mr. Wilson
  Officials in the Department of Trade and Industry are in close contact with the UK industry and are continuing to evaluate and monitor developments in the aviation industry in co-operation with the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions. When the economic impacts have been fully assessed, we will be in a position to consider the most appropriate response.

  Aerospace Industry
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what assessment the Government have made of the impact of the events of 11 September on the aerospace industry; [11181]

  (2) what action the Government are taking to protect jobs in the aerospace industry. [11180]

  Mr. Wilson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle, (Mr. Prentice), question number 9389.

  Fireworks
  Richard Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations she has received from(a) the firework industry and (b) local authorities regarding fireworks being stored in unlicensed premises and sold illegally door to door. [9791]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 24 October 2001]: The Department has received representations from the British Pyrotechnists Association regarding fireworks being stored in unlicensed premises, but no representations from local authorities. No representations have been received regarding door to door sales.

  Regulations (Consultations)
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which regulations issued by her Department since 27 November 2000 have been subject to a consultation period of less than 12 weeks. [8775]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Code of Practice on Consultations announced by the Prime Minister on 27 November 2000 applies to all consultations launched after 1 January 2001.

  Two regulations introduced since 27 November 2000 were subject to a consultation period of less than 12 weeks launched since 1 January 2001.
  582W
  In the case of 'The Working Time (Amendment) Regulations 2001' there was a short one-month consultation, running from 28 June to 27 July 2001. The 12-week period was reduced on the grounds of the urgent need to amend a UK law, following a judgment by the European Court of Justice that the annual leave qualifying period contained within the original regulations was contrary to the Working Time Directive.

  In the case of 'The Electricity (Class Exemptions from the Requirement for a Licence) Order 2001', there was a one-month consultation period, which reflected the original intention of having the order in force by June 2001. Three previous consultations on the individual elements of this measure (dealing with electricity generation, distribution and supply) had taken place in November 1999, March 2000 and July 2000.

  Consultation lasting fewer than 12 weeks was undertaken prior to the introduction of the Consultation Code in respect of the following regulations, which were then introduced after 27 November 2000:
  The Unsolicited Goods and Services Act 1971 (Electronic Communications) Order 2001;
  The Offshore Combustion Installations (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Regulations 2001:
  The Patents (Amendment) Rules 2001: Implementation of Articles 13 and 14 of Directive 98/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions;
  The Sex Discrimination (Indirect Discrimination and Burden of Proof) Regulations 2001;
  The Batteries and Accumulators (Containing Dangerous Substances) (Amendment) Regulations 2000;
  The Competition Act 1998 (Public Transport Ticketing Schemes Block Exemption) Order 2001.

  A number of orders introduced since 27 November 2000 have licensed companies to provide public telecommunications services. In these cases a statutory consultation period of not less than 28 days was carried out in line with the requirements of the Telecommunications Act 1984 and the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1998.

  Enterprise Insight Campaign
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will outline the steps the Enterprise Insight Campaign will take to promote enterprise. [10163]

  Nigel Griffiths
  [holding answer 29 October 2001]: The Government strongly support Enterprise Insight, a 10-year private sector-led national campaign for enterprise. The campaign is led jointly by the British Chambers of Commerce, Confederation of British Industry and Institute of Directors in partnership with enterprise programme providers including Young Enterprise, Shell LiveWIRE and the Prince's Trust. Its aim is to promote enterprise by fostering an entrepreneurial spirit across the UK through four key initiatives: Enterprising Education, Enterprising Communities, Enterprising Media and Enterprising Business.

  The first step started with the launch of the Enterprising Education campaign in July 2001. Since its launch, 246 businesses have registered their interest in promoting enterprise within schools. A further 750 are expected to

  583W
  do so by 2002. The aim over the next two years is to get 40,000 more young people engaged in enterprise learning in schools and 5,000 new business people to support its delivery. This will be achieved through a number of activities including roadshows and the development of a website enabling businesses to register their interest online. In addition, the Entrepreneurs in Residence scheme, which matches businesses to local enterprise projects, is under way and the first five matches have already been made.

  Enterprise Insight also aims to promote enterprise positively across society and, in particular, plans to work with the media, using case studies and role models, to help spread knowledge about entrepreneurship and business.

  Small Business Service
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the priorities are for the Small Business Service in the coming year. [10161]

  Nigel Griffiths
  [holding answer 29 October 2001]: The Small Business Service's strategic objectives for 2001–04 are set out in its strategy for 2001–04. They are to:
  Be a strong voice for small business at the heart of government, ensuring that government is aware of the needs of Business;
  Strive for a regulatory framework which minimises the burdens of business;
  Develop and maintain a world class business support service to enhance competitiveness and profitability of small businesses;
  Champion entrepreneurship across society particularly in under-represented and disadvantaged groups.

  Priorities for 2002–03 are currently being developed and will be published in the SBS Business Plan next year. SBS's operational targets for 2002–13 will be announced in the House.

  The SBS Strategy and the SBS Business Plan for 2001–02 are available on www.sbs.gov.uk.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much funding has been made available to companies by the Small Business Service. [10091]

  Nigel Griffiths
  From April 2000, when it was set up, until September this year the Small Business Service programme expenditure amounted to £365 million. Of this, expenditure under the Phoenix Fund, the Enterprise Fund and the Smart scheme, whereby grants may be made directly to small businesses, amounted to £96 million.

  Business Support
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how the(a) high technology venture capital fund and (b) incubator workspace loan fund will assist business. [10164]

  Nigel Griffiths
  [holding answer 29 October 2001]: The information is as follows:

  (a) The £126 million UK High Technology Fund, managed by Westport Private Equity, has been established to increase the amount of finance available for investment in technology based businesses. The fund was established on a 'Fund of Funds' basis, and invests in those venture capital funds that are specialist in investing in early-stage, technology-focused
  584W
  companies. Investments in sectors and businesses being supported by the fund include software, pharmaceuticals, communications, internet technologies and biosciences.

  (b) Loans from the SBS Business Incubation Fund are available to meet shortfalls in finance for incubation projects. Increasing the availability of incubation and its supportive nurturing environment will help improve the chances of survival and growth of business start-ups and early stage SMEs.

  Age Discrimination
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to introduce legislation to combat age discrimination; if she will outlaw mandatory retirement ages; and what powers the authorities will be granted to enforce such legislation. [10112]

  Alan Johnson
  We shall introduce legislation to combat age discrimination in employment and training by the 2006 deadline set out in the EC's Employment Directive. That will give us the necessary time to resolve the complexities surrounding this issue, and to decide the right approach to retirement ages in the light of extensive consultation with employers, individuals, and expert groups on age good practice. We shall be issuing proposals for a first round of public consultation within the next three months. This will cover issues which are common to discrimination on grounds of age, sexual orientation, religion, disability and race, including enforcement.

  Climate Change Levy
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the impact of the climate change levy on British industry. [10990]

  Mr. Wilson
  The climate change levy only became operational in April this year and the first payments are still being received by Customs and Excise. It is too early to assess its impact, but the levy is operating in the planned revenue neutral manner.

  The impact on any specific sector will depend on a number of factors including;
  The future energy consumption of firms in the sector and the use they make of levy funded energy efficiency support.
  Employment levels in those sectors and the benefits received from the levy funded reduction of national insurance contributions.
  The number of energy intensive firms in that sector that are eligible to receive a discount on the main rates of the levy by signing up to an energy efficiency agreement.
  What use firms in that sector make of electricity generated from levy exempt 'new' renewable sources of energy and combined heat and power.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent representations she has received from industry about the effects of the climate change levy. [10639]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Department has received many representations from businesses about the climate change levy, raising concerns about its impact on businesses' costs and competitiveness and arguing for amendments to its design. The levy has been introduced in line with the Government's Statement of Intent on environmental
  585W
  taxation to contribute towards the UK's commitments to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, while protecting business competitiveness. HM Treasury has made it clear that the levy will be kept under review, as with any other new tax measure. The Government are keeping in touch with business on the levy to monitor initial experience with its operation.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent representations she has received about the climate change levy from the engineering sector. [10641]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Department has received representations from the Engineering Employers Federation and others in the sector about the climate change levy, raising concerns about its impact on businesses' costs and competitiveness and arguing for amendments to its design. The levy has been introduced in line with the Government's Statement of Intent on environmental taxation to contribute towards the UK's commitments to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, while protecting business competitiveness. HM Treasury has made it clear that the levy will be kept under review, as with any other new tax measure. The Government are keeping in touch with business on the levy to monitor initial experience with its operation.

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what representations she has received from the Association of Electricity Producers concerning energy from waste in the renewables obligation; [10661]

  (2) what representations she has received from the Renewable Power Association on waste in the renewables obligation. [10695]

  Mr. Wilson
  We published our Statutory Consultation on the renewables obligation in August this year. The consultation period has just ended and we are now analysing the responses received. Over 150 responses were received, including one from each of the Association of Electricity Producers and the Renewable Power Association.

  Both responses can be viewed on our website at www.dti.gov.uk/renewable/consultationresponses.htm (see responses 150 and 57 respectively).

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she expects gasification and pyrolysis plants to be ready to operate commercially using mixed waste as a fuel. [10660]

  Mr. Wilson
  There are a number of pilot plants using pyrolysis and gasification which may advance to commercial scale operations in due course. There are also commercial operators in other countries who are interested in developing pyrolysis and gasification projects in this country. This was one of the subjects discussed on my recent visit with relevant officials to Japan.
  586W
  We propose to include pyrolysis and gasification in the Renewables Obligation to provide an incentive for the development of these technologies to help us meet our target for 2010.

  Paddy Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she expects gasification and pyrolysis plants, as specified in the draft Renewables Obligation Order, to be ready to operate commercially using mixed waste as fuel. [10900]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 29 October 2001]: There are a number of pilot plants using pyrolysis and gasification which may advance to commercial scale operations in due course. There are also commercial operators in other countries who are interested in developing pyrolysis and gasification projects in this country. This was one of the subjects discussed on my recent visit with relevant officials to Japan.

  We propose to include pyrolysis and gasification in the Renewables Obligation to provide an incentive for the development of these technologies to help us meet our target for 2010.

  Gas Imports
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry by what date she expects Norway will be unable to meet further UK demand for gas; and if she will make a statement. [9052]

  Mr. Wilson
  Demand for gas is dependent on a number of factors, including energy prices, GDP growth and the impact of other measures such as the Climate Change Programme. Future demand levels are therefore uncertain and, consequently, the extent to which the UK will need to import gas from Norway or elsewhere cannot be accurately predicted. Against that background, current best estimates are that the UK is likely to become a net importer from around 2005–06 with the possibility of 90 per cent. of the UK's gas being imported by 2020.

  Figures from the Norwegian Petroleum Directorate show that Norway has about 2,100bcm of remaining discovered gas resources in the North Sea and expects to be able to produce at least 90bcm of gas a year until 2050. The extent to which those resources might be available to meet further UK demand will depend on a number of variable factors, including movements in gas and oil prices, which may affect the anticipated level of production; any growth in Norway's domestic demand for gas; competition for Norway's gas from other purchasers in Europe and elsewhere; and the availability of capacity in infrastructure linking Norwegian supplies to the UK. Although there will be a point at which Norwegian gas will be unable to meet further UK demand, it is difficult to give a meaningful estimate of when that might be.

  I am, however, fully aware of the need to secure longer term security of supply from a range of sources and this is one of the issues under consideration as part of the Performance and Innovation Unit's current review of energy policy.

  Utilities Working Group
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the members of the joint working group of her Department and Ofgem to monitor security of supply; and what its terms of reference are. [10236]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Working Group comprises officials from my Department, Ofgem and the Performance and Innovation Unit. It is chaired jointly by the Deputy Director General of Energy in my Department and the Technical Director of Ofgem. Representatives of Transco and the National Grid Company will be invited to attend meetings when appropriate. The remit of the Working Group is:To assess the available data relevant to security of supply, to identify the gaps in that data and develop appropriate indicators;
  To monitor at a strategic level, over a timescale of at least seven years ahead,

  (a) the availability of supplies of gas;

  (b) the availability of supplies of electricity and fuels used for electricity generation;

  (c) the adequacy of generating capacity; and

  (d) the adequacy of the UK's gas and electricity infrastructure;

  To assess whether appropriate market-based mechanisms are bringing forward timely investment to address any weaknesses in the supply chain that are anticipated;
  To identify relevant policy issues and consider implications.

  Aggregates Tax
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations she has received about the effects of the aggregates tax upon the construction industry. [10643]

  Mr. Wilson
  A number of construction products companies and associated trade associations have made their concerns regarding the potential impact of the aggregates levy on their overall competitiveness and future level of performance known to me. My officials have drawn these representations to the attention of relevant Government Departments to ensure they are taken into account in the course of discussions between HM Customs and Excise and the industry over the form, implementation and mechanism of the levy.

  End of Life Vehicles Directive
  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list which countries in the EU have decided on the start date for the implementation of the End of Life Vehicles Directive; and if she will make a statement. [9690]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 23 October 2001]: All EU member states are required to transpose the End of Life Vehicles Directive by 21 April 2002—18 months after it came into force. The directive mandates various dates when individual requirements (e.g. the new recycling standards) must come into force, and in some cases there are options (e.g. when producers must take responsibility for meeting the cost of take back of ELVs). Decisions on these optional dates have in most cases not yet been made.

  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he plans to start implementing the end of vehicles life directive. [9597]
  588W
  Ms Hewitt
  The Government are working to transpose the End of Life Vehicles Directive by 21 April 2002—the date by which all EU member states are required to do so—and to implement its various provisions in accordance with the dates and options specified in the text.

  Depleted Uranium Imports
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what approval her Department has given for the import of(a) depleted uranium and (b) products containing depleted uranium, over the last 10 years; what regulations apply to the import of depleted uranium into the UK; and if she will make a statement. [10544]

  Nigel Griffiths
  [holding answer 29 October 2001]: Imports of depleted uranium into the United Kingdom do not require the specific approval of my Department. All imports of armour piercing ammunition, whether or not containing depleted uranium, require an individual import licence granted by my Department under the Import of Goods (Control) Order 1954. No other product containing depleted uranium requires such an individual import licence.

  Information on imports of armour piercing ammunition containing depleted uranium over the last 10 years is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Colliery Canteen Workers (Bassetlaw)
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress his Department has made in the investigation of equal pay claims made by colliery canteen workers in Bassetlaw. [9880]

  Mr. Wilson
  Of the 1,300 valid equal value claims made by former canteen ladies and workers, 115 are from the Nottinghamshire area, including those living in my hon. Friend's constituency of Bassetlaw. Of those, 99 have already received payment, and efforts are being made to locate the remaining 16.

  We also have details of some 175 women who do not have valid claims as they were not lodged with an Employment Tribunal in accordance with the terms of the Equal Pay Act 1970.

  Oil Shortages
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what contingency plans she has to deal with an oil shortage. [9943]

  Mr. Wilson
  Under EU Directive 93/1998 each European Union member state has an obligation to keep stocks of oil that can be made available in the event of any disruption to international oil supplies. As part of this, the UK has an obligation to hold stocks of oil products (including motor spirit) or crude oil equivalent equal to or above 67.5 days' worth of consumption at any one time. In addition, the UK is a member of the International Energy Agency. The 26 IEA member countries, which include the USA and Japan and all other EU member states, all hold emergency stocks of oil and have committed themselves to take effective measures in accordance with IEA plans to meet any international oil
  589W
  supply emergency. The IEA regularly holds exercises to ensure that procedures within the IEA and its member countries are kept up-to-date.

  Late Payment
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry for each year from 1990 to 2001, what proportion of commercial payments have been late. [10133]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The Department does not hold this information.

  The Credit Management Research Centre (CMRC) has produced a quarterly report on credit management practices in the UK since 1998.

  The CMRC reports show that there has been a fall of almost 7.5 per cent. in the percentage of payments that are reported as being late by the businesses that they survey. This fall relates to the period between their first survey and their most recent published survey, ie the quarter ending June 1998 and the quarter ending June 2001. During the same period their reports show that the number of debtor days for small businesses has fallen by almost 24 per cent. and that the mean number of debtor days for all businesses has fallen by almost 20 per cent.

  Finally, the "European Business Survey" for 2001, produced by the accountants Grant Thornton, shows the UK as having a payment period almost a week (five days) shorter than the EU average (52 days).

  Universal Bank
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what are the latest estimates of the cost of the Universal Bank for(a) the predicted 2 million and (b) the 6 million prospective customers. [10130]

  Mr. Alexander
  Universal banking services consist of two elements, namely access to the financial institutions' basic bank accounts at post offices and a Post Office Card Account (POCA) for the encashment of benefit and tax credits for those unable or unwilling to use even a basic bank account. The banking industry will meet the costs of providing post office access to their own accounts. The cost of the POCA, which will be met by Government, together with a fixed contribution from the financial institutions, is subject to commercial negotiations between Consignia and the Paying Departments and between Consignia and the potential supplier of the banking engine for POCA. The estimate of costs are confidential under

  Lancashire—employee jobs by industry

  Manufacturing Section D of SIC (92)

  Services Section G-Q of SIC (92)

  Other industries1

  Number (000)

  Percentage of all employees

  Number (000)

  Percentage of all employees

  Number (000)

  Percentage of all employees

  19952

  129

  24.1

  378

  70.4

  30

  5.5

  19962

  130

  23.8

  384

  70.6

  31

  5.6

  19972

  131

  24.1

  384

  70.9

  27

  5.0

  19983

  139

  23.8

  411

  70.8

  31

  5.4

  19993

  130

  23.7

  384

  70.2

  33

  6.1

  1 Other industries' include agriculture, fishing, mining and quarrying, utilities and and construction (sections A, B, C, E and F of SIC(92)).

  2 As at September (1995–97).

  3 As at December (1998–99).

  590W
  Exemption 13 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, because they are subject to commercial negotiations.

  Mr. Beard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress has been made in establishing the Universal Bank; and which commercial banks are collaborating with the scheme and in what way. [10756]

  Mr. Alexander
  Barclays, Lloyds TSB, RBS/NatWest, HSBC, Abbey National, the Halifax, Alliance and Leicester, the BOS, NAG, the Co-operative Bank, and the Nationwide Building Society have signed a Memorandum of Understanding agreeing that they will make their PAT 14 basic bank accounts accessible through post offices, commit to simple and straightforward opening of those bank accounts at a post office and contribute £180 million to the costs of the Post Office Card Account (POCA).

  Implementation of universal banking services is making good progress as detailed commercial negotiations continue between the banks, the Paying Departments and Consignia.

  Export Licence Application (P.W. Allen)
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she will make a decision on granting export licence application 27282, submitted on 10 September, by P.W. Allen and Company, Tewkesbury. [10593]

  Nigel Griffiths
  [holding answer 26 October 2001]: A decision on the export licence application in question has been taken. The company was informed of this decision on 25 October 2001.

  Employment Profile (Lancashire)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what percentage of the population in Lancashire were employed in the(a) manufacturing sector and (b) service sector for each of the last five years. [10087]

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

  Letter front John Pullinger to Mr. Lindsay Hoyle, dated 30 October 2001:
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent question about the proportion of the population in Lancashire employed in the (a) manufacturing sector and (b) service sector for each of the last five years (10087). I am replying in his absence.
  The table below shows the number of employee jobs in the manufacturing and service sectors for each year 1995 to 1999, the latest available.

  591W
  These estimates are based on the results of the Annual Employment Survey (1995–1997) and its successor, Part 1 of the Annual Business Inquiry (1998 and 1999). An individual with two jobs would count twice in these figures. The figures cover jobs based in Lancashire rather than individuals who live in Lancashire.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Fly Tipping
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what change there has been in the incidence of fly tipping following the increase in the level of the landfill tax since April; and if she will make a statement. [7726]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Department does not collate statistics on fly tipping. The Government's review of the tax in March 1998, led by HM Customs and Excise, showed that out of 530 local authorities, only 78 felt that there had been an increase in fly tipping since the introduction of the tax.

  In addition, a Tidy Britain group report, "Effects of the Landfill Tax on Flytipping" (published in 1998), did not establish a clear link between the tax and increased fly tipping. The report showed for 1997–98 that domestic waste was, overall, the type of fly-tipped waste most frequently collected by local authorities. The landfill tax would not make a difference to such waste as householders do not directly meet increases in the cost of the tax.

  Countryside and Rights of Way Act
  Mr. Mudie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the regulations arising from the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 will be introduced which enable an authority to make a special extinguishment order and special diversion order. [9079]

  Alun Michael
  The regulations will be introduced as soon as possible once the necessary preparatory work has been completed. New sections 118B (special extinguishment order) and 119B (special diversion order) of the Highways Act 1980, to be inserted by schedule 6 to the Countryside and Rights of Way Act, require an order to be made by the Secretary of State prior to commencement. The order must designate the areas where the power to make special extinguishment and special diversion orders, for the purposes of crime prevention, will be available to local highway authorities. The exercise of the power in relation to school security will apply throughout England.

  Officials from my Department and the Home Office are working jointly to establish the most appropriate means of identifying areas to be included in the designation order. I am seeking to implement new sections 118B and 119B in advance of the rest of schedule 6, to ensure these provisions are available at the earliest possible date.

  BSE in Sheep (Research)
  Mr. Curry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will set out the latest position on(a) the research programme and (b) current monitoring of sheep brains for evidence of BSE infection. [9605]
  592W
  Mr. Morley
  DEFRA is funding a great deal of work in relation to BSE in sheep. This includes experiments to assess susceptibility, infectivity and possible transmission in sheep, particularly in relation to different genotypes and breeds. This work will underpin the national scrapie plan.

  At their meeting in September 2001, the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee reviewed the latest data from the current programme of strain typing work to assess whether BSE is present in the current sheep flock. To date, about 180 individual scrapie brains have been inoculated into mice. Results for 163 brains have reached a point where the mice might have been expected to display signs characteristic of BSE, if the disease was present. This has not happened. However, it is too soon to draw firm conclusions from these on-going experiments. Work is also in hand to develop molecular methods of differentiating BSE from scrapie to enable many more brains to be screened rapidly.

  During the development of a molecular method at Veterinary Laboratory Agency (VLA), 460 sheep brains have been screened. None has indicated the presence of BSE, but the test is not yet fully validated and it is therefore too early to draw firm conclusions.

  Organic Farming
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will take steps to ensure that the planned increase in funding for organic conversion will keep up with the projected increase in demand for organic produce. [9804]

  Mr. Morley
  The England rural development programme already allocates funding for conversion to organic farming, which would triple the organic area by 2006. We intend to produce a strategy for the future direction of organic farming when we have the report of the Commission on the Future of Farming and Food, taking account of any recommendations it makes for this sector. The strategy will assess potential growth both for UK production and for the organic market, and will need to take account of the large variation between different products. It is likely, for example, that UK production of organic fruit and vegetables can take a significantly higher share of the market for these products, while the scope for increasing organic milk production will be much more limited given the relatively slow growth of this market.

  Countryside (Access)
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will take steps to increase accessibility to the countryside for those living in inner cities. [10001]

  Alun Michael
  The new statutory right of access to open countryside will open up new areas of land close to where people live. We expect local authorities to give priority to links between town and country in their rights of way improvement plans and local transport plans, and to consider town to country journeys for leisure purposes, as well as those from the country to the town for work, shopping and education. We are also encouraging local authorities to develop and promote public transport links for people wishing to go to the countryside.

  Energy Efficiency Week
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what action her Department took in recognition of energy efficiency week. [11520]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Government have provided funding to the Energy Saving Trust since 1996–97 to run a wide-ranging programme of work to promote energy efficiency. The Department is providing over £22 million in support of the trust's programme this year. Energy efficiency week is an important part of that programme. I warmly welcome this initiative, and spoke at a parliamentary reception to mark the launch of energy efficiency week on 22 October.

  Edmonton Incinerator
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what action has been taken in respect of allegations made by the "Newsnight" programme on 3 July concerning the dioxin content of ash used for construction from the Edmonton incinerator; and if she will make a statement. [11812]

  Mr. Meacher
  I am grateful for this opportunity to clarify the answers I gave on 11 July 2000,Official Report, columns 496–97W, and on 27 March 2001, Official Report, column 565W. Until August 2000, the Edmonton incinerator mixed bottom ash and precipitator ash. From August 1998 to May 1999, this mixed ash was reprocessed and used in the production of concrete building blocks. This ash has also been used as an aggregate.

  As the reply to the first of these two questions said, neither the Department nor the Environment Agency routinely held information on the dioxin content of ash from incinerators. However, in July 1998 the Environment Agency was given an estimate of the dioxin content of the mixed ash, based on a 1997 analysis of the fly ash. I was not advised about this when I replied to the second of these questions and regret any consequent inaccuracy in my answer. I have written to both Members and have placed a copy of the letter and the analysis in the fax in the Library of the House.

  The Environment Agency is currently carrying out a full and thorough investigation into the destination of ash from incinerators, the environmental implications of its use and what steps may be needed in the light of these findings. This thorough investigation will establish the true picture for all municipal waste incinerators. Its results will be made public and any necessary action will be taken.

  Nuclear Power
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the total cost of nuclear production. [9941]

  Mr. Wilson
  I have been asked to reply.

  There is a range of estimates for the cost of producing nuclear power. The performance and innovation unit at the Cabinet Office is currently producing a report on the UK's energy policy and is looking at the cost of potential future energy options, including new nuclear build.
  594W
  Its estimates of the cost of producing nuclear-generated electricity can be found at:http://www.cabinet-office.gov.uk/innovation/2001/energy/2050.pdf.

  Nuclear generators have also produced their own estimates of the cost of producing electricity from new nuclear power stations. Both British Energy and BNFL have made submissions to the PIU and these are on the PIU website.

  The PIU is continuing to discuss cost estimates with the generators.

  Food Safety
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the safety of United Kingdom produced lamb products in baby foods. [9913]

  Ms Blears
  I have been asked to reply.

  I am advised by the Food Standards Agency that it does not advise against the consumption of lamb, and this applies equally to all sections of the population including babies.

  Pure Agriculture Students
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many students enrolled this year as(a) undergraduates and (b) postgraduates on a pure agriculture course as in each of the last five years. [9600]

  Margaret Hodge
  I have been asked to reply.

  The total number of entrants to courses in agriculture for the five years since 1996–97 are given in the table; comparable figures for 2001–02 will not be available until April 2002. The latest available data for 2001 entry published by the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS) show that the number of applicants accepted for entry to full-time and sandwich undergraduate courses in agriculture was 2,707, an increase of 1.7 per cent. compared to the same point last year. The overall increase in accepted applicants in 2001 is 5.6 per cent. UCAS does not cover applicants to part-time or postgraduate courses.

  Entrants to courses in agriculture1—UK HE Institutions

  Postgraduate

  Undergraduate

  Total

  1996–97

  544

  2,841

  3,385

  1997–98

  507

  3,529

  4,036

  1998–99

  504

  3,303

  3,807

  1999–2000

  518

  3,039

  3,557

  2000–01

  655

  3,252

  3,907

  1 Full-time and part-time, home and overseas students

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Departmental Expenditure
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the total expenditure was on(a) advertising, (b) polling, (c) focus groups, (d) design consultants, (e) caterers, (f) production of departmental

  595W
  publications and (g) photographs/photographers by her Department for each year since 1995 in (i) cash and (ii) real terms; what was (A) the annual percentage increase in spending on each category and (B) spending on each category as a percentage of the total departmental running costs; and if she will make a statement. [6886]

  Tessa Jowell
  The table shows the available information on expenditure by my Department, No expenditure has been incurred on polling or focus groups. The expenditure on advertising relates to the cost of newspaper advertising

  Year

  Cash (£000)

  Annual percentage change

  Spending as percentage of running costs

  Real terms 2000–01 prices(£000)

  Annual percentage change

  Spending as percentage of running costs

  Advertising

  1998–99

  243

  —

  1.1

  253

  —

  1.2

  1999–2000

  140

  -42

  0.5

  143

  -44

  0.6

  2000–01

  104

  -26

  0.4

  104

  -27

  0.4

  Design consultants

  1997–98

  26

  —

  0.1

  28

  —

  0.1

  Hospitality

  1995–96

  26

  —

  0.1

  30

  —

  0.2

  1996–97

  41

  58

  0.2

  45

  53

  0.2

  1997–98

  17

  -59

  0.1

  18

  -60

  0.1

  1998–99

  29

  71

  0.1

  30

  66

  0.1

  1999–2000

  33

  14

  0.1

  34

  11

  0.1

  2000–01

  51

  55

  0.2

  51

  52

  0.2

  Production of departmental publications

  1996–97

  501

  —

  2.6

  554

  —

  2.8

  1997–98

  339

  -32

  1.7

  363

  -34

  1.8

  1998–99

  288

  -15

  1.3

  300

  -17

  1.4

  1999–2000

  448

  56

  1.7

  456

  52

  1.8

  2000–01

  486

  8

  1.9

  486

  7

  1.9

  Photographs and photographers

  1997–98

  2

  —

  0.0

  2

  —

  0.0

  1998–99

  1

  -50

  0.0

  1

  -51

  0.0

  1999–2000

  6

  500

  0.0

  6

  486

  0.0

  2000–01

  3

  -50

  0.0

  3

  -51

  0.0

  Tourism
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment she has made of the economic state of the tourism sectors in(a) Wales, (b) Scotland, (c) Northern Ireland and (d) England; and what measures she is proposing to assist the tourism industry. [9848]

  Dr. Howells
  According to the most recent estimates, total tourism expenditure in the UK is worth some £75 billion and the value added by tourism in the UK is now estimated to be 5 per cent. of GDP.

  For the English tourism industry, our best estimate to date is that the loss of revenue in 2001–02 is likely to be about £3.3 billion in 'value added' terms over the eight month period consideration (March to October) of the foot and mouth disease outbreak. Further losses are expected as a result of the terrorist attacks on the US on 11 September. Individual tourism assessments for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are matters for the devolved Administrations.
  596W
  for the many public appointments for which I am responsible. Design consultants have only been employed during 1997–98 to design the Department's new identity.

  As expenditure on caterers is not held centrally, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost, I have provided overall hospitality expenditure which contains expenditure on caterers. Expenditure data for the production of Department publications and photographs and photographers for 1995–96 and 1995–96 and 1996–97 respectively were not recorded separately and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Government and the industry recognise that the challenges facing tourism both for the short and long term must be tackled. Ministers have worked hard with the industry in particular to lessen the impact of foot and mouth disease and the terrorist attacks on the United States, and to attract visitors to Britain. The Government have provided additional funding to help the recovery of domestic tourism and to promote Britain overseas. The industry is taking the lead in improving the quality of product and service.

  Tate Modern
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what Government funding has been given to the Tate Modern Gallery. [10268]

  Dr. Howells
  In 2000–01 the Government provided £24.9 million in grant-in-aid for the Tate Gallery of which £5 million was to cover the first 10 months of free admission at Tate Modern. In 2001–02 we increased this to £26.9 million of which £6 million is to enable free admission to continue at Tate Modern.

  Galleries and Museums (Concessionary Admissions)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has to encourage concessionary admission for pensioners to galleries and museums in the UK. [10267]

  Dr. Howells
  Our policy is to encourage all museums and galleries to offer the widest possible access to their collections but it is for their governing bodies to offer concessionary admission for pensioners.

  In the case of the national museums and galleries funded by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport that currently charge, funds have been made available to permit free access for people over 60 since April 2000. However, decisions on admission charges rest with the Trustees. Attendances by people over 60 have risen by 40 per cent. in the first year since free admission was introduced.

  TV Licences
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many reminders are sent by the TV Licensing Authority to households that are not recorded as holding licences and at what cost in the latest year for which figures are available. [10665]

  Dr. Howells
  For the financial year 2000–01, the Television Licensing Authority sent 16,602,766 mail items to households that were not recorded as holding television licences. This does not include reminder letters which were sent to households where the licence was about to expire or had just expired.

  The cost of this type of mailing is not readily available. The Corporation finds direct mailing the most cost-effective way of contacting television licence fee payers and seeks to maximise, wherever possible, bulk discounts with Royal Mail.

  Lottery Bids (Stoke)
  Mr. Stevenson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many bids to the National Heritage Lottery Fund have been received from the Stoke-on-Trent unitary authority since 1997. [10288]

  Dr. Howells
  Since 1 January 1997 the Heritage Lottery Fund has received 28 funding applications relating to projects within the Stoke-on-Trent unitary authority area. 15 of these were made by the authority itself, of which 14 were approved and one withdrawn. Funding awarded to the authority over this period totals £5,626,367.

  Listed Buildings
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many buildings were(a) listed and (b) delisted in each year since 1990; and how many had their listing changed (i) from Grade 1 to Grade 2 and (ii) from Grade 2 to Grade 1. [10557]
  598W
  Dr. Howells
  The information is as follows:

  Year

  Added

  Removed

  1990

  3,633

  131

  1991

  2,144

  94

  1992

  1,984

  64

  1993

  3,227

  89

  1994

  3,909

  95

  1995

  2,070

  84

  1996

  1,843

  89

  1997

  1,349

  141

  1998

  1,945

  74

  1999

  2,299

  124

  2000

  1,300

  67

  Data relating to changes from one category to another are not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Millennium Commission Grants
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport which projects that have been awarded a grant from the Millennium Commission specifically relate to the ethnic minority communities; and what the amount received by each project was. [11401]

  Dr. Howells
  This is a matter for the Millennium Commission. I. will write to my hon. Friend in my capacity as Chair of the Commission, and place copies of my reply in the Libraries of both Houses.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Illegal Drugs
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with coalition partners relating to the international traffic in illegal drugs. [8797]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Our coalition partners are aware that Afghanistan has for many years been the source of nearly all the heroin reaching the streets in Britain and Europe.

  On 11 October representatives of the main donor countries to the United Nations International Drugs Control Programme and of countries close to Afghanistan met in Vienna to discuss Afghan drugs issues.

  International Terrorism
  Ann McKechin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with foreign Governments on international terrorism since 11 September. [8799]

  Mr. MacShane
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has been involved in daily contact with our international partners in the coalition against terrorism.

  The media have reported on my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary's many overseas visits to forge the political coalition against terrorism. He will continue to engage partners in this dialogue and process.

  Michael Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current condition of the alliance of nations engaged in the fight against terrorism. [8806]
  599W
  Mr. Bradshaw
  The international consensus is strong and deep. The United Nations, OIC, the G8, NATO and the European Union have all condemned the terrorist attacks. We have encountered an unprecedented level of solidarity and commitment to work together against terrorism.

  This is not simply a military campaign. The adoption of UN Security Council Regulation 1373 demonstrates the commitment of nations from all corners of the world to prevent and suppress the financing of terrorism and to deny terrorists a safe haven from which to operate.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met the Secretary-General of the United Nations to discuss the war against international terrorism; and if he will make a statement. [8809]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary are in close touch with the UN Secretary-General about the international campaign against terrorism and have spoken to him on several occasions since 11 September.

  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary expects to discuss the issue with him in person when he visits New York for the UN General Assembly next month.

  Mr. Challen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures to combat terrorism he has discussed with the other member states of the European Union since 11 September. [8810]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Since 11 September the EU has agreed to pursue many new measures to fight terrorism. These include a European arrest warrant, cutting the funding of terrorists, increased co-operation between member states' intelligence services and a strengthening of Europol to include a special anti-terrorist unit. Further measures were taken to improve air security and strengthen the EU's ability to fight terrorism globally.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Government of Belgium regarding the international coalition against terrorism. [8815]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary and other Government Ministers are in regular contact on a range of issues with their colleagues in the Belgian Government.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with Commonwealth colleagues on the situation in Zimbabwe. [8800]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Both my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and my noble Friend Baroness Amos have held intensive discussions with Commonwealth Partners following the Abuja agreement in early September. Baroness Amos accompanied Commonwealth Partners to Zimbabwe last weekend to assess implementation of the agreement and at yesterday's General Affairs Council in Luxembourg, EU Foreign Ministers voted unanimously to invoke Article 96 of the Cotonou agreement which gives Zimbabwe 60 days to fulfil its obligations or face the consequences.

  Africa
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on measures being taken by his Department to ensure greater peace and security in Africa. [8801]

  Linda Gilroy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action his Department is carrying out to ensure greater peace and security in Africa. [8804]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Violent conflict is one of the main obstacles to social, economic and political development in Africa today. It is also a potential threat to global security.

  The FCO, in partnership with the MOD and DFID, has been at the forefront of the UK's successful efforts, with the United Nations, to bring peace and security to Sierra Leone. We are also working hard to ensure the success of current international and African efforts to bring an end to the conflicts in the Great Lakes region.

  The UK's approach to conflict prevention in Africa is now co-ordinated in the interdepartmental Africa conflict prevention pool. The aim of this joint pool is to ensure a coherent and effective use of resources to bring greater peace and security to Africa.

  Middle East
  Ms Christine Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the latest developments in the middle east peace process. [8802]

  Mr. Butterfill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next proposes to meet the Israeli Government to discuss the middle east peace process. [8811]

  Mr. Laxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the latest developments in the middle east peace process. [8813]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  I refer my hon. Friends and the hon. Member to the answer my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary gave earlier in the House today to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden),Official Report, column 742.

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Beard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on policy towards establishing a stable Government in Afghanistan. [8803]

  Peter Hain
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has set out four principles:The future should be placed in the hands of the people of Afghanistan themselves;
  We need a global coalition to help rebuild Afghanistan;
  The UN should take the lead in the political process;
  We have to devote the resources and political will needed to finish the job.
  601W
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his recent discussions with Lakhdar Brahimi, Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General for Afghanistan. [11303]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Mr. Brahimi visited London on 9 October and met my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the International Development Secretary. We have maintained regular contact. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary spoke to Lakhdar Brahimi by telephone on 22 October. Brahimi agreed with the Foreign Secretary's four principles on the future of Afghanistan, namely:

  The Afghan people must determine their own destiny;

  The international community should form a coalition to help;

  The UN should play a leading role in any transition;

  Resources should be devoted to complete the task.

  The Foreign Secretary informed Brahimi of Paul Bergne's appointment as the Prime Minister's Personal Representative for Afghan Affairs. The Foreign Secretary and Brahimi agreed to stay in close touch.

  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contacts were maintained by his Department with the Taliban regime in Afghanistan prior to 11 September. [11442]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  HMG's policy is to recognise states, not governments. We have maintained contacts with all factions in Afghanistan, including the Taliban, but do not and did not prior to 11 September have normal government to government dealings with any of them.

  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions his Department has had with representatives of the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan; what assessment he has made of their political aims; and if he will make a statement. [11437]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  British officials maintain regular contact with the Northern Alliance through the Chargé d'Affaires at the Afghan Embassy in London and officials have had a range of contacts with other members of the Northern Alliance including in Afghanistan and during visits by them to Europe. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has recently appointed Paul Bergne as his Personal Representative for Afghan Affairs who will be travelling in the region and meeting with representatives of the Northern Alliance to discuss the immediate political situation in Afghanistan and their aims.

  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to ensure that representatives of Afghan women's organisations are involved in the discussions about the composition of a post-Taliban Government. [11302]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Any future Afghan government must be broad-based and representative of the great diversity of the country's ethnic groupings. The form of that government and the process leading to its establishment must be up to the Afghan people themselves. However, the international community has to engage with the widest possible range of community leaders within Afghanistan, which would include women's organisations. We 602W
  would expect any future government to respect the internationally agreed norms of behaviour towards its own citizens.

  National Missile Defence
  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his policy on national missile defence. [8805]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The position is unchanged. We believe that it is important to tackle the potential threat from weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles as their means of delivery with a comprehensive strategy that includes arms control and counter-proliferation, diplomacy, deterrence and defensive measures. We will continue to work closely with the United States in all these areas. We understand the role that missile defence can play as one element of that comprehensive strategy, but as yet we have had no specific proposal from the United States.

  Barcelona Process
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he plans to take to promote the Barcelona process following the events of 11 September. [8807]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The UK has always been a strong supporter of the Barcelona process. We welcome the EU's commitment at the General Affairs Council on 8 October"to continue its close contacts with its partners in the Barcelona Process, notably at the Ministerial meeting on 6 November"
  and the Ghent European Council conclusion that it is
  "essential to encourage a dialogue of equals between our civilisations, particularly in the framework of the Barcelona Process".

  World Cup 2002
  Mr. Mudie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what help his Department will give the England football team in Korea and Japan for the World cup 2002. [8808]

  Mr. MacShane
  Our Ambassadors in Korea and Japan as well as my officials in London are in regular contact with the Football Association, the Korean and Japanese organising committees and their respective football associations and police. I discussed this with the Korean Government in Seoul last month. We stand ready to provide whatever support may be necessary for the England team arising from these discussions.

  Pakistan (Visas)
  Ms Ward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what provision he has made for visa applications to be submitted in Pakistan and neighbouring countries affected by the military action in Afghanistan. [8812]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Our visa sections in Pakistan remain open. However, due to security considerations we have had to change the way we deliver our service. Posts continue to accept applications through a "drop box" system, which is operated flexibly. Islamabad and Karachi continue to accept settlement applications. Posts in neighbouring countries remain open.

  International Criminal Court
  Kevin Brennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made in ratifying the statutes establishing the International Criminal Court. [8814]

  Peter Hain
  The United Kingdom ratified the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, in New York, on 4 October 2001. As the 42nd state to ratify the Statute, the United Kingdom secured a place among the 60 founding members of the Court. The Court will be established immediately following the 60th ratification. A 43rd state, Switzerland, ratified on 12 October.

  Sudan
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he has taken following the recent bombings in Bahrel Ghazal in Sudan; and if he will make a statement. [8816]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We are deeply concerned at these further reports of civilian casualties. This underlines the urgent need for progress in the Sudan peace process. Meanwhile we regularly urge both sides to respect internationally agreed norms in their conduct of the war.

  Albania
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Albania. [8818]

  Mr. MacShane
  We welcome the continuing progress in Albania. Under the leadership of Prime Minister Ilir Meta, Albania has achieved a great deal over the past two years in stabilising the country and extending co-operation with neighbours and the international community. The Albanian Government have continued to take a strong line against extremism in Macedonia and have made some effort to interdict arms supplies to Albanian extremists. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister wrote to Prime Minister Meta on 17 October, and I have held discussions with Foreign Minister Arta Dade to encourage further Albanian support to help resolve the situation in Macedonia.

  Angola
  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the current situation in Angola. [8819]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We remain concerned at the human consequences of the civil war, which include widespread suffering, violation of human rights and the exclusion of civil society from the political process. We continue to urge dialogue, involving all parties to the conflict, as an essential first step towards addressing these problems.

  Pakistan
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many discussions he has had with representatives of the Government of Pakistan since June. [8820]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary met his Pakistani counterpart, Abdul Sattar, for talks in London on 12 June, one of his first engagements 604W
  following his appointment. I met the Pakistani Foreign Secretary (PUS equivalent), Inam ul Haq, on 23 August for bilateral talks, and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister visited Pakistan on 5 October.

  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Pakistan on restoring elected democratic government. [14411]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We regularly raise the need to restore democratic government with the Government of Pakistan. Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group (CMAG) Ministers (including the UK) also called for further progress towards democracy in September. We welcome President Musharraf's commitment to implement his "road map" to democracy proposals, offering the prospect of multi-party elections to the provincial and national assemblies and senate by 12 October 2002.

  Nice Treaty
  Mr. Bryant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made by member states of the European Union in ratifying the Nice treaty. [8823]

  Peter Hain
  The following member states have ratified the Nice treaty:

  Denmark

  France

  Luxembourg.

  The other member states are at various stages of their respective constitutional processes of ratification.

  European Foreign and Security Policy
  Rachel Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had on national Parliament scrutiny of European common foreign and security policy. [8824]

  Peter Hain
  The current position on national parliamentary scrutiny of the European Union's foreign and security policy is set out in the Government's White Paper of November 1998 on the Scrutiny of European Union Business. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has proposed that representatives of national Parliaments be more involved in European matters through a second chamber of the European Parliament. The role of national Parliaments in the European architecture is one of the agenda items for the next Inter-Governmental Conference in 2004. Ministers and officials have regular discussions with a wide range of contacts on this as well as on other Inter-Governmental Conference issues.

  Kosovo
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his estimate is of the number of(a) Serbs and (b) Kosovo Albanians killed in Kosovo since 1 January. [10400]

  Mr. MacShane
  According to the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK), 41 Kosovo Albanians and 17 Kosovo Serbs were killed in Kosovo during the period 1 January to 31 July 2001.
  605W
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when exhumation will begin at the Suva Reka mass grave site; and what indication he has as to the ethnic identity of the bodies contained there. [10449]

  Mr. MacShane
  The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) completed their exhumations in Suva Reka in October 2000. The 73 bodies identified so far have been Kosovo Albanians. There are still a number of, as yet, unexamined gravesites and an UNMIK cemetery at Suva Reka where 300 unidentified bodies, exhumed by ICTY from graves across Kosovo, were re-interred. UNMIK plans to launch a comprehensive programme of exhumations and identifications in Kosovo, including at Suva Reka, in spring 2002.

  Entry Clearance (Bombay)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the case of Jayeshkumar Jethalal Javia, Bombay case ref: R/01/7052. [10587]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Jayeshkumar Jethalal Javia was refused entry clearance at the Deputy High Commission in Bombay on 25 September 2001. I will write to my hon. Friend and provide a full explanation of the reasons for this decision as soon as possible.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress of the case of Sajanji Jivaji Odedra, Bombay ref: R/99/224–5–6; and when the visa is likely to be issued. [10586]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Deputy High Commission in Bombay referred the case of Sajanji Jivaji Odedra to the Home Office for consideration outside of the Immigration Rules in November 2000. Their response is awaited. I have asked officials to investigate the reasons for delay and I will write to my hon. Friend with my findings as soon as possible.

  Colombia
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what activities Her Majesty's Government have been involved with in Colombia in the last six months; and if he will make a statement. [9245]

  Mr. MacShane
  HMG continue to be at the forefront of international efforts to support the peace process in Colombia. This Government also support the Colombian Government's efforts to tackle the production and trafficking of illegal drugs. We also support practical measures to address the inter-connected problems of human rights and internal conflict. Earlier this month, I visited Colombia to discuss these and other issues with Colombian Government representatives, the Human Rights Ombudsman, members of non-governmental organisations, trade unions, peace activists, and representatives of the media and UK business community. In addition, I believe that more concerted international action needs to be taken to tackle the problems of illegal small arms, precursor chemicals and money laundering by the Colombian illegal armed groups. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office will host a series of meetings in London later this year and early next year on these themes 606W
  in order to look at ways we can further assist the peace process, and reduce the ability of extremist groups to use violence for political ends.

  Australia
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what(a) representations he has received and (b) discussions he has held with the Government of Australia concerning their approach to asylum applications from Afghanistan nationals. [11445]

  Mr. MacShane
  Immigration into Australia is a matter for the Australian Government to determine.

  On 3 September Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer used the opportunity of a series of regular meetings in London with my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and me to explain Australia's position on the MV Tampa refugees.

  Commonwealth Countries
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what ministerial contacts there have been since 1997 with Commonwealth countries suspended from membership. [11440]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The only country suspended from Commonwealth membership in this period was Nigeria, whose suspension began in 1995 and ended in June 1999 when democratic government was restored. EU and other sanctions prevented Ministerial contact between the UK and the Abacha regime between 1995 and June 1998. Ministerial contacts resumed after the death of Abacha. Currently, Pakistan and Fiji are suspended from the councils of the Commonwealth: Pakistan since October 1999 and Fiji since June 2000.

  Diego Garcia
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what arrangements the US has made with the UK Government over their use of Diego Garcia; what British forces are stationed on the island; what plans the Government have to increase the UK's facilities there; and if he will make a statement. [10113]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  There are a series of bilateral agreements between the UK and US concerning the availability and use of Diego Garcia, British Indian Ocean Territory, for defence purposes. The Territory remains available to meet the defence needs of both Governments, while remaining under UK sovereignty.

  There are currently approximately 40 Royal Navy and Royal Marines personnel based on Diego Garcia. There are no plans to increase the UK's facilities there.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Racial Hatred
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Solicitor-General how many people have been(a) charged and (b) convicted for incitement to racial hatred in each year for which figures are available. [10284]
  607W
  The Solicitor-General
  Records for prosecutions for incitement of racial hatred under part III of the Public Order Act 1986 have been kept since 1988. The records relate to the year that the application for consent to prosecute was dealt with and so it is not possible to state with any certainty how many prosecutions resulted in convictions in any given year. The number of applications for consent to prosecute for each year since 1988, the number of prosecutions arising and the convictions obtained are summarised in the table.

  Also, figures published in the Crown Prosecution Service Racist Incident Monitoring Annual Report 1999–2000 show that the number of racist incidents sent

  Consent applications and prosecutions since 1988 under part III of the Public Order Act 1986

  Year

  Number of Attorney-General consent applications(per defendant)

  Withdrawn

  Not granted

  Prosecuted

  1Convicted

  1988

  3

  —

  1

  2

  2

  1989

  1

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1990

  2

  —

  —

  2

  2

  1991

  4

  —

  1

  3

  1

  1992

  5

  —

  2

  3

  2

  1993

  2

  —

  —

  2

  2

  1994

  2

  —

  —

  2

  2

  1995

  8

  1

  —

  7

  6

  1996

  13

  1

  —

  12

  9

  1997

  12

  —

  2

  10

  9

  1998

  2

  1

  —

  1

  1

  1999

  4

  —

  —

  4

  3

  2000

  5

  —

  —

  5

  22

  2001 to date

  7

  —

  —

  7

  3—

  1 Not necessarily in the same year

  2Two results outstanding

  3Results awaited

PRIME MINISTER

  Prime Minister's Powers
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Prime Minister further to his reply of 15 October 2001,Official Report, columns 818–19W, on the Prime Minister's powers, if he will list the 50 specific references in statute to Prime Ministerial powers. [10546]

  The Prime Minister
  I have placed in the Library of the House a list of the statutory references to the title `Prime Minister'.

  Afghanistan
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he has had with President Bush on the use of cluster bombs by coalition forces in Afghanistan; and what restrictions were agreed on their use. [11443]

  The Prime Minister
  I am in close contact with the US on all aspects of the response to the 11 September attacks, including at the military planning level.

  The cluster bombs used in Afghanistan do not contain anti-personnel landmines and are therefore legitimate weapons which have not been prohibited by any treaty or convention. They are used with discretion and
  608W
  for prosecution rose from 1,603 in 1998–99 to 2,417 in 1999–2000. Prosecutions were brought against 1,832 defendants (76 per cent.) on 2,651 charges. Guilty pleas were tendered on 66 per cent. of the charges and there were convictions after trial on another 12 per cent. of the charges. In total 2,078 (79 per cent.) of the 2,651 charges prosecuted resulted in convictions.

  Almost half the prosecutions prosecuted were new offences of racially aggravated crime brought under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, which came into force in September 1999. A high proportion of the remaining offences contained admissible evidence of racial aggravation and were prosecuted under other legislation.

  proportionality as international law requires, and against legitimate and appropriate terrorist and military targets that are selected with great care.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will consult President Bush on initiating talks with the Government of Iraq concerning the Taliban and Osama bin Laden. [9873]

  The Prime Minister
  I am in regular contact with President Bush on a wide range of issues including those relating to the current situation in Afghanistan. There are no plans at present to discuss initiating talks with the Government of Iraq.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Asylum Seekers
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what, for each month of(a) 1998, (b) 1999, (c) 2000 and (d) 2001 to date, was the total number of Afghanistan nationals who have (i) applied for asylum, (ii) been granted refugee status, (iii) been refused asylum, (iv) been granted asylum on appeal and (v) been deported. [11444]

  Angela Eagle
  The available data on applications and initial decisions are included in the table.
  609W
  The Immigration Appellate Authority allowed five appeals (to nearest five) from Afghan nationals in 1998. Data on appeal outcomes by nationality are not available for 1999, 2000, or 2001. Mechanisms are now in place to enable the production of such statistics for 2001, but their publication is pending data quality checks to guarantee their reliability.

  Applications received for asylum in the UK, excluding dependants, and initial decisions, for nationals of Afghanistan, 1998–20011

  Cases considered under normal procedures4

  Backlog clearance exercise5

  Month

  Applications2

  Total decisions3

  Grants of asylum

  Grants of ELR

  Total refusals

  Granted asylum or ELR under backlog criteria6

  Refused under backlog criteria7

  1998

  January

  110

  55

  *

  25

  25

  —

  —

  February

  90

  150

  —

  140

  5

  —

  —

  March

  150

  130

  5

  120

  5

  —

  —

  April

  115

  140

  *

  140

  5

  —

  —

  May

  140

  80

  *

  80

  —

  —

  —

  June

  175

  135

  *

  130

  *

  —

  —

  July

  180

  165

  *

  160

  5

  —

  —

  August

  275

  230

  5

  225

  *

  —

  —

  September

  255

  240

  5

  235

  *

  —

  —

  October

  260

  140

  5

  130

  5

  —

  —

  November

  310

  90

  5

  80

  5

  —

  —

  December

  325

  45

  5

  35

  5

  —

  —

  Total

  2,395

  1,600

  35

  1,500

  65

  —

  —

  19998

  January

  275

  9—

  9—

  9—

  February

  255

  9—

  9—

  9—

  March

  285

  9—

  9—

  9—

  9—

  9—

  9—

  April

  295

  9—

  9—

  9—

  9—

  9—

  9—

  May

  295

  9—

  9—

  9—

  9—

  9—

  9—

  June

  370

  9—

  9—

  9—

  9—

  9—

  9—

  July

  330

  9—

  9—

  9—

  9—

  9—

  9—

  August

  415

  9—

  9—

  9—

  9—

  9—

  9—

  September

  355

  9—

  9—

  9—

  9—

  9—

  9—

  October

  355

  9—

  9—

  9—

  9—

  9—

  9—

  November

  375

  9—

  9—

  9—

  9—

  9—

  9—

  December

  380

  9—

  9—

  9—

  9—

  9—

  9—

  Total

  3,975

  1,295

  15

  1,180

  90

  10

  —

  2000

  January

  315

  40

  *

  15

  20

  5

  —

  February

  460

  100

  5

  30

  65

  —

  —

  March

  365

  130

  10

  35

  85

  —

  —

  April

  510

  135

  15

  50

  70

  —

  —

  May

  430

  120

  10

  45

  65

  *

  —

  June

  395

  120

  5

  25

  85

  *

  —

  July

  405

  125

  15

  40

  80

  —

  —

  August

  495

  180

  15

  40

  120

  *

  —

  September

  535

  175

  10

  30

  135

  —

  —

  October

  560

  410

  45

  30

  340

  —

  —

  November

  550

  515

  115

  110

  285

  —

  —

  December

  535

  545

  130

  255

  160

  —

  —

  Total

  5,555

  2,590

  375

  695

  1,515

  10

  —

  200110

  January

  510

  1,020

  175

  555

  290

  —

  —

  February

  615

  1,320

  225

  785

  310

  —

  —

  March

  680

  2,045

  375

  1,215

  450

  —

  —

  April

  700

  930

  195

  550

  185

  —

  —

  May

  900

  1,025

  220

  615

  190

  —

  —

  June

  910

  985

  220

  600

  165

  —

  —

  July

  810

  875

  220

  485

  165

  —

  —

  Total

  5,120

  8,195

  1,635

  4,800

  1,760

  —

  —

  1Figures rounded o nearest 5, with * = 1 or 2

  2May exclude some cases lodged a local enforcement offices between January 1999and March 2000

  3Information is of initial decisions, excluding the outcome of appeals or other subsequent decisions

  4Cases considered under normal procedures may include some cases decided under backlog criteria

  5Cases decided under measures aimed at reducing the pre 1996 asylum application backlog

  6Includes cases where asylum or ELR has been granted under the backlog criteria

  7Includes some cases where the application has been refused on substantive grounds

  81999 data on decisions are not available by month due to problems with data quality

  9Not available

  10Provisional data

  610W
  Monthly data on the removal of Afghan asylum applicants are unavailable. In 1998, 15 Afghan applicants (to nearest five) were removed or departed voluntarily following the initiation of enforcement action against them. Information on the number of Afghan applicants removed from the United Kingdom between 1999 and 2001 is unavailable.
  611W
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers in Spelthorne borough are funded by the Government. [11192]

  Angela Eagle
  Figures are not available by borough for those asylum seekers receiving support under the national asylum support scheme, nor is information available centrally on the number of asylum seekers supported under the interim support scheme in the Spelthorne borough.

  Statistics from the national asylum support service (NASS) for the end of July 2001 show that 13,1601,2 asylum seekers (including dependants) were receiving voucher-only support from NASS and were staying in the London region, which includes Spelthorne. A further 6801,2 asylum seekers (including dependants) were being supported in NASS accommodation in the London region3.
  1Figures rounded to the nearest 102Cases which have had their support ceased are excluded from these figures.3It is NASS policy to allocate accommodation in London only in exceptional circumstances such as medical reasons.
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what additional provision is being made available for asylum-seeker women who are

  Acceptance for settlements 1990 to 2000

  Number of persons

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  All acceptances1

  53,200

  53,900

  52,570

  55,640

  55,010

  55,480

  61,730

  58,720

  69,790

  97,120

  125,090

  Refugees and persons given exceptional leave to remain2,3

  1,130

  990

  1,780

  3.990

  3,290

  1,600

  4,200

  4,830

  6,680

  22,500

  24,840

  Of which:

  Recognised refugees2,3,4

  930

  750

  1,280

  2,850

  2,260

  680

  1,120

  2,400

  4,270

  22,500

  24,840

  Persons given exceptional leave to remain2,3

  200

  240

  500

  1,140

  1,030

  920

  3,080

  2,430

  2,410

  All other acceptances1

  52,070

  52,910

  50,790

  51,650

  51,720

  53,880

  57,530

  53,890

  63,110

  74,620

  100,250

  1Includes spouses and dependants (including spouses and dependent of refugees and persons granted exceptional leave to remain

  2Accepted in own right (excludes spouses and dependants)

  3The information in the table relates to the total number of persons granted settlement (indefinite leave to remain) in any one year and does not necessarily relate to the year that refugee or exceptional leave status was granted

  4Includes refugees from South East Asia and their dependants and persons granted settlement under measures aimed at reducing the pre-July 1993 backlog as announced in the White Paper in July 1998

  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many recent representations the national asylum support service has received in relation to management and support services at Landmark and the Inn on the Park in Everton, Liverpool; and what the nature of those representations was. [10207]

  Angela Eagle
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave on 19 October 2001,Official Report, column 1394W. No further representations have been received since that date.

  Criminal Injuries (Compensation)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were awaiting an award decision at the end of each quarter; what was the average time it took to process an award; how many people were awaiting an appeal decision on their award at the end of each quarter; and what was the average time it took to process an appeal for an award from the Criminal Injuries 612W
  HIV positive, who are not able to breastfeed their children, and who are not entitled to milk tokens or section 17 payments. [10283]

  Angela Eagle
  Asylum-seeking mothers who are supported by the national asylum support service (NASS) may claim additional support on the birth of their baby, amounting to £30.95 per week. They may also be eligible for a maternity payment of £300. Asylum-seeking women who are HIV positive, and who are not able to breastfeed their babies, are not eligible for any other additional support under the NASS scheme.

  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people he estimates are resident in this country on the basis of(a) indefinite leave to remain, (b) exceptional leave to remain first granted before 31 March 1996 and (c) full refugee status. [10175]

  Angela Eagle
  The table provides data on those persons granted settlement in the United Kingdom, ie granted the right to stay indefinitely, in each year from 1990 to 2000.

  However, it is not possible to determine how many people are resident in the United Kingdom at any one time on the basis of their immigration status. Information on those granted indefinite leave to remain who die or subsequently leave the United Kingdom is not recorded.

  Compensation Authority for each quarter from the start of 1998–99 to quarter 2 of 2001–02, broken down by those (a) over and (b) under 60. [10997]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  Data are available only in respect of cases lodged under the tariff scheme, which was introduced with effect from 1 April 1996. Information about residual cases lodged under the common law damages scheme in force before that date is not collated centrally.

  The data in the tables have been provided by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA). The following additional information may be helpful in interpreting that data.

  Claimants dissatisfied with the first decision of CICA (claims assessment) can formally seek a review of that decision by a more senior member of the authority (review). Claimants dissatisfied with the reviewed decision can make a formal appeal to the independent appellate body, the Criminal Injuries Compensation Appeals Panel (appeal).
  613W
  The data in table 1 show the number of claimants awaiting a decision at each of the three stages. Table 2 shows the average time take from receipt of the application to claims assessment. Table 3 shows the time taken to process an application for review, and table 4 the time taken to process an appeal application.

  Table 1: Cases awaiting an award decision

  Claims assessment

  Review

  Appeal

  Total

  1998–99

  Quarter 1

  53,473

  11,758

  2,739

  67,970

  Quarter 2

  53,482

  12,047

  3,418

  68,947

  Quarter 3

  52,232

  10,976

  4,153

  67.361

  Quarter 4

  53,011

  10,888

  5,438

  69,337

  Table 2: Average time elapsed between application and decision—claims assessment stage

  Decision issued

  Total number of decisions

  Average time (days)

  Number of decisions for applicants 60 years and older

  Average time(days)

  1998–99

  April-June

  19,400

  233

  797

  196

  July-September

  17,451

  238

  813

  204

  October-December

  18,973

  234

  811

  206

  January-March

  22,044

  239

  1,050

  214

  1999–2000

  April-June

  17,644

  233

  842

  194

  July-September

  17,644

  216

  890

  184

  October-December

  18,910

  200

  959

  173

  January-March

  18,576

  218

  986

  190

  2000–01

  April-June

  16,698

  234

  899

  195

  July-September

  16,487

  240

  896

  208

  October-December

  18,068

  239

  883

  222

  January-March

  17,557

  265

  887

  233

  2001–02

  April-June

  17,239

  263

  892

  226

  July-September

  18,188

  270

  904

  230

  Table 3: Time taken to process a review application

  Total Number of decisions

  Average time taken (days)

  Number of decisions for applicants 60 years and older

  Average time taken (days)

  1998–99

  April-June

  3,914

  180

  157

  148

  July-September

  4,536

  184

  170

  155

  October-December

  5,482

  195

  237

  165

  January-March

  5,787

  192

  216

  158

  1999–2000

  April-June

  4,648

  193

  192

  162

  July-September

  4,622

  189

  188

  147

  October-December

  5,388

  186

  280

  145

  January-March

  5,359

  180

  247

  130

  2000–01

  April-June

  4,259

  214

  170

  155

  July-September

  3,187

  228

  163

  186

  October-December

  3,426

  256

  186

  185

  January-March

  4,644

  249

  177

  181

  2001–02

  April-June

  3,528

  262

  159

  209

  July-September

  3,751

  254

  177

  206

  614W

  Table 1: Cases awaiting an award decision

  Claims assessment

  Review

  Appeal

  Total

  1999–2000

  Quarter 1

  51,059

  11,201

  5,535

  67,795

  Quarter 2

  54,566

  11,421

  6,701

  72,688

  Quarter 3

  53,093

  10,945

  6,983

  71,021

  Quarter 4

  55,574

  11,018

  7,497

  74,089

  2000–01

  Quarter 1

  56,766

  11,120

  7,801

  75,687

  Quarter 2

  58,386

  12,272

  7,814

  78,472

  Quarter 3

  58,352

  13,211

  7,074

  78,637

  Quarter 4

  60,104

  13,011

  6,518

  79,633

  2001–02

  Quarter 1

  61,224

  13,790

  6,061

  81,075

  Quarter 2

  61,825

  13,949

  5,194

  80,968

  615W

  Table 4: Time taken to process appeals

  Total number of cases resolved

  Average time taken (days)

  Number of decisions for applicants 60 years and older

  Average time taken (days)

  1998–99

  April-June

  423

  188

  19

  190

  July-September

  569

  215

  24

  204

  October-December

  608

  241

  20

  256

  January-March

  673

  274

  42

  265

  1999–2000

  April-June

  914

  276

  50

  280

  July-September

  1,002

  303

  40

  294

  October-December

  1,065

  325

  46

  328

  January-March

  1,099

  351

  42

  342

  2000–01

  April-June

  863

  390

  30

  388

  July-September

  1,080

  416

  58

  399

  October-December

  1,369

  387

  74

  364

  January-March

  1,517

  421

  79

  386

  2001–02

  April-June

  1,323

  418

  66

  391

  July-September

  1,438

  392

  82

  391

  Yarls Wood Immigration Detention Centre
  Alistair Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many people are employed at Yarls Wood immigration detention centre, broken down by(a) contractors employed by outside firms, (b) his Department's officials and (c) those in other categories; [10184]

  (2) what is the expected date for the opening of the Yarls Wood immigration detention centre; [10183]

  (3) what is the cost of the construction of Yarls Wood immigration detention centre. [10182]

  Angela Eagle
  The new immigration detention centre at Yarls Wood is expected to open by 19 November 2001.

  At this moment in time the following numbers are employed within the centre:

  (a) Contractor's Personnel (including sub-contractors): 730

  (b) Home Office Personnel: 23

  (c) Other Categories: 14.

  The cost of the construction of the detention centre cannot be disclosed on the ground of commercial confidentiality.

  Immigration Snatch Squads
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations his Department has received about the proposed operation of immigration snatch squads; what assessment he has made of the consequences for public order; and if he will make a statement. [10150]

  Angela Eagle
  We do not have any plans to introduce snatch squads.

  The immigration service has run a highly successful pilot scheme to conduct visits and arrests without the assistance of the police. In the pilot year, 413 visits were conducted and no complaints were received. Three arrest
  616W
  teams have been established in the metropolitan area. By the end of March 2002, each immigration service region should have an arrest team. A full risk assessment is conducted in conjunction with the police before any visit takes place.

  Islamic Fundamentalists
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received from France concerning the activities of Islamic fundamentalist extremists in the United Kingdom with particular reference to individuals and groups with Algerian connections; and if he will make a reference. [10085]

  Angela Eagle
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has received representations from France in relation to two Algerian individuals suspected of involvement with the GIA (Armed Islamic Group) organisation. The French Government are seeking the extradition of both men. Solicitors for one of the suspects have given notice of their intention to apply for judicial review. A committal hearing is pending for the second suspect.

  As the Home Secretary said in his statement on 15 October, a review of extradition procedure has already been undertaken and we intend to bring forward measures to modernise and place our extradition laws within the context of the new international situation, streamlining while retaining rights of appeal.

  Mr. Aril Tuysug
  Alistair Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the administrative handling of the case of Mr. Aril Tuysug of north-east Bedfordshire, with particular reference to the loss of his papers by his Department; and when he will reply to the letter dated 12 September from the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire. [11299]
  617W
  Angela Eagle
  Mr. Tuysug's outstanding application was not considered, as unfortunately his Home Office file could not be located despite an exhaustive search. In this regard, the Immigration and Nationality Directorate wrote to Mrs. Tuysug on 12 September asking her husband to make a fresh application that would be considered as a matter of priority.

  I wrote to the hon. Member on 24 October advising him accordingly.

  Language Analysis Pilot
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will make an authorisation under section 19D of the Race Relations Act 1976 on a language analysis pilot. [11722]

  Angela Eagle
  In the light of evidence that some asylum applicants are falsely posing as nationals from countries with high grants rates of asylum or exceptional leave, we have decided to undertake a language analysis pilot at the start of November 2001.

  The purpose of language analysis is to provide expert evidence which helps to identify the place of origin of asylum seekers. Language analysis is used in a number of European countries and the results are generally successful. We will be piloting the scheme to see how well language analysis works in the United Kingdom, and for the purposes of the pilot we will be covering asylum seekers of three nationalities where we believe the problem of false nationality claims to be most pronounced. Those nationalities are Afghanistan, Somalia and Sri Lanka.

  The authorisation made by my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Rooker will enable staff in the Immigration and Nationality Directorate, where there are objective reasons for doubting the nationality of a person claiming to be from one of these three countries, to request them to undertake a further interview which will be taped and sent to a language expert for analysis. Individuals may refuse to consent to this further interview, but this refusal can be taken into account when determining whether the applicant has established the facts of their case. This may lead to their claim being refused.

  We will review the need for this authorisation once the pilot has been completed. In addition, the race monitor to be appointed under section 19E of the Race Relations Act 1976 (as amended) will report to Parliament via the Secretary of State on the likely effect of authorisations made by Ministers and on how they are operated in practice by officials.

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

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Unqualified Teachers (Maintained Schools)
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what estimate she has made of the number of unqualified teachers in maintained schools in each of the last five years. [7483]
  618W
  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 15 October 2001]: Full-time equivalent teachers without Qualified Teacher Status (QTS) in the maintained schools sector, England 1997 to 2001 are as follows:

  Year

  Teachers on routes to QTS1

  Instructors and other teachers without QTS2

  Total

  1997

  460

  2,480

  2,940

  1998

  570

  2,640

  3,220

  1999

  470

  3,070

  3,540

  2000

  580

  3,240

  3,820

  2001

  1,280

  4,340

  5,620

  1Those on the Graduate Teacher Programme. Registered Teacher Programme, Licensed Teacher Scheme and Overseas Trained Teacher Scheme

  2On contracts of at least one month

  Note:

  Totals may not sum due to rounding; all figures have been rounded to the nearest 10

  Teachers (Age Profile)
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of teachers in work are due to retire in the next(a) five years, (b) 10 years and (c) 15 years. [8029]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 15 October 2001]: In March 2000, 5.9 per cent. of full-time regular teachers in the maintained schools sector in England were aged 55–59, and will reach the retirement age of 60 during the next five years. 23.5 per cent. were aged 50 to 59, and will reach age 60 during the next 10 years. 44.5 per cent. were aged 45–59, and will reach age 60 over the next 15 years.
  The Department takes teacher demographic changes into account when setting annual initial teacher training targets.

  Individual Learning Accounts
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many complaints have been received about the Individual Learning Accounts scheme. [9687]

  John Healey
  Between 4 September 2000 and 30 September 2001, the Individual Learning Accounts Centre received 6,053 complaints. This represents 0.25 per cent. of over 2.3 million learners.

  Alistair Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what estimate she has of the cost of the abuse of the operation of the Individual Learning Account scheme; and if she will make a statement. [11196]

  John Healey
  It is not possible at this stage to determine costs in relation to the abuse of the Individual Learning Account programme. It will only become clear once we have concluded the investigations we are currently undertaking into providers about whom we have received complaints.

  Alistair Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many complaints had been received in relation to the operation of Individual Learning Accounts(a) before 31 July and (b) at the latest available date; and when the first complaint was received. [11298]
  619W
  John Healey
  The national framework for ILAs first became operational on 4 September, and in that month the Individual Learning Account (ILA) Centre received five complaints out of a total of over 100,000 learners.

  At 31 July 2001, 3,096 complaints had been received, representing 0.19 per cent. of more than 1.5 million learners.

  At 30 September 2001, 6,053 complaints had been received, representing 0.25 per cent. of over 2.3 million learners.

  Alistair Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what allegations of criminal conduct have been received by her Department in relation to the operation of individual learning accounts. [11459]

  John Healey
  The Department has received a number of complaints from individuals alleging that providers have claimed their ILA incentives without their knowledge. A number of these allegations are currently under investigation by both the Department and the police. Until these investigations have been completed the Department will be unable to confirm if any criminal activity has taken place.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many complaints about the Individual Learning Accounts scheme have been upheld when investigated by an external body. [9688]

  John Healey
  To date, the police have undertaken suspected fraud investigations into three providers resulting in a total of 29 arrests. They are also investigating one other provider's ILA activities following their arrest in connection with a suspected fraud on an unrelated matter. In addition, the Department's Special Investigations Unit (SIU) continues to investigate a further 29 providers. Police are in the early stages of investigating suspected fraud by two of these and have expressed an initial interest in another nine providers. SIU is undertaking investigations work on these nine cases prior to a possible formal police investigation.

  As a result of these and other investigations by officials, three learning providers have so far been permanently removed from the list of registered providers and another 37 providers have been removed pending the outcome of investigations into the complaints received.

  Alistair Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what controls her Department put in place at the commencement of operation of the Individual Learning Account scheme. how the scheme was monitored while it was in operation; and if she will make a statement. [11194]

  John Healey
  ILAs were an innovative initiative that put learning power in the hands of the individual. The system was designed to make the learning process as simple and straightforward as possible, cutting down on bureaucracy, in order that the individual could access learning opportunities in an easy, user-friendly way.

  We have undertaken audits and inspections in cases where we received complaints that learning providers were misusing ILAs or provided poor value for money. We introduced a revised learner provider agreement that made it harder for providers to act against the ethos of the programme. We also made changes to the applications
  620W
  process, for the same purpose. It is our careful monitoring of the scheme that has enabled us to take prompt action to safeguard public funds.

  Alistair Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans she has to order an inquiry into alleged abuse of the operation of the individual learning accounts scheme; and if she will make a statement. [11195]

  John Healey
  Our policy is that all complaints that we receive alleging misuse of ILAs should be investigated. In cases where we believe criminal activity is involved, they will be referred to the police for investigation.

  Alistair Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what evidence she has that the Individual Learning Account scheme was being abused by offering low value, poor quality learning; and if she will make a statement. [11295]

  John Healey
  Our investigations into the practices of some learning providers have revealed low-quality learning provision and poor value for money as well as a number of marketing practices which are unacceptable. Individual Learning Account holders have reported many of these instances to us and to Trading Standards Officers, as have other learning providers who did not want to see an innovative, progressive and successful initiative being exploited.

  Alistair Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps she is taking to discover the extent of the abuse of the operation of the Individual Learning Account scheme; and if she will make a statement. [11296]

  John Healey
  We are working closely with individuals, learning providers, local Trading standards Officers, the Individual Learning Account (ILA) Centre and the police to identify and fully investigate all potential abuses of the ILA scheme. We are also writing to all 2.5 million individual learning account holders to inform them of the withdrawal of the scheme, and any additional allegations of abuse we receive as a result will be investigated.

  Alistair Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills on what date she was first informed of complaints concerning the operation of the individual learning account; and what action she took at that time. [11297]

  John Healey
  In July of this year, the Department started to receive increasing numbers of complaints from individuals and local Trading Standards Officers. In response the Department took action to tighten up the ILA system to address these problems. We re-registered all learning providers, withdrew blank application forms, suspended all new provider registrations, introduced a revised learning provider agreement that made it harder for providers to act against the ethos of the programme, and made changes to the applications process, for the same purpose. Everyone who opened an ILA received a copy of 'Choosing Your Learning', explaining the full range of options in using their ILA. However, it became clear that these changes were not sufficient by themselves to prevent the mis-selling of ILAs. At that point we decided we had no option other than to withdraw the programme.
  621W
  Alistair Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if arrests have been made in relation to the operation of individual learning accounts; and if she will make a statement. [11460]

  John Healey
  There have been 30 arrests made by the police to date involving four registered individual Learning Account providers.

  Classroom Assistants
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many employed classroom assistants worked in schools in England and Wales(a) at the latest available date, (b) in 1996 and (c) in 1997. [10403]

  Mr. Timms
  The numbers of full time equivalent teaching assistants employed in maintained schools in England in January 2001, 1997 and 1996 were 95,815, 61,262 and 56,692 respectively.

  For information on teaching assistants in Wales, I refer the hon. Member to the National Assembly for Wales.

  Teacher Vacancies
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the scope and content is of the research project she is commissioning into the reasons why teachers are leaving the profession. [10406]

  Mr. Timms
  When the scope and nature of the study is finalised, we expect it to explore the factors affecting teachers' decisions to leave the profession, the characteristics of those leaving, their destinations and what might have convinced them to stay in teaching. This is likely to involve a nationally representative survey as well as more detailed in-depth work.

  Ofsted
  Mr. Lepper
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many former employees of local authorities transferred to Ofsted on 1 September; how many of those who transferred are(a) women and (b) men; and when it is expected that Ofsted will have in place a child care strategy for its employees. [10725]

  Mr. Timms
  These are matters for HM Chief Inspector of Schools and I have therefore asked Mike Tomlinson to write to my hon. Friend and to place a copy of his letter in the Library.

  Teacher Training
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many teachers there were in training in each year since 1 May 1997. [10727]

  Mr. Timms
  The numbers of new entrants and continuing teacher trainees in Initial Teacher Training Courses in England in each academic year from 1997–98 to 2000–01 were as follows:

  Number of trainees in Initial Teacher Training Courses,1997–98 to 2000–01—England only

  Year

  Total number

  1997–98

  53,715

  1998–99

  49,826

  622W

  Number of trainees in Initial Teacher Training Courses,1997–98 to 2000–01—England only

  Year

  Total Number

  1999–2000

  46,132

  2000–01

  46,572

  Source:

  Teacher Training Agency (TTA), Survey of ITT Providers

  Further places are available on employment-based training for graduate trainees. The total numbers of graduate trainees entering employment-based training each year from 1997–98 to 2000–01 in England were as follows:

  Number of new entrants to Employment Based Training, 1997–98 to 2000–01—England only

  Year

  Total number

  1997–98

  420

  1998–99

  634

  1999–2000

  925

  2000–01

  1,879

  Note:

  Figures show the number of entrants to the Graduate and Registered Teacher Programmes and the former Overseas Teacher and Licensed Teacher Schemes.

  Source:

  TTA

  Teachers (East Yorkshire)
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what provision she will make to ensure the recruitment of 600 new teachers in the East Riding of Yorkshire; and if she will make a statement. [10731]

  Mr. Timms
  The East Riding of Yorkshire will continue to benefit from Government teacher recruitment and retention initiatives that have already delivered an increase of 11,000 between 1997 and 2001 in the numbers of full-time equivalent regular teachers working in England, and which will deliver a further increase of at least 10,000 over the next five years.

  Specialist Status
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what average length of time it takes schools to raise the necessary sponsorship to gain specialist status. [10953]

  Mr. Timms
  This information is not collected by the Department.

  Literacy and Numeracy Results
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what inquiries her Department is undertaking into the premature disclosure of literacy and numeracy test results in September: and if she will make a statement. [11141]

  Mr. Timms
  An inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the release of the 2001 Key Stage results is under way.

  New Schools
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what guidance she proposes to issue on determining the need for the creation of new schools; [11290]

  (2) what guidelines she plans to give to local education authorities on the establishment of new faith schools. [11291]

  Mr. Timms
  The White Paper "Schools achieving success" said that we wish to welcome faith schools, with their distinctive ethos and character, into the maintained sector where there is clear local agreement. Local education authorities cannot establish schools with a religious character. Current guidance to School Organisation Committees (which decide proposals and on which the local education authority is represented) will be revised to ensure that proposals from promoters of new faith schools are given the same consideration as other proposals for new schools. Guidance on the factors to be considered in deciding whether there is a need for a new school more generally is given in the Guidance on Statutory Proposals which will be updated as necessary. We will also issue guidance to local education authorities about the new arrangements for inviting proposals when they consider that a new secondary school is required that is not to replace existing provision. Such proposals will be decided by the Secretary of State and may include proposals for church and other faith schools.

  Funding
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list for(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99, (c) 1999–2000 and (d) 2000–01 each fund stream for which (i) primary schools, (ii) secondary schools and (iii) further education colleges could apply, setting out for each stream (A) the total amount available, (B) the amount awarded, (C) the number of applicants, (D) the number of successful applicants and (E) the average amount awarded to a successful applicant. [11292]

  Mr. Timms
  The information requested is not held centrally in the Department and could therefore be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Surplus Places
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will abolish the surplus places rule. [11294]

  Mr. Timms
  There is no rule on the permitted level of surplus places. The focus of all our policies is raising educational standards. In planning school provision, local education authorities should look for opportunities for removing surplus capacity, with a view to bringing supply and demand for school places into better balance. Their initial focus should be on those schools with 25 per cent. or more of their places unfilled, having particular regard to standards at those schools. The overall aim should be to maximise parental preference and to provide good quality education in the most cost-effective way. The Department's annual survey of surplus places allows us to monitor how local education authorities are meeting this challenge.

TREASURY

  Retirement
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of(a) private sector employees and (b) all employees are due to retire in the next (i) five, (ii) 10 and (iii) 15 years. [10459]

  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. Frank Field, dated 25 October 2001:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your question about the proportion of private sector employees and of all employees who are due to retire within the next 5, 10 and 15 years (10459).
  The Labour Force Survey (LFS) can provide estimates of the numbers and proportions of private sector employees, and those of all employees, who are due to reach state retirement age in the next 5, 10 and 15 years. That is, men aged 60–64, 55–64 and 50–64 and women aged 55–59, 50–59 and 45–59 respectively. These are given in the tables below.
  The LFS does not collect information on the retirement intentions of individuals.

  Table 1: Proportion of private sector employees of working age1 reaching state retirement age in the next five, 10 and 15 years; United Kingdom; spring (March to May) 2001; not seasonally adjusted

  Thousand

  Percentage

  All persons—due to retire in the next:

  Five years

  886

  5.0

  10 years

  2,330

  13.1

  15 years

  4,093

  23.1

  Men—due to retire in the next:

  Five years

  378

  3.6

  10 years

  1,081

  10.4

  15 years

  2,106

  20.2

  Women—due to retire in the next:

  Five years

  508

  6.9

  10 years

  1,249

  17.1

  15 years

  1,988

  27.2

  1Men aged 16–64 and women aged 16–59

  Note:

  Percentages are based on the number of private sector employees in the relevant age group as a percentage of all employees in the private sector

  Source:

  ONS Labour Force Survey

  Table 2: Proportion of all employees of working age1 reaching state retirement age in the next five, 10 and 15 years; United Kingdom; spring (March to May) 2001; not seasonally adjusted

  Thousand

  Percentage

  All persons—due to retire in the next:

  Five years

  1,353

  5.6

  10 years

  3,587

  14.9

  15 years

  6,273

  26.1

  Men—due to retire in the next:

  Five years

  490

  3.8

  10 years

  1,404

  10.9

  15 years

  2,756

  21.5

  625W

  Table 2: Proportion of all employees of working age1 reaching state retirement age in the next five, 10 and 15 years; United Kingdom; spring (March to May) 2001; not seasonally adjusted

  Thousand

  Percentage

  Women—due to retire in the next:

  Five years

  864

  7.7

  10 years

  2,183

  19.5

  15 years

  3,517

  31.4

  1Men aged 16–64 and women aged 16–59

  Note:

  Percentages are based on the number of employees in the relevant age group as a percentage of all employees

  Source:

  ONS Labour Force Survey

  Community Sports Clubs
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the cost to HM Treasury of giving charitable status to community sports clubs. [8857]

  Mr. Boateng
  No such estimate has been made.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will place in the Library the terms of reference of the Mott MacDonald study of PFI; when he expects it to reach its conclusions; and if he will make a statement. [9385]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The study is intended to assess the scale of cost and time overruns and benefit shortfalls in major public sector procurement over a 20-year period. Projects in the defence, energy, health, IT, prisons and transport sectors are being examined, together with a few other projects of outstanding importance. No date has yet been set for the concluding report of the study because the second phase of work has not yet been agreed.

  VAT Payers
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many taxable persons were registered for VAT in each of the financial years since the introduction of VAT in 1972(a) in total and (b) broken down into (i) individuals and (ii) companies. [9171]

  Mr. Boateng
  Where available, information on the numbers of VAT-registered traders in the UK since 1972 has been published in Customs' annual departmental reports.

  Customs' Estate
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the current estimate is of(a) the completion date and (b) the final cost of the (i) Southampton Rationalisation, (ii) Dorset House and (iii) Glasgow Estates projects. [9182]

  Mr. Boateng
  Where available, information on projects undertaken in relation to Customs' estate will be published in the Department's spring report.

  Smuggling
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many smugglers' vehicles were(a) seized
  626W
  and (b) restored to their owners by HM Customs and Excise in (i) 2000–01 and (ii) 2001–02 to the latest date for which information is available. [9188]

  Mr. Boateng
  Figures for the number of vehicles seized by Customs during 2000–01 are contained in the Government's response to the independent report by John Roques into "The Collection of Excise Duties in HM Customs and Excise", House of Commons, Command 5329, July 2001, a copy of which was placed in the Library on 19 July. Information on the number of vehicles which were restored is not available. The number of vehicles Customs seize from smugglers during 2001–02 will be published on a full financial year basis during 2002–03.

  Partnerships UK
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage stake in Partnerships UK has been sold to private investors; and how much has been raised by the sale of shares to date. [10250]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  HM Treasury sold a 51 per cent. shareholding in PUK plc to private sector investors, following an offer for sale issued on 26 February 2001. A further 4.4 per cent. was legally transferred to the Scottish Ministers on 23 April.

  A total of £45 million was raised by the transaction for Partnerships UK. Of this amount £24,949,998 was raised by the sale to the private sector and Scottish Ministers. The remainder represents the Treasury's investment in Partnerships UK.

  Landfill Tax Credit Scheme
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the HM Treasury review of the landfill tax credit scheme will be completed; and if he will make a statement. [10232]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Government are committed to meeting the challenging targets for waste recycling set out in Waste Strategy 2000. As stated in Budget 2001, we are attracted to replacing all or part of the landfill tax credit scheme with a public spending programme to direct resources towards Government priorities on sustainable waste management. The Government, together with the devolved Administrations, are beginning work on developing options for a spending programme for consideration as part of the spending review 2002. In taking forward this work, the Government will consult with interested parties on the shape of any replacement scheme and the transition to any replacement.

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps are taken to ensure that parents do not enrol their children in nursery on a temporary basis in order to claim working families tax credit. [10676]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Applicants for the working families tax credit provide confirmation from child care providers of the charges they have agreed with parents and that the service they provide is eligible for support through the child care tax credit.
  627W
  Applications may be selected for further inquiry on the basis of a risk assessment. Specialist staff may inquire formally into applications identified as requiring investigation.

  Tax Revenue (Football)
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate how much tax revenue was generated from football in the last 12 months. [10988]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Estimates are not available of the tax revenue from football.

  Railtrack
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when his Department was involved in the discussions between Railtrack and the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions after 1 July on Project Rainbow and related matters. [10916]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Treasury officials are in contact on a daily basis with a wide variety of organisations, both inside and outside government, concerning a wide range of issues.

  Brownfield Sites
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the uptake has been of the advance payable tax credit for clearing and developing brownfield sites; and if he will make a statement. [10973]

  Mr. Boateng
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to him by the Economic Secretary on 25 October 2001,Official Report, column 375W.

  Manufacturing
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will make a statement on the impact of business tax and regulation upon the profitability of British manufacturing; [10657]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the effects of business tax and regulation upon the competitiveness of manufacturing. [10656]

  Mr. Boateng
  Successive Budgets have set out new measures as part of the Government's clear strategy to boost competition, productivity, enterprise and innovation, skills, investment and encourage economic growth across all regions. The Government seek to make Britain the most competitive environment for business in the world.

  The Government are committed to tackling regulatory burdens and supporting business. Lord Haskins' better regulation task force has been established to advise the Government on regulatory issues. The new Regulatory Reform Act 2001 will also play a vital role in the drive to reform over-burdensome legislation. Under this Act, over 50 potential reforms have been identified, with nine measures out to consultation and one potential regulatory reform order already laid. The panel for regulatory accountability calls departmental regulatory reform Ministers to account for their Department's regulatory performance. The Government are also committed to publishing regulatory impact assessments for all new measures having an impact on business.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Northavon of 9 August regarding a lorry belonging to Westfield International Transport seized by HM Customs; and if he will ensure that the lorry is released as soon as possible. [11140]

  Mr. Boateng
  I have already replied to the hon. Member.

  Climate Change Levy
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage share of(a) UK gross domestic product and (b) the total to be raised by the climate change levy, the UK engineering industry will contribute in the next financial year. [10696]

  Mr. Boateng
  On the most recently available figures, engineering represents an estimated 6 per cent. of gross domestic product.

  The impact of CCL on any sector will be determined by a number of factors, including:
  The future energy consumption of firms in the sector and the use they make of levy funded energy efficiency support.
  Employment levels in those sectors and the benefits received from the levy funded national insurance contribution cuts.
  The number of energy intensive firms in that sector that are eligible to receive a discount on the main rates of the levy by signing up to an energy efficiency agreement.
  What use firms in that sector make of electricity generated from levy exempt 'new' renewable sources of energy and combined heat and power.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessments he has made of the costs of the climate change levy to British industry. [10640]

  Mr. Boateng
  The climate change levy will raise an estimated £1 billion a year, all of which will be recycled back to business through cuts in employers' national insurance contributions and support for energy efficiency. While the levy is broadly revenue neutral across manufacturing and service sectors, it is not possible to say exactly what effect the levy will have on any specific sector or industry. That will depend on a number of factors including:The future energy consumption of firms in the sector and the use they make of levy funded energy efficiency support.
  Employment levels in those sectors and the benefits received from the levy funded national insurance contribution cuts.
  The number of energy intensive firms in that sector that are eligible to receive a discount on the main rates of the levy by signing up to an energy efficiency agreement.
  What use firms in that sector make of electricity generated from levy exempt 'new' renewable sources of energy and combined heat and power.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much revenue was raised from the engineering industry by the climate change levy in the first six months of its operation. [10650]

  Mr. Boateng
  The climate change levy only became operational in April this year and the first payments are still being received by Customs and Excise. It is too early to assess its impact, but the levy is operating in the planned revenue neutral manner.
  629W
  The impact on any specific sector will depend on a number of factors including:
  The future energy consumption of firms in the sector and the use they make of levy funded energy efficiency support.
  Employment levels in those sectors and the benefits received from the levy funded national insurance contribution cuts.
  The number of energy intensive firms in that sector that are eligible to receive a discount on the main rates of the levy by signing up to an energy efficiency agreement.
  What use firms in that sector make of electricity generated from levy exempt 'new' renewable sources of energy and combined heat and power.

  Aggregates Tax
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will provide an estimate of the revenues the Government will receive from the aggregates tax in the current financial year. [10642]

  Mr. Boateng
  The aggregates levy will not be operational until April 2002. Therefore the Government will receive no revenue in the current financial year.

  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make an estimate of the revenues the Government will receive from the aggregates tax in the next financial year. [10994]

  Mr. Boateng
  An assessment of the revenues expected from the introduction of the aggregates levy was given in the Financial Statement and Budget report 2001. Forecast revenues will again be published in autumn's pre-Budget report. The revenues raised from the levy will be returned to business and local communities affected by quarrying through a 0.1 percentage point cut in employers' NICS and a new Sustainability Fund.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the impact of the aggregates tax upon the construction industry. [10644]

  Mr. Boateng
  Budget 2000 announced that the Government had decided to introduce an aggregates levy with effect from April 2002. It will be charged at £1.60 per tonne on the commercial exploitation of primary aggregates in the UK, including those imported from abroad. Aggregates exported from the UK will be exempt.

  A full regulatory impact assessment was published at the time of Budget 2000.

  It is envisaged that a higher price of primary aggregate will provide an incentive to make better use of recycled aggregates and other alternatives, and more efficient use of primary aggregate. The impact on the actual costs to the end user will be dependent on the commercial decisions of those in the supply chain.

  Minimum Wage
  Mr. Challen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people in the Morley and Rothwell constituency are benefiting from the minimum wage. [10278]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.
  630W
  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Colin Challen, dated 30 October 2001:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question about the number of people in the Morley and Rothwell constituency who are benefiting from the national minimum wage (NMW). (10278)
  The Office for National Statistics has published estimates of the number of jobs paid at less than NMW rates for 1998. 1999, and 2000. These estimates are based on an improved methodology using data from the New Earning Survey (NES) and Labour Force Survey (LFS). This methodology provides the best estimates for the number of jobs in the UK paid below low hourly rate thresholds and was developed to overcome the deficiencies inherent in using the NES and LFS separately for measuring low pay.
  Estimates for the United Kingdom and Government Office Regions are posed on the National Statistics website at:
  www.statistics.gov.uk/nsbase/themes/labour_market/nmw_lowpay_tables.asp
  Estimates for Parliamentary Constituencies of numbers of jobs paid below NMW rates are not available on the basis of the methodology applied for producing the national and regional level figures.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many people employed in the agricultural sector have benefited from the introduction of the national minimum wage; [10276]

  (2) how many (a) men and (b) women are paid the national minimum wage in the UK. [10946]

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

  Letter from John Pullinger to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 30 October 2001:
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent questions about the number of people in the agriculture sector who have benefited from the introduction of the national minimum wage (NMW) and the number of men and women who are paid the NMW in the UK. I am replying in his absence. (10276, 10946)
  The latest available information is for spring 2000. At that time the NMW for people aged 22 or over was £3.60 per hour. Estimates based on the New Earnings Survey and Labour Force Survey show that in spring 2000 there were 150,000 men and 440,000 women aged 22 or over earning between £3.60 and £3.70 per hour.
  The estimates requested for the agriculture sector are not available as the sample size is too small for these to be reliable.

  Manufacturing Sector Redundancies
  Adam Price
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many redundancies there were in the manufacturing sector in(a) Wales, (b) Scotland, (c) Northern Ireland and (d) the UK as a whole in each year since 1997. [11422]

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

  Letter from Karen Dunnell to Adam Price, dated 30 October 2001:
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about redundancies in the manufacturing sector in Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom. I am replying in his absence. (11422)
  The Labour Force Survey (LFS) can provide estimates of the numbers of people who have been made redundant from a job in the manufacturing sector in the United Kingdom as a whole. However, the sample size is too small to provide reliable estimates for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

  631W
  The LFS estimates of the numbers of redundancies in the manufacturing sector in the United Kingdom for each summer (June to August) quarter from 1997 to 2001 are given in the table.

  Redundancies in the manufacturing sector1: United Kingdom

  Not seasonally adjusted

  Thousand

  Summer (June to August)

  Number

  1997

  49

  1998

  57

  1999

  64

  2000

  50

  2001

  70

  1The number of people who were made redundant from a job in the manufacturing sector in the same calendar month as, or the two calendar months prior to, the reference week.

  Source:

  ONS Labour Force Survey

  GDP
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of gross domestic product was generated by the(a) manufacturing sector and (b) service sector in each of the last five years. [10088]

  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. Lindsay Hoyle, dated 30 October 2001:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your question on the percentage of gross domestic product generated by the manufacturing and service sectors in each of the last five years (10088).
  Information on the contribution of individual industries is not available. However, it is possible to analyse gross value added (GVA) at basic prices by industry. GVA is similar in concept to gross domestic product, differing only in adjustments for taxes and subsidies on products.
  The following table shows the percentage of GVA generated by manufacturing and services.

  Manufacturing and service contribution to Gross Value Added: 1996 to 2000

  Percentage

  Calendar Year

  Manufacturing

  Services

  1996

  21.5

  66.4

  1997

  21.1

  67.6

  1998

  20.1

  69.3

  Gross domestic product (GDP) per head by NUTS level 3 area at current basic prices 19981,2,3

  £ million

  Inner London: West = 100

  UK = 100

  Inner London: West

  57,281

  100

  456

  Berkshire

  19,008

  33

  151

  Edinburgh, City of

  18,417

  32

  147

  Swindon

  18,129

  32

  144

  Portsmouth

  18,012

  31

  144

  Milton Keynes

  17,557

  31

  140

  Nottingham

  17,373

  30

  138

  Belfast

  17,159

  30

  137

  Peterborough

  17,158

  30

  137

  Glasgow City

  16,495

  29

  131

  Surrey

  15,945

  28

  127

  Cambridgeshire cc

  15,783

  28

  126

  Inner London: East

  15,496

  27

  123

  Bristol, City of

  15,472

  27

  123

  Shetland Islands

  15,107

  26

  120

  632W

  Manufacturing and service contribution to Gross Value Added: 1996 to 2000

  Percentage

  Calendar Year

  Manufacturing

  Services

  1999

  19.2

  70.3

  2000

  18.7

  70.2

  Source:

  Table 2.3 United Kingdom National Accounts 2001 edition

  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list, in descending order, the GDP per head of each(a) county council, (b) unitary and (c) metropolitan area by (i) actual amount and (ii) percentage of the area with the highest GDP in the last year for which figures are available. [10789]

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

  Letter from John Kidgell to Mr. Charles Hendry, dated 30 October 2001:
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent question on local area estimates of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per head (10789). I am replying in his absence.
  The Office for National Statistics (ONS) does not produce estimates of GDP per head for the geographical breakdown requested. Instead, estimates are produced by Nomenclature of Units for Territorial Statistics (NUTS) areas. There are five levels of NUTS in the UK and GDP estimates are produced for the first three. NUTS level 3 is the geography that is most closely aligned to county councils, unitary authority and metropolitan areas and is also the lowest geographical level that data are available.
  GDP is a workplace measure of economic activity in a given area regardless of whether the persons engaged in the activity live in that area. GDP per head is calculated by using the resident population in the area. In the absence of another indicator this has been used as a measure of well being at the sub-regional and local area level. However, a better measure would be household income per head as this would be a truly residence based measure. This is not currently available but the ONS is planning to produce estimates of household disposable income for sub-region and local area in early 2002.
  Estimates of GDP per head and GDP per head as a proportion of the NUTS level 3 area with the highest GDP per head (Inner London-West) are shown in the following table. The GDP per head for Inner London - West is much larger than any other area due to the high amount of commerce in the area and a fairly small resident population in comparison, which makes proportionate comparisons on this basis more difficult. For this reason, I have additionally provided a third column, showing the same data on our more usual basis of comparison, GDP per head expressed as a ratio to the UK average. Some NUTS level 3 areas correspond exactly to county council boundaries and these are marked with the letters cc.
  633W

  Gross domestic product (GDP) per head by NUTS level 3 area at current basic prices 19981, 2, 3

  £ million

  Inner London: West = 100

  UK = 100

  Telford and Wrekin

  14,843

  26

  118

  Southampton

  14,675

  26

  117

  Halton and Warrington

  14,660

  26

  117

  Derby

  14,629

  26

  117

  Luton

  14,400

  25

  115

  York

  14,305

  25

  114

  Cheshire cc

  14,172

  25

  113

  Outer London: West and North West

  14,045

  25

  112

  Oxfordshire

  13,983

  24

  111

  Leicester

  13,973

  24

  111

  Buckinghamshire cc

  13,813

  24

  110

  Hertfordshire

  13,717

  24

  109

  West Sussex

  13,622

  24

  109

  North and North East Lincolnshire

  13,402

  23

  107

  Northamptonshire

  13,369

  23

  107

  Leeds

  13,322

  23

  106

  Warwickshire

  13,288

  23

  106

  Greater Manchester South

  13,204

  23

  105

  Hampshire cc

  13,173

  23

  105

  Suffolk

  13,143

  23

  105

  Thurrock

  13,055

  23

  104

  Gloucestershire

  12,772

  22

  102

  Solihull

  12,757

  22

  102

  Cardiff and Vale of Glamorgan

  12,714

  22

  101

  Birmingham

  12,456

  22

  99

  Monmouthshire and Newport

  12,424

  22

  99

  Flintshire and Wrexham

  12,404

  22

  99

  Falkirk

  12,227

  21

  97

  East Cumbria

  12,217

  21

  97

  Perth and Kinross and Stirling

  12,203

  21

  97

  Leicestershire cc and Rutland

  12,139

  21

  97

  Bournemouth and Poole

  12,078

  21

  96

  Coventry

  12,013

  21

  96

  South Ayrshire

  11,934

  21

  95

  Bedfordshire cc

  11,874

  21

  95

  Kingston Upon Hull, City of

  11,850

  21

  94

  Norfolk

  11,825

  21

  94

  Kent cc

  11,800

  21

  94

  North and North East Somerset, South Gloucestershire

  11,730

  20

  93

  Wiltshire cc

  11,708

  20

  93

  West Lothian

  11,683

  20

  93

  Essex cc

  11,640

  20

  93

  Worcestershire

  11,467

  20

  91

  Plymouth

  11,437

  20

  91

  Blackburn with Darwen

  11,420

  20

  91

  Angus and Dundee City

  11,387

  20

  91

  Darlington

  11,254

  20

  90

  Sheffield

  11,171

  20

  89

  North Yorkshire cc

  11,085

  19

  88

  Dumfries and Galloway

  11,063

  19

  88

  Southend-on-Sea

  11,016

  19

  88

  Herefordshire, County of

  11,011

  19

  88

  Liverpool

  10,886

  19

  87

  Somerset

  10,877

  19

  87

  Hartlepool and Stockton-on-Tees

  10,872

  19

  87

  Lincolnshire4

  10,751

  19

  86

  Stoke-on-Trent

  10,738

  19

  86

  Medway

  10,639

  19

  85

  West Cumbria

  10,556

  18

  84

  Inverclyde, East Renfrewshire and Renfrewshire

  10,510

  18

  84

  Tyneside

  10,469

  18

  83

  Dudley and Sandwell

  10,428

  18

  83

  Calderdale, Kirklees and Wakefield

  10,423

  18

  83

  South and West Derbyshire

  10,404

  18

  83

  Outer London: South

  10,358

  18

  83

  Bradford

  10,339

  18

  82

  South Teeside

  10,299

  18

  82

  Clackmannanshire and Fife

  10,275

  18

  82

  Shropshire cc

  10,231

  18

  82

  Brighton and Hove

  10,206

  18

  81

  Walsall and Wolverhampton

  10,191

  18

  81

  634W 635W

  Gross domestic product (GDP) per head by NUTS level 3 area at current basic prices 19981, 2, 3

  £ million

  Inner London: West = 100

  UK = 100

  North Nottinghamshire

  10,176

  18

  81

  Staffordshire cc

  10,176

  18

  81

  Lancashire cc

  10,173

  18

  81

  Powys

  10,144

  18

  81

  Bridgend and Neath Port Talbot

  10,121

  18

  81

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  10,051

  18

  80

  Dorset cc

  10,016

  17

  80

  Scottish Borders

  9,974

  17

  79

  Swansea

  9,943

  17

  79

  Gwynedd

  9,876

  17

  79

  Orkney Islands

  9,799

  17

  78

  Devon cc

  9,636

  I7

  77

  North Lanarkshire

  9,573

  17

  76

  Eilean Siar (Western Isles)

  9,555

  17

  76

  South Lanarkshire

  9,544

  17

  76

  Inverness and Nairn and Moray, Badenoch and Strathspey

  9,456

  17

  75

  Sunderland

  9,209

  16

  73

  Blackpool

  8,899

  16

  71

  Northumberland

  8,818

  15

  70

  East Derbyshire

  8,802

  15

  70

  Torbay

  8,655

  15

  69

  Greater Manchester North

  8,636

  15

  69

  Lochaber, Skye and Lochalsh and Argyll and the Islands

  8,630

  15

  69

  North of Northern Ireland

  8,502

  15

  68

  East and West Dunbartonshire, Helensburgh and Lomond

  8,489

  15

  68

  Caithness and Sutherland and Ross and Cromarty

  8,467

  15

  67

  South Nottinghamshire

  8,448

  15

  67

  Central Valleys

  8,422

  15

  67

  Isle of Wight

  8,397

  15

  67

  East of Northern Ireland

  8,351

  15

  67

  Conwy and Denbighshire

  8,295

  14

  66

  Outer Belfast

  8,282

  14

  66

  East Merseyside

  8,270

  14

  66

  South West Wales

  8,258

  14

  66

  Durham cc

  8,199

  14

  65

  East Ayrshire and North Ayrshire Mainland

  8,191

  14

  65

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly4

  8,185

  14

  65

  Isle of Anglesey

  8,047

  14

  64

  Outer London: East and North East

  8,017

  14

  64

  Barnsley, Doncaster and Rotherham

  7,992

  14

  64

  Gwent Valleys

  7,981

  14

  64

  West and South of Northern Ireland

  7,862

  14

  63

  West and South of Northern Ireland

  7,862

  14

  63

  East Sussex cc

  7,847

  14

  63

  Wirral

  7,525

  13

  60

  East Lothian and Midlothian

  7,503

  13

  60

  Sefton

  7,313

  13

  58

  United Kingdom5

  12,548

  22

  100

  1Estimates are provisional

  2Includes taxes less subsidies on production

  3Components may not sum to totals due to rounding

  4 This area is represented at more than one NUTS level

  5Excluding GDP for Extra-region, which comprises compensation of to regions

  Source:

  Regional Accounts, Office for National Statistics

  Manufacturing and Service Sectors
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of the population was employed in the(a) manufacturing sector and (b) service sector for each of the last five years. [10086]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.
  636W
  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Lindsay Hoyle, dated 30 October 2001:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question about the proportion of the population employed in (a) the manufacturing sector and (b) the service sector for each of the last five years (10086).
  The table below shows the number of workforce jobs in the manufacturing and service sectors in June for each year from 1997 to 2001.
  637W

  UK workforce jobs by industry

  Manufacturing Section D of SIC (92)

  Services Sections G-Q of SIC(92)

  Other industries1

  As at June (seasonally adjusted)

  Number (000s)

  Percentage of Workforce

  Number (000s)

  Percentage of Workforce

  Number (000s)

  Percentage of Workforce

  997

  4,495

  15.9

  21,123

  74.9

  2,576

  9.1

  1998

  4,525

  15.8

  21,433

  75.0

  2,605

  9.1

  1999

  4,347

  15.1

  21,972

  76.1

  2,551

  8.8

  2000

  4,218

  14.5

  22,267

  76.6

  2,579

  8.9

  2001

  4,079

  14.0

  22,558

  77.2

  2,592

  8.9

  1 'Other industries' include agriculture, fishing, mining and quarrying, utilities and construction (sections A, B, C, E and F8.9 of SIC(92)).

  These estimates are based on the results of regular sample surveys of employers which count the number of employee jobs. Data on self-employment are obtained from the Labour Force Survey. An individual with two jobs would count twice in these figures: in order to avoid double-counting, the percentages are related to total workforce jobs rather than the UK population.

  Job Losses
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many jobs were lost in the(a) tourism, (b) agriculture, (c) fishing and (d) defence-related industries in Devon and Cornwall in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [10395]

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

  Letter from John Pullinger to Mr. Adrian Sanders, dated 30 October 2001:
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent question about the number of jobs that were lost in tourism, agriculture, fishing and defence related industries in Devon and Cornwall in the last 12 months. I am replying in his absence. (10395)
  Information is not available for job losses.

  Census
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what national allowance he will make for unreturned census forms; and how this allowance will be calculated; [11145]

  (2) if he will list Government and non-government departments that depend on census information for the distribution of Government funds. [11144]

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

  Letter from John Pullinger to Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, dated October 2001:
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent questions concerning the government departments and non-government departments that depend on Census information for the distribution of government funds and what national allowance will be made for unreturned Census forms; and how this allowance will be calculated. I am replying in his absence. (11144,11145)
  In answer to the first question, extensive consultation was carried out among government departments, public authorities and private sector organisations on the needs and requirements for information to be collected from the 2001 Census. The purposes for which information from each census question is required were set out in the Government's White paper The 2001 Census of Population (Cm 4253), published in March 1999.
  638W
  The Government needs information that must be authoritative, accurate and comparable for all parts of the country in order to form policy, to plan services for specific groups of people and, in particular, to distribute resources effectively to local and health authorities to enable them to direct resources to where they are needed.
  Those Government Departments that primarily depend on census information for the purposes of the distribution of public funds include the Departments for Health; Work and Pensions; Education and Skills: Transport, Local Government and the Regions; the Home Office; and the National Assembly for Wales.
  Extensive use is also made of census information by each local government authority and health authority in the distribution of funds and resources at the more local area level.
  With regard to the second question, the extent and nature of any under-enumeration in the 2001 Census will be more accurately assessed than in any previous census by the extensive, separate, follow-up Census Coverage Survey carried out by interviewing around 300,000 households shortly after the Census enumeration was completed.
  Once the interview responses and all the Census returns have been analysed, we will have a definitive picture of how well we have done at both the national and local authority area level. Information from the Census Coverage Survey will thus enable the extent of any under-coverage to be assessed and the characteristics of the population missed in the Census to be estimated. This information will be used to supplement the counts from the Census itself to provide a more complete base of the population for statistical purposes.

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the reasons for changes in the percentage of households that failed to return Census forms in the last 10 years. [11143]

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

  Letter from John Pullinger to Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, dated 30 October 2001:
  The National Statistician and Registrar General for England and Wales has been asked to reply to your recent question on what assessment has been made for the reasons for changes in the percentage of households that failed to return Census forms in the last 10 years (11143). I am replying in his absence.
  Evidence from the 2001 Census does not yet give a clear indication of the percentage of households that failed to make a return. Early indications suggest that the overall level of response should be at least as good as that to the 1991 Census.
  The extent and nature of any under-enumeration will be more accurately assessed than ever before by the extensive and separate follow-up Census Coverage Survey carried out by interviewing around 300,000 households shortly after the Census enumeration was complete.

  639W
  Results form the Census Coverage Survey will be used together with information from the Census itself, to provide the best estimate of the extent of any under-enumeration in the Census and the characteristics of the population missed.

  Commercial Banks
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will investigate the role of collections units of the commercial banks, with particular reference to their policies towards pensioners and those soon to become pensioners. [10636]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Banking Code sets standards of banking practice for banks and building societies when they are dealing with all personal customers, including pensioners. The Chancellor set up the independent Banking Services Consumer Codes Review Group last year. As part of its work the group examined how banks treat individuals in financial difficulties. The group reported in May 2001 and recommended revisions to the Code to ensure consumers in financial difficulty are dealt with appropriately. The financial services industry is already taking forward work to revise this part of the Code.

  Debt collecting is also a licensable activity under the Consumer Credit Act 1974. The licensing system is administered by the Director General of Fair Trading who has the power to revoke a licence if he believes that a business is not fit to engage in the activities covered by it. In reaching his decision, he will take account of any business practices which appear to him to be deceitful or oppressive, or otherwise unfair or improper.

  Exchange Rate Policy
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his exchange rate policy. [10508]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government do not have a target for sterling, but a stable and competitive rate is sought over the medium term, consistent with the objective of price stability. The way to ensure long-term exchange rate stability is through the pursuit of sound macroeconomic policies aimed at achieving sustained growth and low inflation.

  Motoring
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take steps to ensure that taxes on motor fuel cover the congestion and environmental costs of motoring. [11548]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Government's approach to environmental taxation was set out in their Statement of Intent on environmental taxation in the July 1997 Budget and restated in the November 1999 pre-Budget report, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that decisions on future changes in fuel duty would be taken in the light of environmental, social and economic factors.

  EC Finance
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer with reference to Article 9 of the Council Decision on the system of the European Communities' own resources on 29 September 2000, what his interpretation of the word 640W
  autonomous is in the phrase "new autonomous own resources"; and if he will outline the measures which will be considered as new autonomous own resources. [11204]

  Ruth Kelly
  Article 9 of the Council Decision, of 29 September 2000, on the system of the European Communities' own resources replaces Article 10 of the Decision of 28 October 1994. Like the Article it replaces, this simply allows the European Commission to undertake a review of their own resources system and to put forward proposals for modifying the system if necessary. What modifications the European Commission will choose to consider at the time is, of course, a matter for them. However, it will remain the case that any proposals for modifying the system of own resources which they decide to put forward would then have to be considered, and agreed, by all member states unanimously.

  Euro
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what work his Department has undertaken to assess progress on meeting his five economic tests; which independent economists have been invited to contribute to the assessment; how many officials are involved; and when the assessment will be(a) completed and (b) published. [11098]

  Ruth Kelly
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 25 October 2001,Official Report, columns 372–73W.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish assessments made by the Treasury since 1997 of the economic consequences of UK membership of the euro. [10556]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government have said that they will complete an assessment of the five economic tests within two years of the start of this Parliament.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the reasons for the United Kingdom not joining the euro. [10666]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government's policy on membership of the single currency remains as set out by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in October 1997. The determining factor underpinning any Government decision on membership of the single currency is the national economic interest and whether the economic case for joining is clear and unambiguous.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if it is his policy to publish an assessment of the consequences for UK fiscal policy of(a) joining and (b) preparing to join the euro, in advance of a referendum on British membership of the euro. [10562]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government have said that they will complete another assessment of the five tests within two years of the start of this Parliament.

  Bank of England/FSA Joint Committee
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Joint Treasury/Bank of England/FSA Standing Committee met in 2001; who the Treasury representative on the Committee was; what the titles are of the papers submitted by the Treasury representative; and if he will make a statement on the present work and future programme of the Joint Committee. [10919]
  641W
  Ruth Kelly
  HM Treasury, the Bank of England and the FSA meet approximately once a month under the aegis of the UK Standing Committee on Financial Stability. The meetings are chaired by the Treasury's Managing Director, Financial Regulation and Industry. Much of the Committee's work is confidential, and discussions are often subject to statutory protections of information under the acts that govern financial regulation.

  Financial Stability
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Financial Stability Forum met in 2001; who were the Treasury representatives; what issues were raised at the forum; and if he will make a statement. [10920]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Financial Stability Forum met this year in London on 6–7 September and in Washington, D.C. on 22–23 March. The Treasury's Forum member is the Managing Director, Financial Regulation and Industry. Information on these meetings can be found at the Forum's website at http://www.fsforum.org/Press/ P20010323.html

  Liberalisation of Trade in Services Committee
  Mr. Challen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from the Liberalisation of Trade in Services Committee in the last 12 months. [10280]

  Ruth Kelly
  I refer to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on 26 October 2001,Official Report, column 417W.

  Electronic Communications
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress has been made towards delivering all of his Department's services electronically by 2005; and what services are provided online by HM Treasury and its executive agencies. [10509]

  Ruth Kelly
  Services currently provided online by the Treasury are: the provision of information and publications via the Internet, correspondence with Treasury Ministers, and responding to public inquiries via email.

  The Office of Government Commerce (OGC), which is an office of the Treasury, publishes information and best practice guidance on its website, and through OGCbuying.solutions provides electronic catalogues for the procurement of goods and services by Government Departments, their Agencies and NDPBs. The catalogues are available to the wider public sector. OGC also facilitates the use of the Government Procurement Card across all Government bodies.

  The Debt Management Office (DMO), an agency of the Treasury, publishes data on gilts, treasury bills and other information including all its publications on its website.

  Future developments will include the extension of electronic publishing and the introduction of e-tendering.

  Of the services provided by the Treasury, OGC and the DMO, 70 per cent. are now online. This will rise to 90 per cent. by the end of 2002, and 100 per cent. by 2005.

  Productivity Gap
  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the latest trends in the productivity gap in terms of GDP per worker between the UK and the US. [10254]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government make regular assessments of trends in productivity. The most recent assessment was given in Budget 2001. The Government set out a further statement of policy in "Productivity in the UK: Enterprise and the Productivity Challenge", published in June 2001. An updated assessment will be given in the pre-budget report 2001.

  Savings Ratio
  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact of the UK's savings ratio on the imbalances in the UK economy between consumption spending and internationally exposed sectors. [10281]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government publish assessments of UK economic developments and prospects as part of its pre-Budget and Budget reports.

  Growth Competitiveness Index
  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the reasons for Britain's changed position between 2000 and 2001 in the growth competitiveness index published by the World Economic Forum. [10260]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government make regular assessments of UK productivity and competitiveness, drawing on a wide range of indicators. For example, the Department of Trade and Industry has a Service Delivery Agreement to publish regularly a comprehensive set of Competitiveness Indicators for the UK, designed to monitor progress in closing the productivity gap.

  Pension Policies
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his written answer of 23 October 2001,Official Report, column 203W, on pensions policies, if he has asked Lord Penrose to investigate. [11049]

  Ruth Kelly
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) on 15 October 2001,Official Report, column 851W.

  Labour Force Survey
  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the latest trends in Labour Force Survey unemployment; and how he expects these trends to develop in the next two quarters. [10263]

  Ruth Kelly
  This year the ILO unemployment rate, as measured by the Labour Force Survey, has been at its lowest since the 1970s. While the Government are conscious of the fact that no country can insulate itself from world economic events, our new macroeconomic framework has delivered low inflation and sound public finances, leaving the UK better placed than in the past to cope with global developments, following the tragic events in America.

  Income Statistics
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will provide a breakdown of the percentage real terms increase in disposable income for the lowest earning quintile in each year since 1992. [9756]

  Malcolm Wicks
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information requested is not available.

  Departmental Budgets
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the amount by which budgets were over or under spent in each financial year since May 1997 in the(a) Department for Education and Employment, (b) Department of Health and (c) Ministry of Defence. [7785]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The table sets out the cash underspends against final Departmental Expenditure Limits (DEL) provision for the Departments requested. Provisional figures for 2000–01 were published in the July 2001 Public Expenditure Outturn White Paper (Cm 5243), and are subject to revision on production of the Appropriation Accounts. Since 1998–99 Departments have been allowed to carry forward any DEL budget provision which is not spent in one year into the following year. (More limited end year flexibility applied before this date). This means that underspends are available to Departments to spend in later years.

  Underspend against Departmental Expenditure Limits

  £million

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–100

  Department for Education and Employment

  359

  659

  828

  Department of Health

  169

  285

  177

  Ministry of Defence

  225

  74

  318

  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will provide a breakdown of budget underspend so far in the current financial year in(a) the Department of Health, (b) the Department for Education and Skills and (c) the Ministry of Defence.[R] [10257]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  There is no in-year target for the profile of departmental spending. Outturn against six-month forecast for each Request for Resources will be published in Winter Supplementary Estimates as usual.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  State Earnings-Related Pension Scheme
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will place in the Library a copy of the letter from his Department to those people who will be unaffected by the changes in inherited SERPS, but have reached state pension age since the first letter was issued, and to those who will reach state pension age by 5 October 2002; and when he expects to issue a further letter to those people who will be affected by the reduction in SERPS on the sliding scale. [8966]

  Mr. McCartney
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 20 July 2001,Official Report, column 685W. A copy of the letter from the Department to those people who will be unaffected by the changes in
  644W
  inherited SERPS but have reached state pension age since the first letter was issued, and those who will reach state pension age by 5 October 2002, has now been placed in the Library.

  A further letter will be issued to those people who will be affected by the reduction in SERPS on the sliding scale in the first part of next year—2002.

  Benefit Repayments
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what powers exist to recover benefits paid to those ineligible to receive such benefits by reason of(a) fraud and (b) mistake. [7959]

  Malcolm Wicks
  [holding answer 16 October 2001]: Where an overpayment has arisen as a result of a claimant's misrepresentation or failure to disclose a change of circumstances, section 71 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 allows recovery of that overpayment. This covers most of the overpayments we seek to recover. However, there are also other regulations permitting recovery of overpayments, for example, where means-tested benefits are overpaid due to the late payment of income or other benefits.

  The Department's policy is to obtain recovery of the sum overpaid as quickly as possible, and by the most cost-effective method, without causing hardship.

  Where the person overpaid receives benefit, deductions can be made from future payments of that benefit. The Social Security (Payments on Account, Overpayments and Recovery) Regulations 1998 place restrictions on those deductions, including limits on the amount which can be deducted from certain benefits. The regulations allow higher rates of recovery to be made in cases of fraud.

  For those not in receipt of benefit, voluntary arrangements are sought in the first instance. Where voluntary arrangements are unsuccessful or break down, civil proceedings will be considered.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many and what percentage of United Kingdom citizens have a National Insurance number. [9054]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The vast majority of the approximate 48 million UK adult population have a National Insurance number (NINO).

  Child Poverty
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what measures the Government will take to prevent an increase in the level of child poverty in areas not subject to Government targets. [10109]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Details of the progress we are making in tackling child poverty can be found in our third annual report on poverty and social exclusion, "Opportunity for all—Making progress" (Cm. 5260), published on 19 September.

  Jobcentre Plus
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what reason was given to him by the Social Security Advisory Committee for its decision not to
  645W
  enforce the Social Security (Jobcentre Plus Interviews) Regulations 2001; what discussions he had with SSAC prior to that decision; and if he will publish the minutes of such discussions. [11190]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The Social Security Advisory Committee is not responsible for enforcing regulations.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what further assistance the Government plan to give to those who cannot work owing to disability, health problems, caring duties and difficulties with child care or transport. [10110]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The Government believe that all those who are unable to work, for whatever reason, should have the opportunity to play as full a part in the community as possible. In "Towards Inclusion", our response to the Disability Rights Task Force, we set out proposals for improving disabled people's lives—whether or not they can work—in areas including education, transport, health and social services. Taken together, these measures will create a much fairer and inclusive society for disabled people.

  From April 2001, we introduced a package of changes, providing extra help for disabled people in greatest need. For severely disabled people who cannot work and are receiving Income Support, the Disability Income Guarantee ensures an income of at least £142 a week for a single person aged 25 or over and £186.80 for a couple. It also benefits families on low incomes who are caring for a severely disabled child. In addition, from last April, we increased the disabled child premium in income-related benefits to £30 a week—substantially more than the normal uprating.

  Sick or disabled young people who have never been able to work and pay National Insurance contributions will in future be able to receive a higher level of support from access to Incapacity Benefit. Those aged under 20 on 6 April 2001 and receiving Severe Disablement Allowance will transfer to the long-term rate of Incapacity Benefit from April 2002, providing an increase of £27.60 a week at current rates.

  We are also introducing changes to the Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979, by means of a Regulatory Reform Order, to extend significantly the time limit for making a claim, and to reduce the level of disability necessary for a claim to succeed. Those severely disabled people whose claims were previously disallowed for being over the current time limit and under the disability threshold will be able to make a fresh claim.

  On 28 February 2001 my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health announced that a National Service Framework would be developed for long-term conditions, and that this would have a particular focus on the needs of people disabled by neurological disease and brain and spinal injuries.

  Last year, the Government announced a package of measures to enhance the current social security provision for carers, worth more than £500 million over a three-year period. From April 2001, we increased the carer premium in the income-related benefits by £10 a week above the normal uprating. We also helped those carers who can
  646W
  undertake some work, by increasing the earnings limit in Invalid Care Allowance from £50 to £72 a week: in future the carers' earnings limit will be increased in line with the lower earnings level for National Insurance contributions. We plan to amend the law, by means of a Regulatory Reform Order, to allow people aged 65 and over to claim Invalid Care Allowance, and to extend entitlement for up to eight weeks after the death of the person being cared for.

  For those who may have difficulties with child care, the Government have already introduced a new child care tax credit in Working Families Tax Credit, and will continue to help working families meet the costs of child care.

  The Government are committed to providing an accessible public transport system in which disabled people will have the same opportunities to travel as everyone else. Accessibility regulations for new trains, buses and coaches have been introduced under Part V of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. Similar regulations for taxis are planned. The 10-Year Transport Plan introduced a new commitment to ensuring that access for disabled people is a condition of all new public investment in transport.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Civil Service Pension Scheme
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what are the approved additional voluntary contribution providers under the Civil Service Pension Scheme; how many outstanding contracts there are with each provider; when these AVC providers were first selected; when that selection was reviewed; and what was the source of the professional advice as to that selection and renewal. [10921]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Equitable Life Assurance Society and the Scottish Widows' Fund and Life Assurance Society were appointed as AVC providers for the civil service by the Treasury in December 1988. Responsibility for the civil service additional voluntary contribution scheme transferred to the Cabinet Office on 1 April 1995 under the Transfer of Functions (Treasury and the Minister for the Civil Service) Order 1995, SI 1995/269. The continuing suitability of both providers for investment under the civil service AVC scheme is subject to regular review by the Cabinet Office taking account of expert professional advice. Bacon and Woodrow are the appointed civil service AVC scheme advisers to the Cabinet Office.

  Member of the civil service pension scheme are provided with a wide choice of AVC investments. Both providers offered a with-profits investment route; a deposit based fund; and unit linked investment through a wide range of investment funds. There are approximately 6,800 active contributing civil service AVC members with Equitable Life and 8,800 members with Scottish Widows. During 2001, a competitive selection process was carried out to identify a further AVC providers for the Civil Service. The Standard Life Assurance Company was selected. It will offer members investment in with-profits and through a wide choice of unit linked funds.

HEALTH

  Mental Health
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to reform the Mental Health Act 1983; and if he will make a statement. [9507]

  Jacqui Smith
  We published the White Paper "Reforming the Mental Health Act" in December 2000. The White Paper made clear our intention to reform mental health legislation and bring it into line with the contemporary patterns of care and treatment including the changes and new investment set out in the NHS Plan, and to improve the provisions for high risk offenders, including those who are dangerous and severely personality disordered.

  New legislation will be introduced as soon as Parliamentary time allows.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to increase recruitment of mental health professionals in London. [9505]

  Jacqui Smith
  We are implementing a range of measures to improve recruitment and retention in the National Health Service for all staff, including in London. Examples include investing in fair pay, encouraging the NHS to become a better employer, increasing training commissions for all professional groups, providing additional funding to support those undertaking a return to practice programme, and supporting more effective, collaborative international recruitment where appropriate.

  For example, between April 2001 and the end of September 2001, 138 mental health and learning disabilities nurses returned to the NHS, 18 of these were in London.

  Furthermore, a workforce action team (WAT) was set up by Ministers to look at the workforce, education and training issues to support implementation of the National Service Framework (NSF) for mental health and the NHS Plan. Their final report was published in August and it has been warmly welcomed in the field as a practical and useful piece of work.

  Included in the WAT programme of work was a key area group looking at recruitment and retention issues. The Group made some 23 recommendations for action which the mental health care group workforce team, working in conjunction with the human resources directorate of the Department and the relevant professional bodies, will be considering as part of an implementation plan to take forward the work of the WAT.

  In conjunction with this work, the National Director of Mental Health has set up a specific working group to look at ways of improving recruitment and retention of psychiatrists. Representatives from within the Department, the Royal College of Psychiatry and others are contributing and investigating both long and short-term interventions.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how much money the Government have spent on the Mind Out for Mental Health campaign; and what steps have been taken; [9510]

  (2) how many of those with a diagnosis of severe mental illness he estimates have found employment as a result of the Mind Out for Mental Health campaign. [9519]
  648W
  Jacqui Smith
  In the financial year 2000–01, the Department spent £573,000 on the mind out for mental health campaign. £900,000 is allocated to the campaign in the year 2001–02.

  The mind out for mental health campaign is a sustained programme of activity with partners in the voluntary sector, the media and business working together to change attitudes and behaviour surrounding mental health. Through such partnerships (both on a national and local level), and through high profile communications and events, mind out for mental health is reaching out to key audiences. For example, mind out for mental health is working with UK Youth, the Guides and the Scouts to develop an activity pack to help groups explore mental health issues. It is also working with journalist colleges in the development of training seminars and packs for student journalists. In addition, a stop the stigma information pack has been developed for individuals or local groups—a step by step guide to planning effective action to help change attitudes towards those with mental health problems. A copy of this action pack has been placed in the Library.

  "Working Minds" is the employer programme of mind out for mental health. This part of the campaign works in partnership with employers to create positive shifts in workplace attitudes and behaviour surrounding mental health. Its objectives are far greater than helping people with mental health problems to find employment; the programme seeks to bring about a fundamental, long-term change in employers' policy and practice so that people with mental health problems are able to participate fully in the workplace. Its success will be measured against this objective.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the success of guardianship under section 7 of the Mental Health Act 1983; and if he will make a statement. [9520]

  Jacqui Smith
  The results of the first stage of a multi-centre research study commissioned by the Department in 1997 showed that guardianship is generally not widely used. There is, however, marked variation in use with some authorities being more proactive. The reasons for variation in use of the order and further exploration of the outcome and satisfaction with the use of guardianship is being explored in the second phase of the study. We expect to receive a report on the second phase work in the next month.

  Maternity Services
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if the transfer of maternity services from Hemel Hempstead hospital to Watford will be temporary; [9377]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the transfer of the special care baby unit, maternity, gynaecological and children services from Hemel Hempstead hospital to Watford. [9376]

  Jacqui Smith
  The decision to transfer the special care baby unit, maternity and in-patient gynaecology services from Hemel Hempstead to Watford hospital was made following difficulties in recruiting specialist paediatric nurses to the special care baby unit. The decision to transfer these services was made in the best interests of patient care and safety.
  649W
  This transfer is a temporary arrangement which will be kept under constant review as further attempts are made to recruit the necessary staff.

  In the meantime, two reviews are being undertaken across Hertfordshire which may have an impact on acute children's services, namely the Hertfordshire children's services review and the Hertfordshire and south Bedfordshire acute services review.

  Any proposed permanent changes to acute children's services which may result from these reviews will need to be the subject of formal public consultation.

  Any contested change of service will be considered by the new and independent reconfiguration panel.

  Hearing Aids
  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the full cost is of providing a hearing aid. [9596]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department is collecting information on the cost of providing hearing aids as part of the annual Reference Costs Collection, which provides unit cost information for a wide range of national health service treatments and procedures. The information is expected to be published in November and will be available on the Department's internet site at www.doh.gov.uk/nhsexec/ refcosts.htm.

  Child Protection
  Margaret Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many child deaths have been notified under Part 8 reviews under the "Working Together" Guidance under the Children Act 1989 in which domestic violence was involved, in the past six years. [9608]

  Jacqui Smith
  The information requested is not collected centrally. However, research has highlighted that children are likely to he at risk of physical, sexual and/or emotional abuse if they live in households where there is domestic violence. We also know that exposure to domestic violence can have a serious impact on a child's development and well-being. We are committed to raising awareness of domestic violence and its impact on children. We have done this through commissioning resources such as the Making an Impact—Children and

  In-patient waiting times data for England, March 1995 to present

  Of those on the list, number who have waited:

  Quarter

  Size of in-patient

  More than 6 months

  More than 12 months

  More than 18 months

  More than 24 months

  March 1995

  1,044,051

  241,218

  32,194

  280

  121

  June 1995

  1,052,958

  244,360

  32,759

  118

  0

  September 1995

  1,040,152

  243,987

  27,938

  43

  0

  December 1995

  1,054,948

  229,659

  20,488

  2

  0

  March 1996

  1,048,029

  208,484

  4,576

  14

  0

  June 1996

  1,056,122

  223,412

  10,399

  9

  1

  September 1996

  1,061,557

  239,690

  14,993

  25

  1

  December 1996

  1,104,983

  255,482

  22,161

  123

  1

  March 1997

  1,158,004

  289,574

  31,208

  150

  1

  June 1997

  1,189,962

  318,024

  46,684

  385

  13

  September 1997

  1,207,515

  337,739

  57,666

  794

  7

  December 1997

  1,261,915

  367,558

  68,332

  972

  58

  March 1998

  1,297,662

  382,432

  68,023

  4

  0

  June 1998

  1,287,543

  381,937

  72,746

  0

  0

  650W
  Domestic Violence Training Pack, which helps front-line staff to deal effectively with families where domestic violence is occurring. We have also been careful to recognise the links between child protection and domestic violence in the revised Working Together to Safeguard Children child protection guidance and in the Framework for the Assessment of Children in need and their Families.

  Beta Interferon
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his written answer of 15 October 2001,Official Report, columns 1027–28W, on beta interferon, what estimate he has made of the annual additional cost of prescribing beta interferon to 12 per cent. of British sufferers from multiple sclerosis. [9923]

  Ms Blears
  We have made no such estimate.

  Waiting Times
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people in England have been waiting more than(a) six, (b) 12, (c) 18 and (d) 24 months for an (i) out-patient and (ii) in-patient appointment for each reporting period since 1995; and if he will make a statement. [8926]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 25 October 2001]: The information requested is given in the tables.

  A proportion of patients who have waited over 18 and 24 months are awaiting tonsillectomy and adenoidectomy procedures. This is because the National Health Service has been advised only to carry out these procedures (when routine) using single-use supply instruments, due to the theoretical risk of contracting vCJD. There are now sufficient supplies of these instruments; therefore, patients awaiting these procedures should not be waiting as long in the coming months.

  Two NHS trusts were responsible for the number of patients waiting over 24 months during the quarters ending March and June 2001. Appropriate corrective action is in place to ensure these patients are treated.

  We are determined to reduce waiting times through implementing shorter maximum waiting times. By the end of March 2002, the maximum in-patient waiting time will be 15 months and the maximum waiting time for a first out-patient appointment will be six months.
  651W

  In-patient waiting times data for England, March 1995 to present

  Of those on the list, number who have waited:

  Quarter

  Size of in-patient

  More than 6 months

  More than 12 months

  More than 18 months

  More than 24 months

  September 1998

  1,213,839

  347,757

  63,480

  0

  0

  December 1998

  1,173,598

  315,724

  56,094

  0

  0

  March 1999

  1,072,860

  279,627

  47,304

  0

  0

  June 1999

  1,094,251

  279,118

  49,442

  1

  0

  September 1999

  1,084,157

  280,775

  50,801

  99

  3

  December 1999

  1,108,006

  285,440

  52,147

  105

  48

  March 2000

  1,037,066

  268,275

  49,046

  7

  1

  June 2000

  1,047,890

  273,023

  51,381

  1

  0

  September 2000

  1,031,824

  275,204

  51,115

  2

  0

  December 2000

  1,034,381

  267,127

  49,215

  10

  0

  March 2001

  1,006,727

  245,991

  42,158

  217

  54

  March 20011

  —

  —

  —

  84

  0

  June 2001

  1,037,875

  267,160

  46,689

  356

  10

  June 20011

  —

  —

  —

  205

  0

  1 Number of T&As

  Source:

  KHO7 quarterly waiting times return. Department of Health

  Out-patient waiting times data for England, March 1995 to present

  Of those still waiting at quarter end for a first out-patient appointment following GP referral, number who have waited:

  Quarter

  More than 6 months

  More than 12 months

  More than 18 months

  More than 24 months

  March 1995

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  June 1995

  87,398

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  September 1995

  72,667

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  December 1995

  60,894

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  March 1996

  58,503

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  June 1996

  52,382

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  September 1996

  61,936

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  December 1996

  68,495

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  March 1997

  70,689

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  June 1997

  84,983

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  September 1997

  90,112

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  December 1997

  106,961

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  March 1998

  112,250

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  June 1998

  108,684

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  September 1998

  126,312

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  December 1998

  144,404

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  March 1999

  152,787

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  June 1999

  145,896

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  September 1999

  149,247

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  December 1999

  159,211

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  March 2000

  132,223

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  June 2000

  130,335

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  September 2000

  125,840

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  December 2000

  113,618

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  March 2001

  81,847

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  June 2001

  85,099

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Source:

  QM08 quarterly waiting times return. Department of Health

  Ambulance Services
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) ambulances, (b) paramedics and (c) ambulance medical technicians there were in Sussex in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [10397]

  Ms Blears
  Figures for the number of ambulances and ambulance medical technicians are not collected centrally.

  The number of ambulance staff in Sussex for each year at 30 September are in the table.
  652W

  year

  Paramedics

  Other ambulance personnel

  2000

  230

  350

  1999

  240

  310

  1998

  210

  370

  1997

  230

  390

  1996

  220

  280

  Source:

  Department of Health Non-medical work force census

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) for what reason ambulance services in Hampshire are to be reorganised; [10572]
  653W
  (2) how many organisations in the Hampshire health economy favoured proposals to reorganise the ambulance services in the south-east; [10573]

  (3) how many representations during the consultation on reorganising ambulance services in the south-east were in favour of the proposals; [10574]

  (4) if he will make a statement on the consultation on reorganising ambulance services in the south-east. [10577]

  Ms Blears
  Over 100 bodies and individuals responded to the consultation proposals. The South East Regional Office of the Department will make a detailed summary to Ministers shortly.

  Anthrax
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has concerning the possible continuing incidence of anthrax at the former Thanet Isolation (Haine) hospital; and if he will make a statement on possible long-term contamination of the burial grounds. [11142]

  Ms Blears
  I have been advised by the Director of Public Health at East Kent health authority that there is no risk of anthrax from this site to the general public or anyone working at the Haine hospital site.

  In the event of graves being excavated, workers should be advised to take normal precautions to prevent infection from pathogens in soil; namely the use of protective gloves and washable or disposable overalls.

  HNS Boards (Disabilities)
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of the chairs and non-executive directors of NHS boards have a disability. [11415]

  Ms Blears
  The proportion of those appointed to National Health Service boards who identify themselves as being disabled is shown in the tables.

  Disabled candidates appointed to National Health Service Boards at 29 October 2001

  Total

  Number disabled

  Per cent, disabled

  Chairs

  Health authorities

  90

  2

  2.2

  NHS trusts

  304

  2

  0.7

  Primary care trusts

  166

  8

  4.8

  Special health authorities

  16

  0

  0

  Total

  576

  12

  2.08

  Non-executives (NEDs)

  Health authorities

  480

  18

  3.8

  NHS trusts

  1,547

  45

  2.9

  Primary care trusts

  773

  49

  6.3

  Special health authorities

  274

  11

  4.0

  Total

  3,074

  123

  4.0

  Total chairs and NEDs

  3.641

  135

  3.7

  NHS Appointments Commission
  Dr. Richard Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the names of the chair and 654W
  members of the new Independent NHS Appointments Commission and indicate how they were (a) selected and (b) appointed. [11251]

  Ms Blears
  The membership of the National Health Service Appointments Commission is as follows:Chair:

  Sir William Wells

  Regional Commissioners:

  Eastern—Mrs. Rosie Varley

  London—Sir Ian Mills

  North West—Mr. Michael Taylor

  Northern and Yorkshire—Dr. John Marshall

  South East—Mr. Bernard Williams

  South West—Mrs. Gillian Camm

  Trent—Mrs. Brenda Sills

  West Midlands—Mrs. Jane Isaacs.

  The posts were advertised nationally and the appointments procedures followed were in line with the Code of Practice issued by the Commissioner for Public Appointments, involving interview panels including an independent assessor. A copy of the information pack sent to all candidates is in the Library. This includes the job descriptions and the qualities required of the chair and commissioners.

  Endometriosis
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many cases of endometriosis have been treated within the Dorset health authority in the last 12 months; [10304]

  (2) how many cases of endometriosis the NHS has referred abroad for treatment; [10306]

  (3) how many endometriosis cases there are within the Dorset health authority. [10305]

  Ms Blears
  The following figures are taken from the hospital episode statistics database, which contains details of patients admitted to and treated in national health service hospitals in England.

  The number of finished consultant episodes for endometriosis treatment in hospitals in the Dorset health authority area for the 1999–2000 data year are as follows:
  Primary diagnosis: Endometriosis—286
  (LCD10 code N80).

  The number of finished consultant episodes for endometriosis treatment for residents of the Dorset health authority area for the 1999–2000 data year are as follows:
  Primary diagnosis: Endometriosis—303
  (ICD10 code N80).

  A finished consultant episode is a period of in-patient care under one consultant within one healthcare provider. These figures do not represent the number of patients as a person may have more than one episode within the year.

  Information on cases of endometriosis referred abroad for treatment is not collected centrally.

  Private Sector Concordat
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been(a) the total cost to the NHS of treatment under

  655W
  the concordat with the private sector, (b) the average cost of treatment per patient and (c) the average cost of similar treatment as in (b) above in the NHS. [10635]

  Mr. Milburn
  Contracts agreed under the concordat are signed at the local level and the Department does not have complete information on expenditure. £20 million was made available to the national health service to purchase treatment in the private sector last winter, which funded just over 10,500 cases, for example an average cost per case of approximately £1,900. However, in the absence of information on the mix of cases this figure is not particularly meaningful.

  The Department has recently surveyed NHS health authorities and trusts on their use of the private sector. Analysis is not yet complete.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for. Health what assessment he has made of the impact on delayed discharges in acute hospitals of treatment under the concordat with the private sector. [10490]

  Mr. Milburn
  Treatments provided under concordat arrangements will generally take patients off existing national health service waiting lists for elective surgery. I am not aware of any adverse impact on delayed discharges in acute hospitals as a result of patients receiving treatment under the concordat.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients have been treated under the concordat with the private sector since its implementation. [10492]

  Mr. Milburn
  Between 1 November 2000 and 30 September 2001 there were 64,136 national health service funded elective cases in the private sector.

  Bed Blocking
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the extent of bed blocking in each health authority and trust at the most recent available date; what was the basis on which the social services authorities with the most serious bed blocking problem, requiring extra priority allocations were identified; and for what reason the Newcastle city and North Tyneside borough social services authorities were not on the priority list. [10933]

  Jacqui Smith
  The latest figures on delayed discharges for each health authority and National Health Service trust are shown in the table. The decision on which councils should receive extra help was taken on the basis of the councils with the highest rate of delayed discharge and also councils, which the Department has identified as needing extra help through our performance monitoring arrangements. Newcastle city and North Tyneside borough social services did not meet these criteria.

  Delayed discharges of patients all ages Collection: Quarter 1 2001–02

  Area

  Total delayed

  Delayed discharge rate (percentage)

  National summary:

  England

  6,361

  6.3

  Regional summary:

  Northern and Yorkshire

  687

  4.6

  Trent

  325

  2.8

  West Midlands

  1,080

  8.4

  656W

  Delayed discharges of patients all ages Collection: Quarter 1 2001–02

  Area

  Total delayed

  Delayed discharge rate (percentage)

  North West

  607

  4.4

  Eastern

  421

  7.2

  London

  792

  6.0

  South East

  1,550

  9.5

  South West

  899

  7.8

  Health authority summary:

  Bradford

  20

  1.7

  Durham

  69

  7.5

  East Riding

  20

  1.6

  Gateshead and South Tyneside

  56

  6.4

  Leeds

  90

  3.9

  Newcastle and North Tyneside

  69

  3.9

  North Cumbria

  101

  13.8

  Northumberland

  8

  2.4

  Sunderland

  25

  3.7

  Tees

  76

  5.5

  Wakefield

  33

  4.5

  North Yorkshire

  92

  5.6

  Calderdale and Kirklees

  28

  2.4

  Barnsley

  7

  1.5

  North Derbyshire

  16

  1.9

  South Derbyshire

  10

  0.9

  Doncaster

  18

  3.0

  Leicestershire

  47

  2.4

  Lincolnshire

  31

  2.2

  North Nottinghamshire

  29

  3.4

  Nottingham

  53

  2.9

  Rotherham

  16

  2.9

  Sheffield

  53

  3.8

  South Humber

  45

  6.3

  Birmingham

  474

  14.7

  Coventry

  62

  5.4

  Dudley

  56

  8.5

  Herefordshire

  18

  5.8

  Sandwell

  42

  4.4

  Shropshire

  27

  3.2

  Solihull

  26

  7.0

  North Staffordshire

  99

  7.7

  South Staffordshire

  102

  12.4

  Walsall

  31

  5.9

  Warwickshire

  56

  5.4

  Wolverhampton

  27

  4.1

  Worcestershire

  60

  5.8

  South Lancashire

  11

  4.2

  Liverpool

  84

  5.3

  Manchester

  31

  2.3

  Morecambe Bay

  66

  8.3

  St Helens and Knowsley

  68

  6.8

  Salford and Trafford

  43

  3.2

  Sefton

  38

  5.3

  Stockport

  12

  1.8

  West Pennine

  30

  3.0

  Bury and Rochdale

  16

  2.9

  North Cheshire

  33

  4.6

  South Cheshire

  42

  4.6

  East Lancashire

  2

  0.2

  North West Lancashire

  111

  10.6

  Wigan and Bolton

  —

  —

  Wirral

  20

  2.0

  Bedfordshire

  37

  3.9

  North Essex

  —

  —

  South Essex

  —

  —

  Suffolk

  195

  13.6

  Cambridgeshire

  100

  5.4

  Norfolk

  89

  5.5

  Hertfordshire

  —

  —

  Hillingdon

  60

  16.1

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

  —

  —

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  107

  10.0

  657W

  Delayed discharges of patients all ages Collection: Quarter 1 2001–02

  Area

  Total delayed

  Delayed discharge rate (percentage)

  Croydon

  37

  5.0

  Kingston and Richmond

  59

  5.4

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  39

  2.1

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  49

  3.7

  Barking and Havering

  68

  9.2

  Brent and Harrow

  41

  18.2

  Camden and Islington

  62

  6.8

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  108

  7.7

  East London and City

  53

  2.6

  Barnet, Enfield and Haringey

  109

  7.4

  Bromley, Bexley and Greenwich

  —

  —

  Berkshire

  183

  13.3

  Buckinghamshire

  170

  17.4

  East Kent

  60

  4.8

  West Kent

  63

  4.3

  East Surrey

  59

  6.5

  West Surrey

  183

  12.8

  East Sussex, Brighton and Hove

  —

  —

  West Sussex

  219

  7.8

  Northamptonshire

  136

  12.3

  Oxfordshire

  66

  5.4

  North and Mid Hampshire

  160

  18.6

  Southampton and South West Hampshire

  172

  14.3

  Isle of Wight, Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

  79

  4.8

  Somerset

  46

  6.5

  South and West Devon

  64

  5.6

  Wiltshire

  125

  9.7

  Avon

  233

  9.5

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  87

  6.1

  658W

  Delayed discharges of patients all ages Collection: Quarter 1 2001–02

  Area

  Total delayed

  Delayed discharge rate {percentage)

  Dorset

  92

  5.5

  North and East Devon

  139

  9.3

  Gloucestershire

  113

  9.0

  Blood Donors
  Mr. Havard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has received from the National Blood Service of the effect on the number of blood donors of testing for vCJD; and what plans he has to ensure the supply of blood to non-emergency patients who require transfusions as part of their treatments. [10718]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department is currently working with the National Blood Service on contingency plans related to the screening of blood donors for vCJD and the impact this could have on the blood supply.

  In parallel with the four United Kingdom Health Departments alongside the National Audit Office and the National Blood Transfusion Services, the UK Chief Medical Officers sponsored a conference on better blood transfusion on 29 October. The aim of the conference is to help set the priorities for blood transfusion in the national health service for the coming three to five years including the more efficient and effective use of blood so that we ensure the supply of blood to all patients who require transfusions as part of their treatment.

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

Climate Change Impact: Policy
Lord Hunt of Chesterton Lord Hunt of Chesterton asked Her Majesty's Government:
What are their policies for guiding the United Kingdom and the international community in adapting to the likely consequences of climate change; and whether they will publish such policies for consultation before the World Summit on Sustainable Development in September 2002.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): My Lords, the climate change programme issued last year by the Government outlines our position on adaptation priorities for the UK and action that the Government and the devolved administrations have already taken to build adaptation into their policies. The Government set up the UK Climate Impacts Programme in 1997 to help private and public sector organisations to develop their own adaptation responses. The UK supports adaptation in developing countries and actively contributes to discussions on impacts and adaptation under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.
Lord Hunt of Chesterton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. Since Her Majesty's Government endorse the scientific conclusions that climate change will adversely affect people's lives—for example, by sea level rise and heatwaves—in the UK, Russia, Africa and elsewhere, how will the Government be supporting renewed efforts both to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to help sustainable development around the world? I declare an interest as chairman of ACOPS.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the House will recognise the importance that Her Majesty's Government attach to international co-operation in this field and in particular in relation to sustainable development. Indeed, the Prime Minister was the first leader of any country to announce his personal attendance at the world summit in South Africa, to which my noble friend's first Question referred.
Developing partnerships with other countries is vitally important. The Bonn Agreement established an adaptation fund under the global environment facility to help developing countries. We have committed £215 million to the facility. A further £200 million has been committed over the past three financial years in related programmes and bilateral projects. We also
1290
recognise the importance of the marine environment in this context and the work that the noble Lord has done and that of the organisation to which he refers—ACOPS. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State will be taking a leading role in not only the conference in Marrakesh in the next few days but also at the Johannesburg summit.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, can the Minister indicate what are the prospects in the EU for achieving its objectives in the reduction of greenhouse gases by the period 2008–12?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the commitment of the EU countries expressed in the targets agreed in the bubble at Kyoto are constantly monitored within the EU. It is true to say that the United Kingdom, Germany and possibly Luxembourg are the only EU countries which are on target. Nevertheless, the other EU countries have taken some radical steps to get themselves back on target. The EU, as a whole, is committed to meeting the overall objectives committed to at Kyoto.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I should declare an interest as the president of ACOPS. Does the Minister agree that there are strong advantages in ACOPS being in London? Does the Minister further agree that the aims of ACOPS are identical to those of the Government? For that reason, why do the Government not do more to support ACOPS than they have done?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the previous government, my predecessor department and DfID have given support to ACOPS in developing help on the ocean side for countries such as those of Africa and Russia. Any particular project proposed by ACOPS will receive appropriate consideration by the two departments. Although the level of funding is not as high as it was a few years ago, it depends on projects being assessed as being appropriate to help the international process and, in particular, the developing countries.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, returning to the original Question, what are the Government doing to guide people in the United Kingdom and to advise them on how to adapt? In particular, we are told that all the flooding that has taken place is due to climate change and is likely to become much worse. What are the Government doing to help people in areas suffering from recurrent flooding?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, it is true that the likely outcome of climate change will be that we shall have wetter winters and probably more flood events. Whether any particular flood event is due to climate change or due to natural variation is another matter. In terms of getting the general population involved, the climate change programme chapter is followed by a programme on coastal and flood defences. My colleague Elliot Morley announced increases in the capital amounts to be spent on flood defences. Clearly,

1291
that must take into account the effects of climate change on what is defendable and where the most appropriate form of flood defences should be established. That is one of the priority areas for adaptation to climate change.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, following his response to my noble friend Lady Gardner, can the Minister clarify, first, the position of the Government as regards coastal defences? I understand that the Government no longer intend to support such defences. Secondly, what action is the department taking on the question of building on flood plain land? That is now a huge problem which affects everyone who has bought or is likely to buy a house built on a flood plain. Those home owners are likely to be deeply affected by any future climate changes.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the noble Baroness is not correct to say that the Government are not supporting coastal defences. Indeed, in the announcement made by my honourable friend Elliot Morley, we indicated our substantial support for such defences. However, we need to assess where it would be most appropriate to spend the resources. Decisions must be taken in the light of the effects of possible changes in sea levels over the medium term and those of climate change. The amount that will be spent on coastal defences will increase.
In response to the question of building on flood plains, we have issued advice to planning authorities and to developers stating that overly intensive development of flood plain areas can create problems. In some parts of the country, any additional development on flood plains would not be appropriate. However, the matter is a responsibility primarily for the planning authorities.
Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that approximately 30 per cent of the greenhouse effect is due to the sun's radiation? Is he convinced that sufficient funds have been allocated to supporting projects aimed at monitoring variations in the sun's radiation, which could affect life on the surface of the planet?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, monitoring variations in the sun's radiation and its consequent effects on our climate forms a part of the responsibility of the Hadley Centre and other institutions around the world studying the effects of climate change. As regards expenditure, I must be frank and say that we need to focus our resources on areas we can control or hope to influence. Regrettably, variations in the sun's radiation is not one of those areas. Therefore we must concentrate on manmade influences, in particular the control of greenhouse gas emissions from transport, industry and domestic consumers. To return to the question put by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, we need to raise public consciousness in those areas.

Terrorist Organisations
2.45 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they are taking concerning identifiable members of terrorist organisations at present in the United Kingdom.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Rooker): My Lords, it is an offence under the Terrorism Act 2000 to be a member of any one of the 35 organisations proscribed under Schedule 2 to the Act. Any suspected members of these terrorist organisations are therefore liable to arrest and prosecution. The provisions of the Terrorism Act of course apply to all those involved in terrorism, irrespective of whether the organisation they claim to represent is proscribed. The investigation of any such alleged criminal activity is a matter for the police.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that reply. Are the Government prepared to expel or to extradite, on a valid request, identified terrorists even though they entered the United Kingdom as asylum seekers?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, the short answer to the noble Lord's question is yes. If someone is identified as a terrorist, regardless of their country of origin, they cannot seek protection under the terms of the asylum convention. The convention is a complex instrument and covers more than the one sentence generally referred to. In such a case, we would take action. Certain caveats would apply, but I stress that this country is not a safe haven for terrorists. Asylum legislation and the convention cannot be used by anyone against whom evidence has been gathered which indicates that they have committed terrorist offences. Furthermore, the interests of national security would apply, and such people could not seek the protection of the European convention or the Human Rights Act. In the interests of our own national security, such people could still be removed.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, is the Minister aware that when apples are stored in an apple loft or shed, it is essential to lay them out carefully and then to inspect them every now and again? The rotten apples must be taken out and thrown away before they can infect the other apples. Should not the same be done with terrorists?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, yes. The noble Baroness is quite right in her analogy. However, where a person has been identified and where evidence is available, it is for the police and the prosecuting authorities to take action. There is no question about that. We will take out the rotten apples and terrorists will be arrested, whether the alleged crimes were committed in this country or abroad. Although such arrests do not take place very often, I can tell the House that, a few days

1293
ago, an Egyptian national present in this country was arrested. Early this morning he was charged with the crimes of inviting support for a terrorist organisation, inviting another to provide money for the purposes of terrorism, arranging for property to be made available for the purposes of terrorism, the publication of written material likely to stir up racial hatred and conspiracy to murder under the common law. That person has been remanded in custody.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister—
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, I think that it is first the turn of this side of the House. Perhaps we may then turn to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington.
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, I very much appreciate what my noble friend said about the law covering proscribed organisations. Furthermore, I appreciate his explanation to the effect that people who are members of such organisations render themselves liable to prosecution. However, my noble friend went on to say that these would be matters for the police. Can I ask my noble friend whether the value of such legislation is measured by the number of prosecutions that are brought forward? Does he agree that that is the case, and to what extent is the law being applied?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, there have not been many prosecutions. The list of proscribed organisations now numbers 35. The legislation has a deterrent effect as well, but it is not possible fully to measure the effect of deterrence.
A few arrests have been made. In the case I mentioned in an earlier response, one of the minor charges concerned a proscribed organisation. The other charges are far more serious. It is an important weapon in our armoury against terrorism that we can charge, convict and subject to a prison term of 10 years a person who is a member of one of the proscribed organisations. That has to have a deterrent effect.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, the Egyptian Government have shown great concern about an individual in this country who has been accused of bomb attacks but has not been extradited. Are Her Majesty's Government concerned about this matter?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, he may not be the same gentleman as the one to whom the noble Lord refers, but the person in this country to whom I referred earlier is an Egyptian national.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, is the Minister aware of today's newspaper reports that at least four British subjects who have been identified as having assisted the T'aliban in Afghanistan have died as a result of the American intervention? What steps are being taken to
1294
explain to members of the minority community their obligation as British subjects to show loyalty to this country?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, the noble Lord raises a very important question. I cannot comment on the newspaper reports or the individuals concerned because facts and evidence are in short supply, except to the extent that it appears that people have been killed. Treason is like an elephant on the doorstep; you recognise it when you see it. If you take up arms against your own state or against that state's agents—whether in that state or abroad—that is an offence under the 1351 Act.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, why is our proscribed terrorists' list different from the one provided by the United States?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I am sorry, I did not hear the first part of the noble Viscount's question.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, the United States has a different list of proscribed terrorists. Why do we not harmonise our list with those of our allies and fight a concerted action against terrorists?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, it is because we are operating under British law. Under Schedule 2 to the Terrorism Act there are 35 proscribed organisations. A few—14, I think—relate to Ireland. The rest have more of an international flavour, if I may put it that way. So far as concerns the Americans, we have arrested and interviewed certain named people since the tragedies of 11th September. Most were later released. One was re-arrested and he is still on remand.

Sellafield Emissions: Norwegian Representations
2.52 p.m.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester Lord Faulkner of Worcester asked Her Majesty's Government:
What representations they have received from the Government of Norway about the discharge of nuclear waste from the Sellafield plant, and the decision to start the commercial manufacturing of Mox.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, letters have been received from Norway's former Prime Minister and former Environment Minister. These refer to discharges of the radionuclide technetium-99 and to the recent decision that the manufacture of Mox fuel is justified. Margaret Beckett met the new Norwegian Environment Minister yesterday in Luxembourg.
So far as concerns technetium-99, my right honourable friends the Secretaries of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and for Health are currently considering the proposed decision of the Environment Agency. They will decide shortly

1295
whether to intervene or to let the proposed decision stand. As to Mox fuel, the two Secretaries of State recently published their reasons for concluding that it was justified.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Is he aware that traces of technetium-99 have been found along the whole of the Norwegian coast and, indeed, up as far as the Arctic Sea? According to yesterday's Aftenposten newspaper in Oslo, the level of radioactivity in Norwegian lobsters,
"had risen dramatically after emissions began spewing out of the Sellafield plant".
Does the Minister appreciate that there is genuine concern in all the Nordic countries about emissions from Sellafield, and indeed in the Irish Republic about the decision to manufacture Mox? Will he take seriously, please, the threat by Mr Brende, the new environment Minister in Norway, to take the United Kingdom to court unless the emissions are reduced very dramatically and quickly?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, Norwegian Ministers have made it absolutely clear that they are concerned about this issue. The level of technetium-99 is relatively small and is well within the international prescribed levels under the Ospar Convention. Those levels have been reduced dramatically in recent years. The Environment Agency's proposal, to which I have referred, will reduce them dramatically again by, at the latest, 2006, well ahead of the timetable under the Ospar Convention, which will reduce them virtually to nil by 2020. So we are following our international obligations and any legal challenge would have to take that into account.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, will Mrs Beckett point out to her Norwegian opposite number that discharges from Sellafield are now below one-hundredth of what they were at the time when the Norwegians had a legitimate ground for criticism of the radionuclides apparent on their coasts? Will she also point out to him that the very sensible decision to authorise the operation of the Mox plant will make absolutely no difference to the discharges from Sellafield? While obviously she will want to listen to their concerns, it is very important that she should point out the strength of the United Kingdom's case on this issue.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the noble Lord is right, the operation of the Mox plant will add less than 1 per cent to the total emissions of both technetium-99 and other radionuclides, which are at a very low level. I understand that my right honourable friend made these points to the Norwegian Minister. She also pointed out—as I have to point out to the House—that her decision in relation to the Environment Agency's report is a quasi-judicial one and therefore she cannot
1296
comment in great detail on her view of the Environment Agency's proposals to reduce those levels yet further.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that representations have been received over many years from the Government of Ireland? Can he say when the most recent one was received and what the Government are doing about it?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, we have received representations from the Government of the Republic of Ireland over a number of years in relation to the current operations of Sellafield, some of which concerned past levels of emissions that we regret. However, they have now been substantially reduced. The latest communication from the Irish Government relates to the decision on Mox. A proposed legal challenge to that decision was issued in detail during the past couple of weeks.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that the Environment Agency has stated that the operation of Mox will have a very negligible effect in this country and, therefore, it will be almost, if not totally, non-existent in Norway? Given that Cumbria has suffered from foot and mouth, which has affected both farming and tourism, does my noble friend agree that the creation of 350 new jobs at Mox and 1,500 indirect jobs, coupled with the 10,000 jobs already at Sellafield and the thousands of indirect jobs, will give a real boost to the economy in Cumbria?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I accept the importance of BNFL to the economy and employment in Cumbria. It is a vital part of that economy, particularly in the current circumstances. Now that BNFL appears to have its own internal monitoring and control in order and has greatly reduced the level of emissions, we should support its efforts and the decision to build the Mox plant.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, what representations have Her Majesty's Government received from the Government of Japan in relation to the recommencing of exports of Mox fuel? Where does that leave the legal challenge being mounted by Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace alleging that the Government have distorted the financial figures relating to Mox?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the claims of Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace—and, indeed, those of overseas governments—are the subject of legal proceedings. I cannot therefore comment with safety on the way in which the Government will receive them. As to the situation with Japan, we wish to resume the processing of Japanese fuel. This has been the subject of continuous correspondence with the Japanese authorities and we now appear to be reaching a successful conclusion. So any allegation, wherever it is made, that the Japanese are no longer interested has to be treated with some circumspection.

Industrial and Commercial Redundancies
3 p.m.
Lord Roberts of Conwy Lord Roberts of Conwy asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many private sector industrial and commercial redundancies have been announced in the United Kingdom since the general election.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, employers are required to notify the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry only when they are proposing to make 20 or more redundancies at one establishment within a 90-day period. Adding up these notifications would not give a true picture. It would under-estimate the number of redundancies, as it would not include those involving fewer than 20 dismissals; and it would overestimate the number, as it would relate to proposed rather than actual redundancies, which are sometimes avoided—the two do not cancel each other out.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, I am not surprised at the noble Lord's failure to answer my Question. Does he agree that, in spite of the unexpectedly good growth figures for the first quarter, the outlook for employment, output and investment is deeply worrying for the future? Should not the Government take decisive action to shore up business confidence in the interests of all concerned?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am notorious for seeking to answer the Question on the Order Paper rather than seeking to make cheap political points of the kind that the noble Lord invites me to make. His Question relates to the period since May 1997. Since that time the number of jobs in this country has increased by 1¼ million and unemployment has decreased by 584,000. In Wales, 24,000 new jobs have been created and there are 32,000 fewer unemployed.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, will the noble Lord admit, however, that there is a very real chance of an increase in redundancies in the next six or 12 months? As the Government are reviewing industrial relations legislation, is this not a good time also to review the provisions in respect of redundancy? For example, should we not examine the fact that no one receives any redundancy payments until he or she has been in a job for two years? There is also the fact that he or she cannot go out and look for work with permission from the employer unless he or she has worked for two years. Surely now is the time to improve our redundancy laws, just as we have had to review the laws on unfair dismissal. As they stand, they are almost certainly sex discriminatory and they represent indirect discrimination.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I appreciate the point that my noble friend makes about redundancy assistance. However, the issue goes a good deal wider than the statutory redundancy payments,
1298
which are based not only on service but on age and contractual income. Assistance also includes help and information on job-seeking and retraining. All those points should be taken into account.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, I am sure that the Minister will share the surprise on these Benches at the words of the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, and the U-turn on the Conservative Benches towards interventionist economic policies. However, will he accept that there is a serious issue here, particularly with regard to manufacturing industry in this country? Actual redundancies are occurring as I speak and prospective redundancies have been forecast by a number of major manufacturing companies. What do the Government propose to do about that?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Yes, my Lords, of course I accept that point. I welcome the noble Lord's support for the Government's position as opposed to the changing position of the Official Opposition. Clearly, with a great increase in economic uncertainty in the world and disturbances in global markets, there will be continued problems, in particular with manufacturing employment in this country. They are not answered simply by the assistance to which I referred earlier; they must be answered by the continuing policies of stability and growth that have informed this Government's economic policies over the past four and a half years.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the survey by Ernst & Young indicating in relation to UK manufacturers that the profit warnings level between July and September this year is the highest ever? What is the Government's estimate of what this may mean to future employment, and what do they intend to do about it?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we shall set out our estimates of the economic situation, including employment, when we produce the Pre-Budget Report next month. We do not provide a running commentary between the Pre-Budget Report and the Budget.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, will the noble Lord answer the Question? It relates to the number of private sector industrial and commercial redundancies announced since the general election. That is very different from stating that he cannot say how many are taking place. Following all the Minister's qualifications, will he answer the Question?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I gave the Answer in considerable detail. There are no figures announced for industrial and commercial redundancies. The only figures available to the Government are those that are notified when there are more than 20 redundancies in one establishment over a 90-day period. There is no answer available to the Government on the specific Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Roberts—which is why I attempted to be rather more helpful
Lord Elton: My Lords, how many of those were there?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the figures would not be meaningful. I do not know why I have to repeat myself. They do not represent redundancies, because they miss out all the smaller redundancies; they do not add up, because many of the proposed redundancies that are announced never take place. It would be meaningless, and I should be misleading the House, were I to attempt to give such figures.

British Overseas Territories Bill [H.L.]
3.6 p.m.
Read a third time.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Amos): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Baroness Amos.)
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, I begin by repeating our continued support for the principles underlying the Bill.
The conferral of British citizenship on British Overseas Territories citizens is most welcome. However, it has become more and more evident during the passage of the Bill that it is based on—and I hate to use the word—"spin". By this, I mean that the rhetoric surrounding the Bill promises great things, while in reality the legislation makes few significant changes.
That is due largely to the language of citizenship. An individual living in a democracy has both rights and responsibilities. The idea was well rehearsed both at Second Reading and in Committee. It is the essence of citizenship. Yet the granting of British citizenship to British Overseas Territories citizens will be,
"a matter for individuals, wherever they live".
Citizenship involves a complex system of rights and duties. The notion that this concerns only the individual is surely the origin of much of the confusion that has surrounded certain aspects of the Bill.
The second problem that we have encountered is the definition of "residence". The noble Baroness, Lady Amos, has been careful to point out that many of the benefits and responsibilities associated with British citizenship will be applicable only to those British Overseas Territories citizens who exercise their right to live and work in the United Kingdom. Am I correct in thinking that British citizenship is to be perceived as a right? Duties and benefits come only with taking the decision to reside in the United Kingdom.
The crucial point is that only residents of the United Kingdom are entitled to the full benefits of British citizenship, while those who choose to stay in their territory of origin will remain largely unaffected. On this subject, perhaps we may clarify the procedure whereby a citizen claims the right of abode in the
1300
United Kingdom. If a British Overseas Territories citizen acquires a full British passport, am I correct in thinking that he or she is often then free to live and work in the United Kingdom without any further screening procedure on the part of the Home Office?
Much has been made of the opportunities for education and training arising from the Bill for British Overseas Territories citizens. Making our excellent educational resources available to citizens from the overseas territories is most important. My noble friend Lady Young spoke at length and with notable passion on this subject. However, the Bill will do little in that regard. Again I quote the noble Baroness, Lady Amos:
"Entitlement to the domestic rate for education fees and to other benefits is based on residency qualifications not nationality … I think that it would be wrong to give the same rights and benefits automatically to a British citizen from an overseas territory as are enjoyed by persons who are resident in the United Kingdom".—[Official Report, 24/7/01: col. 1884.]
We are presented with that all-important distinction between British citizens from the overseas territories and British citizens resident in the United Kingdom. I hope that that distinction does not come to jeopardise the possible wealth of opportunity open to British Overseas Territories citizens.
However, that is not enough to give these citizens a status comparable with that of their counterparts who are resident in the United Kingdom. Gibraltar is of particular concern here, as my noble friend Lady Hooper will mention. British citizens reside in Gibraltar yet that territory has no representation in the European Parliament. I realise that that is beyond the scope of the Bill in question but I think that it is relevant.
Finally, I say once again that we fully support the Bill. We feel, however, that some areas still require clarification, particularly with regard to the procedures whereby newly created British citizens claim their rights. Does the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, agree that nowhere in the Bill are the territories concerned referred to other than in the context of their change of name? Does this suggest that everything else about these territories remains the same? We hope that any areas of doubt will be cleared up during the passage of the Bill through the other place.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I remind the House that the Companion states that the Motion that the Bill do now pass is usually moved formally and is not normally debated.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, the Bill has not only been welcomed by these Benches but also by citizens of what will be the British Overseas Territories. We have only two areas of complaint. The first concerns the term "British Overseas Territories citizens" and the second relates to what is happening to the Chagos islanders who won a court case to prove that some years ago they were illegally removed. Will that affect government policy? Those issues will be raised in another place. Those points aside, we welcome the Bill.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I also welcome the Bill and wish it a speedy passage in another place. The overseas territories are tiny territories. A Bill responding to their express wishes, as this Bill does, is necessarily reassuring. I make a further point on the need for reassurance. Recently there has been a great deal of press comment about the Government's discussion with Spain over the future of Gibraltar. That makes the people of Gibraltar understandably nervous. The preamble to their constitution gives them the right to self-determination and successive governments have always stood by that. Will the Government reaffirm their commitment to that right to self-determination? All the overseas territories would like to see that right enshrined in their constitutions for the avoidance of any doubt. I recognise that this matter is outside the scope of the Bill. I also recognise that I may well be out of order in making these points. However, a government's work is never done. I mention this matter now to put down a marker for future action. I support the Bill.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I believe that I shall be excused for saying just a few words. I congratulate the Government. This is a good Bill which will be warmly welcomed. I do not entirely agree with my noble friend when she says that it will not have any effect on people who remain in their own territories; it will have two important effects. First, I believe that it will reinforce their loyalty to Britain and, secondly, it will assure them of a warm welcome at our ports of entry. That is very important indeed.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Land Registration Bill [H.L.]
3.15 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 3 [When title may be registered]:
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 24, at end insert "and if the final period of right to possession expires more than fourteen years after the date of the application under subsection (2)"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 1, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 7, 22, 33 and 78. These amendments relate to non-continuous leases and situations when title may be registered. The purpose of the amendments is to achieve consistency and to avoid clogging the register. We believe that non-continuous leases should only be registrable if they are to last for at least 14 years. A discontinuous lease is one granted, for example, for a fortnight each year. A number of timeshare developments have been documented in this way, but the system could conceivably be used in other ways, for example, to let out a site for a regularly visiting fair. In a VAT case it was held that the length of a lease for a week a year for 80 years was a lease for 80 weeks.
The Bill provides that all discontinuous leases should be registered. This threatens to clog the register to no good purpose. On the other hand, to apply the
1302
general time qualification, even if it is as low as seven years, would exclude almost all such leases from registration. Our suggestion, therefore, is to consider how distant is the final date when the tenant would be entitled to take possession; that is, the beginning of the last week or fortnight. If that is as distant as the normal period of qualification for registration, the non-continuous lease would be registrable. There is an additional reason for making this amendment. If, contrary to policy, the parties to a lease wanted to register a lease for less than 14, or, indeed, seven years, they could do so by creating a lease with a short break in it, for example, one day. That would make it non-continuous and, on the current proposals, registrable. Again the register would be unnecessarily and unjustifiably clogged.
It was common to let grazing tenancies for just less than a year to avoid the effect of the Agricultural Holdings Act. Theoretically the tenant was not entitled to occupy during the gap between two tenancies. Nevertheless, it was far from unknown for animals to remain on the fields continuously. Who can say that mid-tenancy breaks inserted to make a lease registrable would not be treated with the same disregard?
Without Amendment No. 33 very short leases, for example, a cottage rented for a week at Easter or at half-term, should be registered—a situation which is surely not intended. I beg to move.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, said, the amendments deal with discontinuous leases. But I wonder whether the noble Baroness is labouring under some misapprehension. There is no compulsion to register a timeshare lease granted out of unregistered land unless the lease is a lease for more than seven years which would make it compulsorily registrable under Clause 4.
Amendment No. 1 seeks to reduce the number of timeshare leases which can be voluntarily registered by imposing the condition that the periods let by the lease must continue for over 14 years before registration is allowed. That would not only complicate the Bill, but would reduce its helpfulness, as no one would be compelled to register a discontinued lease of less than seven years. It would create further and more serious complications by introducing an arbitrary distinction between leases that qualified for registration and those that did not, given the enormous range of permutations of the time allocation.
Amendment No. 7 would amend Clause 4 to apply the compulsory registration provisions to discontinuous leases that continue for more than 14 years. Amendment No. 78 would make the necessary parallel change in relation to grants by the Crown for demesne land. We suggest that the amendments are not needed to clarify how the length of timeshare leases are calculated, because the basis of calculating the length of discontinuous leases

1303
has already been judicially determined in the now well known case of Cottage Holiday Associates Ltd v Customs and Excise Commissioners.
That case made it clear that if a property was let for a holiday every year for 80 years, the length of the lease was determined by totalling the periods of entitlement to occupy the property. Amendments to Clauses 4 and 15 are therefore unnecessary to clarify the legal position.
As to whether a longer period is needed for registrable leases, in those cases in which a lease is employed in timeshare arrangements, it normally involves the letting for a set number of weeks each year over a period of years. If the letting period is, say, half a year, the lease will need to exist for 14 years to be compulsorily registrable. If the letting were for three months, it would need to last for 28 years to be compulsorily registrable. The shorter the letting period in the year, the less likely it is for the existence of the lease to be readily discoverable by inspection, yet the longer the duration of the arrangement entered into by the parties.
We think that there is already a robust scheme in being that would mean that such leases would not be compulsorily registrable, although they could be voluntarily registered if that is what was needed.
The noble Baroness said that Amendment No. 22 was needed to address an inconsistency in the drafting of the Bill. I hope that I shall be able to convince your Lordships that the amendment is not necessary.
On Amendment No. 33, so far as leasehold estates are concerned, the requirement to register an interest created out of unregistered land under Clause 4 takes effect when the lease is granted for more than seven years and applies whether or not the lease is discontinuous. The amendment would amend Clause 4 to apply the compulsory registration provisions to discontinuous leases granted out of unregistered land that continue for more than 14 years. The timeshare arrangements normally involve letting for a set number of weeks each year over a period of years. As I said earlier, if the letting period is, say, half a year, the lease will need to exist for 14 years to be compulsorily registrable. The compulsory registration requirement for discontinuous leases granted out of unregistered land will bite when the period let under the lease exceeds seven years.
I suggest that the Bill strikes the right balance between voluntarily registrable timeshare leases and those that must trigger the registration process. I understand the concern of the noble Baroness about the register becoming clogged up, but we do not believe that it will, because of the way in which the registration will operate, with voluntarily registration for any period, but compulsory registration for the specific period of seven years. A lease that ran for one week a year would need more than 100 years before it became compulsorily registrable. That may well help the noble Baroness to understand that we have struck a proper balance between the two. I hope that she will not feel it necessary to press her amendment.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her full response to the amendments. I entirely accept her comments, which were very reassuring. The example that I used in relation to the VAT case complements the examples that she gave, in that a lease of one week a year for 80 years counts as a lease for 80 weeks. On that basis I am reassured and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 29, after "is" insert "only"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is a very brief amendment and it is probably self-explanatory. A person who contracts to buy and pays without taking a transfer for whom the owner would hold as bare trustee should be entitled to apply to register. The person who contracts and pays for the property should be the person who registers, not the bare trustee. We hope that the amendment makes that clear. I beg to move.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the amendment would change Clause 3(6) to allow a person to apply for registration of title to an estate if his right to apply is based on his rights under a contract of sale. The effect of the subsection is clear. If a contract has been completed by a conveyance or transfer, the application will be based on the fact that the estate is in fact vested in him and the qualification will not apply. However, if the contract has not been completed for some reason, the buyer under the contract cannot apply for registration purely on the basis of that contract.
In that situation, if the seller will not execute a conveyance in favour of the buyer, the aggrieved buyer can compel him or her to do so, if need be by seeking a judicial order for specific performance of the contract. Once that conveyance has been executed, the buyer should register it because it will be subject to the compulsory registration requirements found in Clause 4.
I listened carefully to the noble Baroness and I appreciate her concern to clarify and alleviate the position of a would-be buyer who has been caught in that way. I certainly share the wish to avoid litigation when possible, but the amendment would not make the situation clearer. Indeed, I regret that in a number of ways it would be likely to make matters worse. It could be taken to undermine the current structure of conveyancing in England and Wales. Arguably, as a result of the amendment, if a person contracted to sell unregistered land and the buyer paid the whole price, it would be unnecessary for the seller to execute a conveyance to complete the sale. The buyer would be entitled to register without more. I am sure that the noble Baroness does not intend that.
That is open to profound objections on a number of grounds. First, there would be no conveyance of the legal estate, which would lead to some difficult issues of unresolved priorities between the parties, including difficulties arising because of a technical conveyancing doctrine called merger.

1305
Secondly, the amendment would be likely to change the role of the Land Registry, embroiling it in contractual disputes between buyers and sellers, with buyers trying to register contracts where the seller disputed h is or her liability to convey the land and usurping a role that belongs to the courts.
Thirdly, the amendment would create major practical difficulties for the collection of stamp duty. There would be no instrument of conveyance for stamp duty purposes and the contract would not attract stamp duty, at least without potentially very complex changes to the stamp duty legislation. Some would argue that that might be the purpose of the amendment, but I understand that that is not the intention of the noble Baroness.
In the light of that explanation of the problems that we think would arise from the amendment, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw it.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response. The amendment was tabled at the suggestion of the Law Society, which felt that the position was unclear. I hope that, as a result of what the Minister has said today, the Law Society will feel that the situation is now clear. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 [When title must be registered]:
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 3, line 13, leave out "seven" and insert "fourteen".
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in rising to move Amendment No. 3, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 6, 18, 21, 31, 36, 37, 38, 40, 47 and 77. I shall speak separately, albeit within this grouping, to Amendment No. 47, but perhaps I may first refer to all the other amendments. The amendments are designed to reinstate the proposal in the consultative document that the length of lease which must be registered should be reduced from 21 years, as at present, to 14 years rather than to seven years, as proposed in the Bill.
Perhaps I may briefly remind your Lordships what we on these Benches said in Committee. We said that it is acknowledged in paragraphs 117 and 314 of the report that on consultation there was no consensus for an immediate reduction to seven years. The amendment seeks to reduce the immediate change in the law and to impose a smaller initial burden on the property industry, the conveyancing profession and the Land Registry's resources than would the proposal in the Bill. If experience of that limited change suggests that a further reduction is desirable and will not overstretch the industry, the professions and the registry, it will then be possible, after consultation under Clause 5(4), to make that reduction by order.
The proposal to make all seven-year and longer leases compulsorily registrable represents a major change in the law. We believe that it will cause equally major changes in practice, all of which are, we still
1306
believe, best introduced by stages, thereby enabling the industry and the professions to become familiar with the new system without undue pressure and enabling any problems which may emerge to be tackled before they become widespread. Any leaseholders who wish to apply for voluntary registration of seven-year leases will be able to do so under Clause 3(3) if they believe that the benefits of registration are worth having.
We believe that the shorter the term of a lease, the smaller the benefits of registering it become because the fact of registration makes a difference only on a dealing with a lease. It is no cheaper or easier to grant a lease which will be registered than one which is not. The shorter the lease, the less likely it is that the tenant will assign it or under-let. If he does, the main things that the assignee or under-tenant will want to see are the lease and the property itself.
We believe that it is not usual practice to make elaborate investigations of the title on the grant or assignment of short leases at full rents. In relation to a transfer of land subject to a lease, the transferee will want to see the lease and evidence of any assignments of it which are normally registered with the landlord and to check that the tenant is complying with the lease. All of that can be equally easily verified, whether or not the lease is registered.
We believe that the reduction in the length of registrable leases from 21 to seven years in a single step will impose considerable burdens on the industry, the profession and, indeed, the registry. If the Act itself specifies seven years and significant practical problems ensue, there will be no remedy short of further primary legislation. On the other hand, if the Bill specifies 14 years with a power to shorten the period by order under Clause 5, it will be possible to avoid at least the worst risks of the industry and the registry being snowed under by making whatever reductions seem desirable when experience shows that it is practicable. If Her Majesty's Government's hopes are justified, that may be quite soon, but the amendment is an insurance against the other possibility.
Perhaps the Government can tell us how many leases of between seven and 14 years are likely to be registrable and how that figure is arrived at. Perhaps they can also assure us that, from the beginning, the registry will be able to cope with the workload without difficulty with paper rather than electronic conveyancing and tell us what the fees for registering a seven-year lease will be. If they can do so, we believe that that will allay some, but not all, of our concerns.
With particular regard to Amendment No. 47, given that the Bill makes leases over a certain length registrable and shorter leases overriding interests, as set out in Schedule 1, paragraph 1 and Schedule 3, paragraph 1, we believe that it is logical that no notices should be registrable for, leases up to that length. Otherwise, the effect will be to increase the burden of formalities on taking a lease of a term between three years and the registrable term. I beg to move.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I hope that I shall be able to reassure the noble Baroness in

1307
relation to this matter, not least because the registry has been fully involved in the working behind the Bill and has a deal of confidence in it. However, one could almost be forgiven for thinking that the registration of leases and perhaps, indeed, registration in general was a dead-weight burden on home owners and businesses which had no compensating benefits. However, I must reassure the House that the Government are dedicated to modernising public services, better regulation and reform of the law. We see the progressive extension of registration over the past century as one of the great success stories in law reform and public services. The comments that I shall make in relation to this section relate to all nine amendments because there is a common theme.
Of course, registration has its costs. The conveyancer will have some additional work and, as the noble Baroness rightly says, the registry's fees are to be borne in mind. However, in relation to the total cost of the conveyance, let alone the commercial value of the transaction, those are both minor matters. We expect that well organised conveyancers will prepare material for registration as they go along. The Government's estimates, which have not been challenged, suggest that less than an hour's work is involved in preparing an application. The registry's typical fee for a commercial short lease would be of the order of £100. For even the largest transactions involving millions of pounds, the maximum fee is £600.
The benefits of the initial investment will be repaid amply during the lifetime of the lease. Where the lease is unregistered, any significant subsequent transaction will require all the initial conveyancing work of establishing the title from the head lease and from the lease itself to be redone completely afresh. That effort is not necessary where the lease is registered because, of course, the work has already been done once.
It is not only major transactions that are made simpler, quicker and cheaper. Where the lease permits it, the granting of rights over the land are easier, too. Particular concerns have been raised in relation to bringing agricultural leases within the registration scheme. Issues such as the right to grant rights of way or shooting or fishing rights become much easier in a registered system. The Bill also significantly improves the protection which can be given to the second group of rights.
Against that background, we would certainly argue that the extension of registration to more leases and, indeed, probably to all written leases—that is, leases granted for three years or more—is to be regarded with positive enthusiasm. That is certainly the advice of independent experts. The Law Commission's and Land Registry's joint report recommends those extensions as a strategy. The distinguished public servant who carried out the five-year review of the registry's functions saw the economic and practical benefits as so great that he recommended that all written leases should be made registrable at once. The Bill, of course, takes a rather more cautious view.
1308
The noble Baroness raised the issue of burdens on the market as being a good reason to go slowly. From what I have said, it is obvious that the Government are very conscious of the possibility that registration may bring some additional burdens to the market. It will also be obvious from what I have said that the additional work needed for registration when a lease is being prepared should be very small in relation to the entire transaction. There has been no suggestion whatever that conveyancers would have difficulty in absorbing those additional tasks.
There may, at first blush, appear to be grounds for having some greater reservations about the Land Registry's ability to cope with increased work. Making leases over seven years registrable would add more than 5 per cent to its annual workload. Making all leases registrable would add more than 10 per cent. Issues of feasibility have, therefore, been considered carefully during the preparation of the Bill. The registry is confident that its modernised system could absorb the extra work that would result from leases over seven years being registrable immediately the Bill is implemented. It sees no difficulty in reducing the period still further in the short term.
The Land Registry has shown itself to be an organisation that exists to help business—it helps with and does not hinder the business of selling and buying land. There is much that it can do to help conveyancers and customers. For example, it can help with difficult registrations, when documents are voluminous or incomplete or where there are many registrations of a similar kind.
I hope that my remarks have reassured the noble Baroness that this is not an area in which it is necessary to go more slowly than our current rate. I hope that she will feel minded to withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, can the noble Baroness explain a little further how the Government arrived at the figure of seven? As my noble friend Lady Buscombe said, the consultation document did not contain an agreed figure, although the Minister was increasingly enthusiastic about the three-year period, which we discussed in Committee. If that is such a desirable period, why have the Government decided to backtrack from the Minister's enthusiastic support for it? When she said that the Land Registry could move from the seven-year period to the three-year period, I believe that she added that it could do so in the short term. What does that mean in her book?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I was trying to strike a balance between caution and enthusiasm. The noble Baroness outlined her concerns about whether the registry could cope and about how quickly it could do so. In that regard, the way in which we proceeded was judicious. The most important thing was for the proposal to work on the ground, to work well and efficiently and to inspire confidence. Some would argue—rightly so—that the registry put the "C" into "caution". It has indeed been very cautious. It is cautiously optimistic that the move from seven years to three years would be possible in the short term.

1309
Obviously, it will be able to go much more quickly once e-conveyancing is on stream. It currently has to consider whether it would be possible to increase the workload by 5 per cent, which is necessary in order to conduct conveyances for seven years within the current framework; it is confident that it can do that. It is not necessarily as confident that it could immediately and practically deal with a reduction to three years. That may be possible, but it would be far more risky and would not be as cautiously prudent. The registry has been very prudent in the advice that it has given. All noble Lords want the proposal to work well and smoothly and to be without difficulty. Confidence will breed greater confidence and we shall be able to go more quickly in the long term.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response. I heard clearly what she said—much of it was said in Committee. We are in an interesting situation. We are all in touch with experts in the field but there is clearly a difference between those with whom we are talking and those to whom the Government are talking because those with whom we are talking—senior representatives in the property industry and related professions—do not share the confidence that the Land Registry will be able to cope with what is in its view a dramatic change. In that case, we feel that 14 years would be a much more sensible period for the time being.
I shall think carefully about the Minister's remarks. I shall discuss the matter further with those with whom we are in consultation before deciding whether or not to return to the point on Third Reading. On that basis, and for the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 3, line 19, at end insert ", unless at that date the person to whom the grant is made is the tenant of the whole of the land comprised therein for a term which is not registered (and is not subject to the requirement of registration) and will expire on or after the date on which the estate granted will take effect in possession".
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 32 and 42.
The amendments are designed to remove the need to register a lease that takes effect in possession more than three months after it is granted, if it is not otherwise required to be registered, in a situation in which it is a renewal of an existing lease to a tenant who is already in possession.
We made the reason for making such a "reversionary" lease very clear in Committee. That reason is given in paragraph 3.32 of the report. It is that if that is not registered, a buyer of a landlord's interest may not be able to find out about it before the term actually begins because the tenant would not be in possession. As we said in Committee, that objection does not apply when the reversionary lease is a renewal to an existing tenant. In that situation there is no
1310
practical need for such a lease to be registered merely because it does not take effect immediately. As the Bill stands, a renewal for a year—or for an even shorter period—that was granted during the midsummer in relation to a lease that will expire at Michaelmas would be registrable and, as we said, a trap.
We have taken notice of what the Government said in Committee in response to our proposals about the need to reduce inquiries relating to matters that are not on the register. The amendments are therefore restricted to a reversionary lease to a tenant whose existing lease is not subject to registration. We accept that a tenant who is within the registration system can fairly be required to register a renewal.
When the tenant is not already within the system, we think that the balance of advantage is emphatically on the side of the amendments. A buyer of the landlord's interest will have to check what the tenant's rights are. It is no real burden for such a buyer to have to ask not only, "Is this the lease?" but also, "Is there any other relevant document?".
A tenant renewing a comparatively short lease may well do so without specialist advice. The Bill as it stands would create a very significant trap. If the renewed lease is registrable but unregistered, it will always be overridden by a disposition of the landlord's interest not only before it falls into possession but at any time thereafter during the renewed term.
Paragraph 1(a) of Schedule 3 will stop a registrable reversionary lease from ever being an overriding interest in the common situation in which the landlord's interest is registered. I beg to mow.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, before I respond to the amendments, I say to the noble Baroness that we thoroughly appreciate the hard work that has been done by all Members of the House in relation to the Bill. If, in relation to these amendments or any others, she feels that it would be helpful, when we have completed the Report stage, for there to be a meeting with Ministers or with officials, I should be more than happy to facilitate that. We may be able to give greater information that would allay her concerns. I say that generally and in relation to any amendments with which 'we shall deal this evening and not simply in relation to the amendments that we have already considered.
As the noble Baroness said, Amendments Nos. 4 and 32 seek to exclude leases of a particular kind from compulsory first registration if the landlord's title is unregistered. Those are, of course, reversionary leases when the lease is a renewal and the tenant under the lease is also a tenant under an existing lease of the type that is set out in the amendment. Amendment No. 42 seeks to provide that such leases should be capable of being protected by actual occupation and so override registered dispositions.
Noble Lords will recall that in Committee we debated similar amendments. The difference in this context is that the tenant's existing lease must also be one that is not registered or subject to the requirement registration. Our view of such amendments. despite

1311
the noble Baroness's eloquence, has not, I am afraid, changed since our debate in Committee. Noble Lords may recall that in Committee I mentioned that existing provisions in the Bill will give effect to a recommendation in the Law Commission and the Land Registry joint consultative document that was unanimously supported by all those who responded to it.
The amendments would place an unreasonable burden on the intending buyers. They would have no way of knowing from the register that the reversionary lease existed and would have to inquire of an existing tenant in circumstances where they might not expect to have to incur that additional step; for example, where they have had produced to them by the seller the tenant's existing lease which makes no option of, say, an option for a further grant.
If, as can happen with estates of some size, the intending buyer is purchasing a portfolio of properties, the problem could be magnified. With the advent of electronic conveyancing, the number of inquiries should be kept to a minimum, so that a buyer can rely as much as possible on the entries in the register. Where such a reversionary lease is not on the register, an intending buyer of, say, the freehold reversion will not know from the register of the existence of the lease. Furthermore, the fact that a new lease taking effect more than three months in the future has to be registered enables the buyer to protect his or her position by registering an estate contract or by making a priority search under Clause 72.
The Bill seeks as far as possible and practicable to make the register as comprehensive as possible, particularly with the advent of e-conveyancing. The proposed amendments would hinder that objective and make the law more complicated, by excluding from the category of reversionary leases in Clause 4 or Clause 27 certain leases by reference to the status of the tenant under the lease.
Another if perhaps less-serious problem is the possibility that the first lease dealt with under the subsection could, in theory, also be a reversionary lease of some sort. If that were the case, the tenant would not be in occupation under either lease. That would only multiple the problems facing the prospective buyer.
I readily accept that in certain circumstances the reversionary lease that will be required to be registered may be short. But it is a matter of balancing that against the benefits to buyers and others of a more comprehensive register. Although the noble Baroness points to short leases being caught, the amendments would catch also relevant leases not exceeding seven years. The discovery of such a reversion by a buyer after completion of the purchase would cause him or her financial and emotional distress. In light of that explanation, I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her kind invitation to a meeting following Report
1312
stage. I would welcome that opportunity and will be in touch with her office. We are extremely supportive of the Bill and it is our intention to get the legislation as right as possible. This is, in many ways, the most important new piece of land law since 1925 and it is an awesome responsibility on our part—being aware that it could remain on the statute book for such a long time.
It is certainly not our intention to place an unreasonable burden on the intended buyer, or to increase the opportunities to increase that burden where a portfolio of leases is contemplated. I am concerned about a number of issues to which the Minister responded, where another trap could be created. I would like carefully to consider those issues and perhaps we could address them in a meeting after this evening. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, Amendment No. 5 is the first of several amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Goodhart. He has asked me to apologise to the House for his absence and to explain that he cannot be here because he is, appropriately enough, arguing a stamp duty case in Hong Kong.
As a rule, I do not usually speak in the House on subjects that I do not understand and of which I have no experience. I see the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, in his place—which inhibits me even more than listening to the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe. My noble friend Lord Goodhart was kind enough to leave me a note on Amendment No. 5 which I shall now read:
"Suggest don't move it. It is a very technical point and not all that important."
I have read Amendment No. 5 three times and agree with my noble friend. Therefore, it will not be moved.
[Amendment No. 5 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 not moved.]
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 4, line 11, at end insert—
"subject to subsection (3), "transfer" has the same meaning as "convey" in the Law of Property Act 1925 (c. 20);"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the amendment relates to a dealing with unregistered land, whereby such a dealing leading to compulsory registration of title can still be done in the old form with a conveyance rather than a transfer. It should be made clear that compulsory registration still follows.
Traditionally, land then unregistered was transferred by a conveyance. The abbreviated and modernised transfer form was introduced for registered land and has recently been redesigned. To encourage modernisation, it has for a long time been the case that unregistered land that would be registered immediately after a transfer transaction can be transferred by using a transfer in registration form.
However, it appears that under the Bill, it will continue to be in order for unregistered land to be transferred by a conveyance—even though compulsory registration of title will follow. It is therefore necessary to make clear that when the Bill talks about a transfer when dealing with the triggers of compulsory registration, that includes a conveyance. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Baroness suggests what amounts to a drafting change to Clause 4, which sets out the events that will trigger compulsory registration of title to an interest in land. That provision has been drafted in a very different style to the existing legislation, which talks of "qualifying conveyances" and "qualifying assignments". In listing the various events, the draftsman has used the term "the transfer" as a noun, to signify that an interest in land is transferred.
There are other instances in the Bill where the phrases "a transfer" or "the transfer" are used, such as in Clause 27. Thus "the transfer" indicates just that—the fact of the transfer of the estate or interest. There cannot be a transfer unless it meets the requirements for the conveyance of a legal estate that apply under general law. The relevant requirements are laid down in Section 52 of the Law of Property Act 1925. For example, for the purposes of Clause 4(1)(a)(i), a transfer will necessarily have to be made by a deed. However, a transfer by way of assent under Clause 4(1)(a)(ii) will be made by signed writing in accordance with Section 36(4) of the Administration of Estates Act 1925.
I hope that explanation reassures the noble Baroness that the Bill already meets her concern and that she will feel able to withdraw this clever drafting amendment.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I thank the Minister and would like to think about his response. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4 p.m.
Clause 5 [Power to extend section 4]:
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 4, line 29, at end insert "the Rule Committee and"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in rising to speak to Amendment No. 9, I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 10, 108, 110 and 112.
Two aspects within this group of amendments relate specifically to Clause 5. The first relates to the rule committee and whether or not it should be consulted as regards the Lord Chancellor's power to amend Section 4. We feel, in essence, that the rule committee should be consulted before the Lord Chancellor exercises that power. The second aspect is that it is important that where the Lord Chancellor exercises his power under Clause 4, his order should be approved by each House of Parliament.
I take the first aspect in relation to the rule committee in a little more detail. If the Lord Chancellor believes that the powers conferred by Clause 5 should, for whatever reason, be invoked, why not consult the rule committee in addition to others that he may think appropriate? This is an issue discussed at some length in Committee. It remains our contention that if we are to have a rule committee, we should have a committee that has broad powers and a strong remit in order to allow it to be used to good, practical effect by the Lord Chancellor of the day to ensure that the right decisions are made.
I echo the words of the Minister when she said in Committee,
"Confidence in the system is necessary. Once that confidence has been established, it will be possible for the Lord Chancellor of the day to look again at whether a further reduction is merited, but that would be done at a time that was in line with what the market, the profession and the registry could tolerate with ease".—(Official Report, 17/07/01; col. 1395.)
We believe that the rule committee would be ideally placed, given its constituents, to signal to the Lord Chancellor when that time may be right.
Amendments Nos. 10, 108 and 110 are designed to prevent the rule-making power being used to introduce compulsory registration of five-year and shorter leases without further parliamentary consideration. Five-year leases are common. They are usually occupational, business, residential or farming leases and are not assigned anything like as frequently as longer interests. So there is no pressing, practical need to register them, either to ensure that a purchaser of the superior interest finds out about them, or to make it easier to buy and sell them.
We believe not only that five-year and shorter leases are predominantly granted to tenants for their own occupation throughout the term and are rarely assigned or under-let, but also that when such a transaction takes place, the tenant holds all documentation of relevance to the assignee or under-tenant and would still do so if the lease were registered. So the benefits to the parties from registration are small.
The Government said in Committee that registration of short leases would enable information to be collected which would be useful in creating transparency in the market. Even if it is accepted that there is a connected purpose within the Long Title of the Bill, nevertheless making tenants register and pay fees for the privilege in furtherance of what the Government present as a general public interest, would amount to levying taxation. If it is permissible to comment on that, I suggest that that would be a wholly unjustifiable stealth tax. I beg to move.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I rise briefly to support what has been said. This is not a matter of technical conveyancing; it is a matter of parliamentary accountability and common sense about good governance. The Bill already contemplates that the Lord Chancellor will consult those he deems

1315
appropriate. It is sensible therefore that there should be at least an undertaking that the rule committee should be one of those to be consulted.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, this is an important issue and, with the leave of the House, I shall take a little time dealing with the amendments. It is an issue which troubled the noble Baroness in Committee and this may be a good opportunity to try to lay some of the concerns to rest. I shall therefore speak to Amendments Nos. 9, 10, 106 (the government amendment) and 107 to 112. These amendments deal with the consultation required in the preparation of the delegated legislation under the Bill and the parliamentary scrutiny which such legislation should receive.
Amendment No. 9 requires the Lord Chancellor to consult the rule committee before adding new events to trigger compulsory registration. That would be an important issue. As I acknowledged in Committee, members of the rule committee will undoubtedly have a valuable contribution to make to any consultation processes undertaken in respect of secondary legislation under the Bill. That contribution will be increased by Amendment No. 106, in the name of the Lord Chancellor, which is in response to suggestions made during Committee. It will add a person nominated by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors which, on reflection, I am sure is the right body to nominate a surveyor of the right breadth of experience, and a person with knowledge of consumer affairs, to the rule committee. I am glad to see the noble Earl in his place to hear me say that.
But when consultees are listed in the statute, there is a temptation to limit the consultation process to those people or to treat their contributions as carrying greater weight than those from other people. That would be inadvisable when a large number of interests will need to be taken into account in the preparation of rules, as most certainly will apply here.
While I willingly undertake to ensure that the members of the rule committee are included in any consultation process under Clause 5—I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lester, that that is a good thing to do—it would not be appropriate or desirable to highlight this one particular group by mentioning them on the face of the Bill.
Similar arguments apply to Amendment No. 112. That amendment would bring rules under Clause 93 and paragraphs 1, 2, or 3 of Schedule 5 within the definition of land registration rules, and therefore make them subject to the scrutiny of the rule committee. I am very happy to make a commitment that the rule committee will be consulted on those rules, like the many other groups whose views will be sought on these important questions. But the procedures for land registration rules envisage close working between the registry's draftsmen and the committee, often as a substitute for wide external consultation.
1316
That will not be the case here. There will be a wider degree of consultation and, under the government amendments to which I shall turn shortly, a wider degree of consultation and scrutiny than usual for the rules on electronic conveyancing. I therefore suggest it is not necessary, and perhaps not appropriate, to consider them formally as land registration rules. They are of their own kind entirely, and wide consultation and the general confidence of conveyancers will be essential to their success.
I listened carefully to what the noble Baroness said in relation to her amendment to Clause 5, which would require approval by affirmative resolution for any order reducing below five years and one month the length of leases which are subject to compulsory registration, and on Amendment No. 110 which would make further rules and orders dealing with electronic conveyancing subject to affirmative resolution. Those amendments need to be looked at in the light of the amendments standing in the name of the Lord Chancellor to Clause 125. They show that the Government have been very willing to consider advice from the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee and comments in Committee.
In Committee I undertook to bring forward amendments which would modernise the rule-making powers under this Bill. Those suggested might be modelled on the parliamentary procedures for amending rules of court, which are the most directly comparable rules and which have the advantage of having been subject to recent parliamentary debate. As a result of the amendments, the rules, regulations and orders to be made under the Bill will now fall into four distinct categories.
First, the rules under Clause 93, the power to require simultaneous registration—in other words to make electronic conveyancing compulsory—and the rules under paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of Schedule 5 in relation to network access agreements, are to be subject to an affirmative resolution procedure.
Secondly, all land registration rules, as defined in Clause 129(1), are to be subject to a negative resolution procedure, after having been considered by the rule committee. The negative resolution procedure will also apply to rules made under Part 2 in relation to the procedure and practice for adjudicator proceedings, under Clause 108 in relation to references to the adjudicator on objections and, under Clause 119, the forwarding of applications to the Register of Companies. There are no other rule-making powers in the Bill.
Thirdly, regulations under paragraph 5 of Schedule 9, which deals with a vacancy in the office of adjudicator, are to be subject to a negative resolution procedure. Regulations under Clause 99, dealing with a vacancy in the office of registrar are, by contrast, to be laid before Parliament after being made. That difference in treatment arises because the main functions of the adjudicator are judicial, which have not hitherto been subject to specific parliamentary approval, and the approach for both groups is in line with the procedure for making the rules of court.

1317
The remaining orders under the Bill are made under Clause 5(1), providing for the creation of a new trigger for compulsory registration; Clause 62(9), enabling alterations in the time period for upgrading title without production of further evidence; Clause 80(4) which fulfills the rule of Clause 5(1) in relation to demesne land, and Clause 116 dealing with adjusting the qualifying term of leases and Clause 127 permitting the extension of the scope of land registration to internal waters. They will all be subject to a negative resolution procedure. We suggest that that provides a firm and clear basis for the scrutiny of secondary legislation.
I turn to the suggestion made by the noble Baroness that any order reducing the length of lease which would be registrable below five years should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. In dealing with the amendments which we have already discussed, which would make leases of 14 years and above compulsorily registrable, rather than leases of 7 years and above, I have sought to set out why the Government think that that extension of registration is a positive measure for conveyancers and their customers. I have explained the benefits that will flow from the change, and the comparatively small costs and additional burdens of work which will result.
From these Benches, the only issue which seems to us to raise genuine questions of public concern is whether the length of leases could be further reduced without imperilling, through additional workload, the Land Registry's excellent service to all of its customers. That is an issue which Ministers will consider anxiously before making any order under the Bill.
Any additional concerns will be identified by the consultation which the Bill requires under the order before the order can be made. That consultation will be carried out carefully. I have been happy to commit to that being on a wide basis. However, I have to say that I see little additional benefit that would be served by incurring the delay of having to seek affirmative resolution as well.
The noble Baroness also suggested that rules under Clause 93 specifying which types of dispositions are covered by the requirement for simultaneous registration rules under paragraph 103 of Schedule 5 in relation to network access agreements, fees, district registry orders and commencement orders should be subject to affirmative resolution; in other words all the orders which extend the scope of the registration process or otherwise adjust time periods specified in the Bill.
I have referred to the government amendments that would increase the level of parliamentary scrutiny for most of the delegated legislation made under the Bill. The amendments would make the rules relating to electronic conveyancing and network access agreements subject to affirmative resolution procedure. Those rules are already subject to a condition that the Lord Chancellor must consult before making them. Taking those two elements together—the electronic conveyancing system and the
1318
rules relating to its introduction—will be subject to checks and controls throughout their development, over what will be, no doubt, a relatively long period of time.
There are also duties to consult before exercising order-making powers in Clause 5, the power to extend compulsion, and Clause 116, the power to reduce the qualifying term. The order-making powers in Clauses 80(4) and 127 mainly affect the Crown Estate. Therefore, a requirement to consult widely or to submit a draft to Parliament would be inappropriate. Neither would it be necessary for such scrutiny to be applied to the order reducing the length of time after which title will be upgraded under Clause 62.
We also propose that orders made under Clause 1127, which relates to internal waters, should remain subject to a negative resolution procedure notwithstanding the comment of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee that no parliamentary procedure is customary with provisions of that kind. Such orders are wholly novel in relation to the registration of land, and might conceivably affect the rights of those with an actual or wished-for interest in the land underlying territorial waters, which suggests that some degree of parliamentary scrutiny is appropriate. There are no other order-making powers in the Bill.
As I have indicated, these modernised rule-making powers are modelled on the rules of court. We believe that they strike the right balance between, on the one hand, the level of parliamentary scrutiny needed to oversee the novel aspects of matters such as the introduction of electronic conveyancing and, on the other, the additional burdens that such procedures will place on the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. I therefore commend them to the House. In the light of what I hope was an exhaustively full explanation, and in the light of the commitments given regarding consultation, I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
4.15 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her comments on Amendment No. 126. I am particularly pleased that a person nominated by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors will now be on the rule committee. I was also pleased with her comments on affirmative resolution with regard to e-conveyancing. I should like to read the rest of her comments because I do not think that I agree with all of them. However, that is certainly a matter we can discuss between now and another stage.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, first, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, for his support for the amendments. I echo the words of my noble friend Lord Caithness. We welcome the clause as proposed in Amendment No. 106 to add to the rule committee a member of the Institution of Chartered Surveyors. I, too, shall need to read with great care the Minister's comments and the detail she gave on this important matter, for which we are extremely appreciative, and about which, as the Minister knows, we have considerable concern.

1319
I turn to the rule committee and the Minister's comments regarding the need to consult a large number of interested parties. However, surely that process should not be compromised in any way by the existence of the rule committee. The process of working and consulting with the rule committee should be in concert with and should complement the process of consulting large numbers of interested parties in relation to any changes to the law which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor may feel appropriate. With earlier amendments we discovered that the Government and Her Majesty's Opposition were both in consultation with different, albeit equally renowned, experts in this field. That demonstrates the need for us all to be sure. Indeed, the Lord Chancellor of the day needs to ensure that he or she consults widely given the complexity of the subject and the many interests which should be considered when important decisions are made with regard to this legislation.
We welcome the Government's response to our concerns in Committee, as far as it goes. I echo the words of my noble friend Lord Caithness: I may not agree entirely with all that the Minister said or believe that she has gone far enough for our liking. With regard to electronic conveyancing, we are pleased with the decision to look to affirmative resolution procedures. I shall consider in detail what the Minister said in Hansard. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 10 not moved.]
Clause 6 [Duty to apply for registration of title]:
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 4, line 33, leave out "must, before" and insert "has until"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving the amendment, I speak also to Amendment No. 12.
The Bill appears to impose a duty to register title to a registrable estate but no direct sanction follows, which appears to make the duty toothless.
The position is, however, the same as it now is. If a title which should be registered on the first registration is not registered, the transaction unravels and the buyer who fails to register does not get the title to the property which he should have had. The amendment suggests rewording which is more consistent with that carrot approach rather than waving a non-existent stick.
In practice, if a buyer applies for a first registration out of time, the registrar makes an order permitting registration as a matter of course. In consultation with the Law Society, we can confirm that none of the experienced conveyancers on the society's specialist committee could recall any case in which this has ever caused any difficulty. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I have listened carefully to what the noble Baroness has said in moving and speaking to the amendments. In short, it is suggested that the Bill's approach should be to identify
1320
clearly which of the parties for the transaction has the obligation of registering it; and having put that responsibility on the new owner should leave it to him or her to suffer the consequences of failure to comply.
We cannot agree. The consequences of failing to register are serious not only for the buyer of the new property but also the seller. That is because the effect of failing to register a transfer of property is that the legal title which is passed by the disposition returns to the seller. It does not, however, return absolutely. The seller holds the land only in trust for the buyer who has failed to register the property. The seller's position is, therefore, an awkward one, subject to a large number of obligations to the errant buyer. It is our contention that it is unreasonable for him or her to be put in that position.
I would therefore argue that it is more appropriate to put the buyer under a clear legal obligation to complete the transaction. It is indeed true, and has been argued, that there is currently no way to enforce the carrying out of that obligation. Some steps towards it may be possible in the future because the completion of the process by registration may well become an enforceable requirement of a network access agreement. And in the absence of a practicable way of forcing the buyer to complete the transaction, the existence of an obligation to have completed registration may well help a seller in the event of litigation.
There is one further argument against the amendments. It is that the wording in the Bill follows exactly the existing legislation, the effect of which is generally understood and accepted. Introducing any change would run the risk, I suggest, of introducing confusion. For those reasons I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response which has reassured us. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 12 not moved.]
Clause 8 [Liability for making good void transfers etc.]:
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 5, line 26, at beginning insert "(1) Subject to subsection (2),"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving the amendment, I speak also to Amendment No. 14. They relate to liability for making good void transfers under Clause 8.
The purpose of the amendment is such that where the grant of a mortgage, with or without a transfer to the mortgagor, leads to compulsory registration, the practice is for the mortgagee to apply for registration because he has the title deeds to protect his security. The consequences of a late application for registration could be serious for the mortgagor but are beyond his control.
Although it seems unlikely that failure to effect first registration will cause difficulty, we are proposing that the consequences should fall on who is actually

1321
responsible. When someone buys property with the help of a mortgage, the mortgagee will immediately take the deeds as his security. In practice, therefore, it is the mortgagee who must deal with registration (although the responsibility may appear to be the mortgagor/buyer's). If the mortgagee overlooks the matter, or worse, it is right that he is the one who is liable for any loss. I beg to move.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the first amendment makes Clause 8 subject to a further subsection and the second introduces that subsection.
Clause 8 deals with the liability for the cost of transferring, granting or creating the legal estate again, in the event that the previous disposition has become void through want of registration. That clause imposes the obligation on the buyer or the mortgagor in all cases.
We doubt that that is a sufficient reason for changing the long-established situation under which responsibility for meeting liability should fall primarily on the buyer or the mortgagor. As a matter of fact, it appears that that is where most problems seem to arise. It is that party who is in possession of the title documents vesting the legal estate in the land in the name of the person who should be registered as proprietor of that estate. In fact, this clause reflects the current provision of the Land Registration Act 1925 set out in subsections (8) and (9) of Section 123A.
Although not expressly stated as in the earlier provision, there is nothing in the Bill which prevents that liability being placed elsewhere on agreement between the parties. Indeed, there will usually be discussions between a buyer's advisers and those acting for the lender during the conveyancing process about the post-completion submission of a single application to the Land Registry covering all aspects of the transaction.
We would also suggest that even if the liability falls more often in current practice on the mortgagee rather than the mortgagor, now is not the time to make changes to reflect that practice. As noble Lords are no doubt already aware, conveyancing practice will change dramatically within the next few years. It could well be that the registry will receive electronic documents and applications through the network system as a result of the release of the individual elements of the overall transaction by the various parties. It may well be, therefore, that the authority for the individual amendments being made to the register will come from different parties. Those decisions are for the future. The important thing is that the wording of the clause does not preclude this as it merely states a default position.
What I respectfully suggest is the most appropriate way forward at present is to leave the imposition of the primary legislation where it currently falls, but without restriction on the ability of the parties to reallocate that liability in individual cases.
In the light of what I have said, I therefore ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her full and eloquent response. I almost entirely understood what she had to say; I am reassured; and on that basis I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 14 not moved.]
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 5, line 33, at end insert—
"( ) For the purposes of section 12A of the Stamp Act 1891 (c. 39), an instrument to which section 7(1) applies shall be treated as having been accidentally spoiled."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is a probing amendment, which would ensure that if an instrument were avoided by a failure to apply for registration, the stamp duty paid on it could be used on any replacement instrument executed to give effect to the original transaction. The Bill contemplates that, in some cases—we agree that they are likely to be rare—a second instrument may be executed to replace one that was ineffective because it had not been registered.
In Committee, the Minister said that she would investigate the issue and return to it on Report. We want to ensure that this point is not overlooked.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Baroness is right. The amendment was tabled in Committee and we agreed carefully to consider it. If the responsible estate owner fails to apply for first registration of title within the period of registration stipulated in Clause 6, the transfer, grant or creation of the legal estate becomes void as a result of the application of Clause 7(1). It is therefore necessary for the legal estate to be re-transferred, re-granted or recreated by a new and additional document.
Stamp duty should not have to be paid on both the original document that dealt with the transaction and the subsequent, replacement document. I am therefore delighted to be able to confirm that the Stamp Duties Management Act 1891 already addresses that issue. Section 9 of that Act states that, subject to the production of evidence as to the facts, and to compliance with stamp duty regulations, allowance is to be made by the Commissioners for stamps spoiled in certain situations. Section 9(7)(d) then explains how such an allowance is to be made, by providing that,
"Allowance is to be made when an instrument executed by any party thereto becomes void for want of registration within the time required by law".
I can therefore reassure your Lordships that no amendment needs to be made to the Bill, as the necessary provision is already made by existing legislation. I trust that, with that warm reassurance and careful recollection of Victorian legislation, the noble Baronness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reassurance, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 11 [Freehold estates]:
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 7, line 20, at end insert ", or, as the case may be, the other persons."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 together. The provision is intended to cover cases in which the proprietor has no beneficial interest and in which he shares that interest. Without the words that the amendments would insert, the provision appears to apply only where the proprietor has no beneficial interest. The amendments are drafting amendments with grammatical purpose, so we hope that the Government will respond positively.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her assiduous consideration of grammar in tabling the amendments. On this occasion, it is unnecessary further to clarify the Bill as drafted. In our view, the clauses as drafted are clear. Clause 11 states:
"If the proprietor is not entitled to the estate for his own benefit, … then, as between himself and the persons beneficially entitled to the estate, the estate is vested in him subject to such of their interests as he has notice of'.
Clause 12 states:
"If the proprietor is not entitled … solely for his own benefit, then, as between himself and the persons beneficially entitled to the estate, the estate is vested in him subject to such of their interests as he has notice of'.
The amendments are therefore unnecessary. The clauses are considerably clearer than Sections 5(c) and 9(d) of the Land Registration Act 1925, which they replace. Those sections do not suggest that there are two different situations to consider. The clarity sought by the noble Baroness through the amendments is already achieved by the clauses as drafted. With that reassurance, I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response. The fact that the clauses as drafted may be clearer than the related sections of the 1925 Act does not necessarily make them clear; they may be only an improvement. I will re-read the clauses and the Hansard report of what she had to say, to reassure myself that the amendments are unnecessary. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 12 [Leasehold estates]:
[Amendment No. 17 not moved.]
Schedule 1 [Unregistered interests which override first registration]:
[Amendment No. 18 not moved.]
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 18A:
Page 46, line 10, leave out from "occupation- to end of line 11.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 18A, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 20A, 41, 43, 44 and 45 and refer to government Amendments Nos. 19 and 43.
On Amendments Nos. 18A and 20A, a person in actual occupation of land who possesses an interest under a trust of land is entitled by virtue of his occupation to protection in respect of that interest. Paragraphs 2(1) of Schedule 1 and 2(1)(a) of Schedule 3 withhold that protection if the person in actual occupation is entitled to an interest under a strict settlement.
When we moved the amendments in Committee, we saw no justification for the discriminatory treatment of the beneficiary under the strict settlement, and we see none now. We accept that under existing legislation, interests under strict settlement do not constitute overriding interests. But, as the Law Commission pointed out at paragraph 2.69 of its third report on land registration in 1987, the distinction in the treatment of beneficiaries under strict settlements and beneficiaries under trusts of sale—now trusts of land—was probably unintended and was in principle unjustifiable. In the recent consultative document, at paragraph 563, the Law Commission and the Land Registry both readily accept that rights under strict settlement should be capable of existing as overriding interests. We agree wholeheartedly with that view.
There is a further important consideration to which the Law Commission refers in its 1987 report. The strict settlement was the classical type of landed settlement, designed to preserve family estates from generation to generation. In that context, the need to protect the beneficial interests of persons in actual occupation will seldom, if ever, arise. However, one unintended consequence of the Settled Land Act 1925 has been the unintentional and informal creation of strict settlements in circumstances in which the machinery of the Act is inappropriate and often not properly implemented.
In that context, the exclusion of beneficiaries under strict settlement who are in actual occupation of land is capable of operating unjustly. For example, a widow entitled to a life interest in the former matrimonial home under the will of her husband will be entitled to protection if in actual occupation only if the property were subject to a trust of sale. In the absence of that magic formula, which may well have been omitted in a handmade or informal will, the widow will be entitled to no protection. When she is evicted, it will be cold comfort to her to know that she is one of comparatively few people who will be affected by the abandonment of the Law Commission's recommendation to extend the protection to persons in her position.
The fact that a widow under a strict settlement unintentionally created by a homemade will is one of a diminishing band is not a good reason for depriving her of the protection of the law, which the law accords to someone with almost identical rights under a trust of land.
I want now to refer briefly to Amendments Nos. 19 and 43, tabled by the Government. They appear to replicate the amendments which we tabled in Committee. We congratulate the Government on bringing them forward at the Report stage, albeit under their name. They are most welcome.
I now turn to Amendments Nos. 41 and 44. In Committee, there was a discussion on the exact shades of meaning of the word "obvious" and of our suggested alternative, "apparent". We want to close off the unmeritorious argument that, although someone's occupation or, under paragraph 3 of Schedule 3 an easement, would have come to light on a reasonably careful inspection, it would not have been obvious and therefore not binding because the person undertaking the inspection would have had to think about what he saw in order to realise what the position was.
We believe that the reformulated amendments now proposed will avoid both that possibility and the semantic points raised in Committee. The amendments now have the simple effect of making an occupation or an easement binding if someone inspecting with reasonable care would find it. And common law principles will continue to govern what is a "reasonably careful inspection". Our reasoning is the same as, we believe, the Government's thinking in adopting our suggestion of deleting Schedule 1, paragraph 2(2) and Schedule 3, paragraph 2(2); that is, that in this area it is correct to rely on the interpretation which has been settled by the common law.
I now turn to Amendment No. 45. It is similar to an amendment we tabled in Committee, slightly redrafted to clarify its purpose. The point we want to deal with is that an inspection of land may show a used pathway across it or a window overlooking it. However, it will not be possible to say merely from looking at the land whether whoever uses the path or receives light to the window is entitled to do so as of right under an easement, or merely has the landowner's temporary or revocable permission to do so. We suggest that in such circumstances, a reasonably careful inspection should include asking whatever questions arise naturally from the facts observed.
The Government's reference in Committee to the case of Yandle v. Sutton and to patent defects in title appears to indicate that in their view as the Bill stands not only the relevant activity but also the fact that it is "as of right" and not merely permissive has to appear from mere visual inspection or be a "necessary" consequence of what is found by such inspection. If so, the saving for easements which would be revealed by inspection will never apply to anything, because merely looking at a path does not reveal whether anyone has an easement to use it.
The effect will be that paragraph 3(1)(b) appears to promise but does not deliver and even a clear but undocumented right of way over a well defined route will be lost on a sale of the land affected unless the person having the right can prove that it was used at some time in the previous year. I beg to move.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the majority of these amendments relate to how obvious occupation has to be to constitute an overriding interest. In discussing them, it is my intention first to discuss the
1326
Government's Amendments Nos. 19 and 43, and then move to discuss Amendments Nos. 41 and 44 and finally Amendment No. 45. After that I shall discuss Amendments Nos. 18A and 20A, which relate to settled land and the rights of those in actual occupation.
As regards Amendments Nos. 19 and 43, concern was expressed during Second Reading and in Committee as to the meaning of "physically present" in relation to the protection of an interest by a person being in actual occupation; so that the interest overrides first registration or a registrable disposition. At that stage, the Government undertook to consider further. We have concluded that the proper course is to remove the partial definition of "actual occupation" in paragraphs 2(2) of Schedules 1 and 3. By doing so, I am pleased that we have adopted the approach contained in two of the amendments brought forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, in Committee.
At present, paragraph 2(2) of each schedule provides that for the purposes of those paragraphs, a person is to be regarded as in actual occupation of the land only if he or she, or his or her agent or employee, is physically present there. "Actual occupation" is a term used in the existing legislation at Section 70(1)(g) of the Land Registration Act 1925. There is no statutory definition of the term but key elements of it have been explained by case law.
The intention behind the provisions in paragraphs 2(2) of Schedules 1 and 3 to the Bill was to codify certain of those key elements. They were, first, that there must be physical presence on the land of some kind, not just entitlement. Secondly, that physical presence does not have to take the form of residence. It might, for example, take the form of using a workshop. Thirdly, that physical presence does not have to be continuous. A person is no less in actual occupation if he or she only sleeps in the house and is out to work during the day. Finally, that the actual occupation may be that of the person who has the right, or it may be that of his or her agent or employee.
The Government do not seek to change any of those key elements provided by case law. However, we have concluded that there is a real risk in trying to add the glossing words "physically present". The additional words might create new scope for argument, and for expensive litigation, about the extent to which they might have been intended to alter the meaning of "actual occupation" as interpreted by the courts.
I turn to Amendments Nos. 41 and 44. The common thread of these two amendments and the Committee debates is the test to be applied in deciding whether something is patent on a reasonably careful inspection. In the first amendment, the test is in relation to whether a person's occupation is obvious and in the second, the test is in relation to legal easements and profits à prendre.
The amendments tabled in Committee sought to replace the word "obvious" with "apparent". These amendments seek to replace the words "obvious on" with "disclosed by", a reasonably careful inspection.

1327
The overall aim is to reduce interests which override registration as far as practicable and to ensure that they are restricted to interests which it would be impracticable or impossible to register.
I think it is agreed that if a buyer knows of a legal easement or profit because it is patent, then he should be bound by it. Such easements will be discovered from a reasonably careful inspection of the property and the seller would not be under a duty to disclose them. Secondly, any legal easement or profit which is not known to the buyer and is latent should not bind the buyer (although there should be an exception where the right has been exercised in the past year). This protects buyers from undiscoverable easements and profits, which are virtually impossible to get rid of once established.
The noble Baroness considers that the words "disclosed by" will achieve our common objective better than "obvious on". While I am grateful to her for that suggestion, I believe that little may turn on the different phrases. Noble Lords will recall that earlier and in Committee I referred to easements that will be discovered from a reasonably careful inspection. However, I am not aware of any judicial gloss on the word "discovered", while the term "obvious" has been the subject of considerable judicial use. It seems to us that the wisest course, and the one that makes our intentions clearest, is to echo language that is already familiar in case law.
The Oxford English Dictionary also suggests that "obvious" may be, as we would wish, a bit clearer and more evident than "disclosed". I would be worried in this difficult area, which has been the subject of much litigation in the past—no doubt also in future—to rely on very fine shadings of semantics. I very much welcome the thought which has gone into the noble Baroness's amendment. I agree that there is the finest of shadings between the rival versions. I would certainly hesitate to argue strongly for the original wording were it not for the closer correspondence to other areas of the Bill and the cases. On that basis I suggest to your Lordships' House that on balance it is the one to be preferred. The debates on these topics have undoubtedly been useful for this difficult area. They alone will, I hope, have done much to clarify the intention of Parliament in the event of a dispute.
As to Amendment No. 45, in debating Amendments Nos. 41 and 44 I said that if buyers knew of a legal easement or profit because it was patent they would be bound by it. Such easements will be discovered from a reasonably careful inspection of the property, and the seller will not be under a duty to disclose them. The amendment seeks to spell out that if it is obvious that there has been activity on the land, or advantage enjoyed over it, the buyer will take it subject to the easement or profit, whether or not that is disclosed. The test of what is "obvious" on a reasonably careful inspection is to be interpreted as the case law relating to the question of a patent defect in title, namely one
1328
that does not have to be disclosed to a buyer of land prior to contract. In the leading case the learned judge said:
"I think [the purchaser] is only liable to take property subject to those defects which are patent to the eye, including those defects which are a necessary consequence of something which is patent to the eye".
Therefore, if it was patent to the eye that, say, a private right of way existed the disponee would be bound even if he did not know the particular right under which the way was used or who all the users were. A legal easement will override a registered disposition if it is one that a seller of the land burdened by it would not have to disclose before contracting to sell the land. If the amendment was accepted there would be a danger that that simple test, which is perfectly familiar to conveyancers, might be obscured.
I turn finally to Amendments Nos. 18A and 20A. When we debated the same amendments in Committee the Government said that they had considerable sympathy with the arguments which the noble Baroness had advanced for removing the exceptions for settled land in the Bill as it currently stood. However, having considered the matter further, and despite the very eloquent arguments advanced by the noble Baroness, we believe that the Bill is right to continue the present position. We take that view because one of the aims of the Bill is to keep the number of overriding interests to a minimum given the responses to the 1998 consultation paper, and there appears to be no evidence that the present provision has caused hardship.
In its 1998 consultation paper the commission originally suggested that the right of a beneficiary under the Settled Land Act 1925 should cease to be, as now, simply a minor interest and become an overriding interest on first registration and in relation to registrable dispositions. Although comparatively few people responded on this point, most thought that these rights should not be overriding. Since 1996 it has been impossible to create new settlements under the 1925 Act as a result of the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996. This will, therefore, be an issue of rapidly diminishing significance. Consultees thought it very curious that the commission should seek to improve the protection of such rights and extend the scope of overriding interests at this stage when the general view was that the range of overriding interests should be cut back.
Any settlements of registered land expressly created before 1997 should have been protected by the entry of the prescribed restrictions on the register. The Law Commission, therefore, thought it likely that little or no hardship would be caused by the abandonment of the recommendation. It is therefore recommended that there should be a continuation of the present situation under which a beneficiary under a settlement cannot protect his or her interest by virtue of his or her actual occupation of the settled land.
In the 75 years since the Land Registration Act 1925 came into force the present situation does not appear to have caused any problems, and I am not aware of any case where the lack of protection as an overriding

1329
interest has prejudiced a beneficiary under a strict settlement. While what I say must in part be speculation, it would not surprise me if a reason for this is that the beneficiary, who would normally be in possession, is the tenant for life (in the technical sense) and normally he will be the registered proprietor (the trustees of the settlement usually being registered only if they are the statutory owners where there is no tenant for life).
I apologise for the length at which I have dwelt on these amendments, including those tabled by the Government, but I believe that it is important to deal in some detail with the various concerns raised by the noble Baroness. I hope that she will, therefore, be able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his full response to the various amendments that we have tabled. He should make no apology for the length of his response given the importance of the various issues which have been raised. Interestingly, the Minister referred to the Oxford English Dictionary. When considering the word "obvious", I looked at a different version, namely the Pocket Oxford English Dictionary. That dictionary refers to something that is seen or realised at first glance. Our concern is that if something is not seen at first glance the occupier will lose all his rights, whereas if something is reasonably disclosed—in other words, second glance—the occupier's rights are safe. We wonder whether this matter may see the light of day in the courts given that we are looking at similar dictionaries with different interpretations.
I hear what the Minister says in relation to the issue of settled land which is dealt with in Amendments Nos. 18A and 20A. I hope that the Minister is right that there is no need to be concerned about the type of person to whom I referred, for example the widow who is entitled to a life interest in the former matrimonial home. Under her husband's will she is entitled to protection if in actual occupation only if the property is subject to a trust of sale. We shall read with considerable care the Minister's response in Hansard before deciding whether to return to this matter or to regard it as another issue that we may raise with the Minister after this evening. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 46, line 12, leave out sub-paragraph (2).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
5 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill Lord Lester of Herne Hill moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 47, line 7, at end insert—
"15 A right acquired under the Limitation Act 1980 (c. 58) before the coming into force of this Schedule."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 20 I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 46 and 119 which are consequential. The Bill as it stands will in some circumstances divest the title of those who have already acquired an indefeasible title by adverse possession. We believe that that is wrong. My noble friend Lord Goodhart raised this issue in Committee on 17th July (at cols. 1398 to 1399 of Hansard). Having heard the response of the noble Baroness, my noble friend indicated that he might wish to return to the subject at Report stage.
My noble friend raised two issues on that occasion: first, the effect of the Bill's provisions on those who have already acquired title to land through adverse possession; and, secondly, whether the Bill is compatible with the right to peaceful enjoyment of property which is protected by Article 1 of the first protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights and, in British law, by the Human Rights Act 1998. That intervention was particularly important because on the face of the Bill the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor had, as the noble and learned Lord was obliged to, signed a compatibility statement under Section 19 of the Human Rights Act. We very much hope that the Minister will clarify those two issues in her reply.
As explained by my noble friend Lord Goodhart, under present law, adverse possession extinguishes the title of a previous owner after 12 years; that is, it extinguishes the title and the original owner no longer has any title to the land.
My noble friend also explained that we do not object to the new procedure in Part 9 and Schedule 6 for acquiring title by adverse possession when adverse possession has lasted for fewer than 12 years after the date at which the Bill comes into force. As my noble friend said, that is in line with the well-established principle that limitation periods can be changed without being treated as retrospective alteration of existing rights.
But what of the situation where the existing 12-year period for acquiring title by adverse possession has already been completed when the Bill comes into force? The adverse possessor will have acquired an indefeasible title; that is, a right to the enjoyment of the property.
Under Clause 11(4)(c), adverse possession binds the estate on first registration only if the freehold proprietor—the person with the paper title or the person acquiring the title—has notice. That requirement for notice is new. In the absence of notice, the indefeasible property right of an adverse possessor will be overridden by operation of the Bill. Perhaps the Minister can confirm that that is the position.
Paragraph 7 of Schedule 12 to the Bill, read with Clause 131(2), deals with this issue. It gives three years' grace for someone who claims to have acquired a title which extinguishes that of the first registered proprietor to protect his rights by registration.
Under existing law, Section 15 of the Limitation Act contains a 12-year limitation period for actions to recover land, including rights acquired by adverse possession. Therefore, under present law someone who believes that he or she has acquired title by 12 years of adverse possession is given 12 years to vindicate that property right.
In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, the Minister explained that:
"Under the Bill a squatter's rights will override first registration only if the squatter is in actual occupation. Squatters who are no longer in actual occupation will therefore no longer fall within the protected category when the new law comes into force. That could involve some unfairness. Paragraph 7 therefore provides for the existing regime to continue for three years. That will allow sufficient time for squatters who have extinguished the title of the paper owner but who are no longer in actual occupation to make application for registration of title".—[Official Report, 17/07/01; col. 1400.]
In answer to my noble friend Lord Goodhart, the Minister explained that a three-year grace period for someone who claims to have acquired a title by adverse possession is,
"not a particularly onerous price to pay".—[Official Report, 17/07/01; col. 1401.]
The problem is that the three-year grace period is rigid and inflexible. It cannot be extended to allow for special cases of hardship, such as mistake or disability. Perhaps the Minister can confirm that there is no flexibility.
The heading before paragraph 7 of Schedule 12 refers to what are described as "Former overriding interests". The Bill seeks to convert existing indefeasible property rights into precarious rights. The rights are dependent on an uncertain application to the registrar within a fixed time limit of only three years. Perhaps the Minister can also confirm that that is correct.
There may well be cases of individual hardship where because of the complexity of the law of adverse possession and the lack of sufficient publicity about the effect of the Bill in this area, or for any other reasons, individual property rights will be taken away unfairly. The Government plainly cannot devote the kind of resources needed to warn squatters who acquire indefeasible title by adverse possession and are therefore no longer squatters but true owners. Unless the Bill is modified, either in the way proposed by the amendment, or, if that is too radical, in some other way designed to deal with the problem, to allow some exceptional discretion for hardship cases, it will become the courts' duty under the Human Rights Act to read safeguards into the Bill after costly and protracted litigation. Surely it would be preferable for Parliament to include sufficient safeguards against the unfair taking of property which could, and I think will, arise in some exceptional cases.
Therefore, we ask the Minister to deal with these points, which were raised both under the convention and generally in Committee, either in her reply today,
1332
or, if that is not feasible, in writing in sufficient time for us to consider the matter at Third Reading. I beg to move.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I straightaway welcome the noble Lord, Lord Lester, to the fray in relation to this issue. In Committee I tried to touch the heart of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, by some heart-rending examples, but I see that, by the fact that this issue has returned, I left his heart totally unmoved.
In the debate on the Bill so far, I have rarely found myself wholly out of sympathy with any of the amendments and improvements suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. Notwithstanding the eloquence and poignancy of the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, I find that, on this occasion, I am most unusually out of sympathy. Although I understand the concerns that have given rise to the present amendments, this is one of the areas where we think that the current balance struck by the Bill is preferable to the suggested changes. Our interpretation is that the Bill merely removes protection if the title is not asserted within three years.
The difference in our respective positions can be shortly put. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, is anxious to give greater protection to squatters who have acquired rights under the existing law to apply to be registered as proprietors of land. The noble Lord thinks that possibly failure to do so might be at some risk of challenge under the Human Rights Act.
We, however, think that the greater protection which the Bill gives to registered owners is wholly appropriate in the context of a system of registered land where the title to land depends on registration rather than occupation. We also think that the changes we propose to the existing law are entirely proportionate to the issues involved, and therefore consistent with the convention rights, and, in accordance with that, we have been able to sign the certificate pursuant to Section 19.
On this occasion we make no apology for wanting to strengthen the position of registered owners. Each year the Land Registry receives over 20,000 applications for registration based in whole or in part on adverse possession. In about three-quarters—15,000—of those cases, the applicant is successful in supplanting the previous owner. Many cases are disputed and are the subject of court proceedings or hearings before the Solicitor to the Land Registry or one of his deputies. Around three-quarters of Land Registry hearings involve squatting, and in around 60 per cent of cases, the squatter succeeds in whole or in part. I need hardly remind the House of the time, money and anxiety which those disputes will have cost the former owner, as well as the loss of the land itself. The Bill offers the opportunity to reduce those figures very substantially, and I respectfully suggest that it would be a serious matter if that opportunity were to be lost.
The three amendments seek to enhance the position of a squatter who, before the Bill comes into force, has already acquired title to unregistered land by adverse

1333
possession or who is entitled to be registered as the owner of registered land of which he or she has been in adverse possession. Perhaps I may refer to such a squatter as one with an acquired right.
Under the amendments, an owner on first registration or one who was registered as a result of a registrable disposition—such as a transfer—for valuable consideration would take subject to the acquired right of a squatter without any time limitation. In order to show that we consider that the Bill in its present form provides a fairer balance between the rights of a squatter with an acquired right and a registered owner, I propose to explain the provisions of the Bill and to compare them with the position if the Bill were amended as sought by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart.
Under the Bill, there will be transitional provisions that protect a squatter with an acquired right and permanent provisions that may provide protection. The transitional provisions differ depending on whether the land is registered when Schedules 1 and 3 come into force, if the land is not then registered, but becomes registered within three years, the squatter's acquired right will override the registration, whether or not the proprietor has notice of it and whether or not the squatter is in actual occupation.
If the land is registered after the three-year period then the permanent provisions apply and the first proprietor will only take subject to the squatter's acquired right if he or she has notice of it or if the squatter is in actual occupation. If the land is already registered when Schedule 3 comes into force, then the squatter's acquired right will override any disposition registered during the three-year period, whether or not the squatter is in actual occupation.
After the three-year period, or during it if' the acquired right-affected land was first registered during the three-year period, a disposition for valuable consideration when registered will be overridden by the squatter's acquired right if the squatter is in actual occupation so that paragraph 2 of Schedule 3 applies. In general, the difference is that after the three-year period a squatter with an acquired right will, under the Bill, have his or her right protected if he or she is in actual occupation or, additionally, in the case of first registration, if the registered owner has notice of the right. Under the amendments, however, he or she will have his right protected, even if he is not in actual occupation; and protected indefinitely. That would be the effect of the proposed amendments.
Although we have listened with care to the argument put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, in amplification of the argument put by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, on this point, we continue to think that the amendments would give excessive and unjustified protection to a "disappearing squatter"; that is, a squatter who has been in adverse possession, has then ceased to occupy the land and has also failed to apply for registration as proprietor while protected under the transitional provisions. A disappearing squatter would indeed have continuing rights over the land within the existing law.
1334
But the current law rests on wholly different principles from the ones which the Bill seeks to introduce. Under it, a possible title to land is derived from occupation of whatever length. The current law allows both concurrent and competing claims to arise through occupation. There is plenty of scope for dispute as to which claim is the best, and plenty of scope for litigation. That is bad enough, but the current position also gives rise to a situation in which a new owner can suddenly become aware that his or her right has been undermined by a claim of which he or she knew nothing, arising from someone with no discernible connection to the land. It is perfectly possible that a person who has no notice of the squatter's acquired right may have been registered and, out of the blue, becomes aware that he or she is subject to the squatter's claim.
As I said in Committee when similar amendments were debated, in our view, the Bill strikes a fairer balance than that which would be effected by these amendments between those with an acquired right and registered owners. It does so by substituting a new and far clearer set of principles. Under the Bill, where the land has been registered, the register will be the primary determinant of who owns the land, subject only to the special circumstances dealt with in Part 9 and Schedule 6 of the Bill.
We believe that the amendments would shift two careful balances in the Bill. First, they would reduce significantly the protection that the Bill gives to the rights of registered owners. Secondly, squatters who have acquired rights will have the benefit of the transitional arrangements to be found in Schedule 12, whether or not they are in actual occupation of the land. The rights of anyone in actual occupation of the land will form a permanent feature of the Bill and will override both first registration and subsequent registered dispositions of the land under Schedules 1 and 3.
Those who have once squatted on land but have subsequently left will not be permanently protected. This is only in part because of a wish to preserve the rights of registered owners. It is fundamental to the Bill that the register should give the clearest possible picture of the rights and obligations to which the land is subject. Undoubtedly that will facilitate e-conveyancing. Rights should have overriding status only when it is impracticable or impossible that they should be registered. The transitional provisions will give a period of grace during which it will be possible for a squatter with an acquired right to protect his or her right by registration. We suggest that it is not a particularly onerous price to pay for that protection.
In the debate in Committee the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, raised the issue of the limit on such acquired rights not being ECHR compliant. Noble Lords will appreciate that when the transitional periods no longer apply, squatters' acquired rights will not come to an end; they will continue. It is the protection as an interest which of itself overrides first registration or a registered disposition for valuable consideration which will come to an end. Even then, the acquired right will become protected only in the

1335
rare cases where the squatter is no longer in actual occupation and/or—in the case of first registration—the registered owner does not have notice of the right. We believe that these provisions are a proportionate remedy which must be balanced against the interests of a prospective buyer.
However, the permanent continuation of the transitional protection suggested by the amendment would create very significant practical problems for buyers. They would run the risk of finding themselves bound by the rights of squatters, where the squatter is no longer in actual occupation. The chances of ascertaining that someone had acquired a permanent right, hidden from the register, from past occupation would, in many cases, diminish to nothing. I suggest, therefore, that the noble Lord's proposal would in fact significantly damage the structure of the Bill. In the future it would put prospective buyers under a burden of risk that is unreasonable.
In the light of that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, perhaps she could clarify one matter after her very helpful response. Does she accept that having a rigid three-year time limit for registration during the so-called "grace period" could lead to extreme and rare cases of injustice, whether through mistake, lack of capacity or otherwise, because of the inflexibility of the three-year period? Does she accept that there could be such cases, or is that a false point?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, it would be very unlikely because in that kind of situation we would be dealing with people who have acquired rights in relation to the land but are not in occupation of it; who have perhaps left the land for a period of three years or more. They would have a three-year period in which to register their rights.
While the noble Lord was on his feet, I was trying to think of a situation where someone who had squatted on land of that kind might be disadvantaged. I could not immediately think of an example where that would apply. The whole purpose of giving the three-year period of grace to someone who is not in occupation is that it is quite a long period for a person who may have acquired a right in a property at some stage to register that right.
There is also the difficult question of balancing the rights of a bona fide purchaser for value who has no means of identifying that someone may have at some stage acquired an interest in the land. One can imagine a situation, perhaps, where someone has squatted on the land unknown to the otherwise bona fide owner for a period of 12 years and has left the land for a significant period. The land is then sold to a bona fide purchaser for value, and neither the original owner nor the subsequent purchaser have had any notice at all of that squatter's acquired right.
1336
Under the new situation we are trying to create—where registration will be the proof of title and entitlement to land—giving such a person with an acquired right a three-year period to register that right is not unreasonable. It is a proportionate response which balances the rights and duties one has to both the purchaser and the potential squatter who may have acquired a right unknown to the original owner and the subsequent bona fide purchaser for value. That is the situation with which we are dealing.
As I explained, it is a much easier situation where you have someone who has acquired title and is still in occupation. Clearly, that is discoverable. I hope that I have explained why we think that a different regime of protection is appropriate for such a person as opposed to a person who is not in actual occupation.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for both her general response and for the way in which she has responded to my request for further information.
I should make it clear that there is complete agreement that this is a rational and sensible scheme in general. It will be a great improvement on the existing situation. However, what is still troubling me—one will need to read very carefully what has been explained so fully by the Minister—is the transitional problem.
The Minister refers to some people as "squatters", which immediately makes one less sympathetic to them than to anyone else. On the other hand, whatever you call them, they are people who have acquired indefeasible property rights equally as good as the rights of the original owner. They have for 12 years—openly, not secretly, without violence and not deceitfully—treated the land as their own, and it has become theirs as a matter of the law of real property. Now the law will come in, as I understand it, and divest some of those people, whether they are in occupation or not, of their rights—I may have misunderstood—unless they apply within the three-year grace period. This is in order that the register can be used to represent the reality and create greater legal certainty.
My lingering concern is that with a rigid three-year grace period of that kind, and with the law being so complicated and the new Bill being so fundamentally different from the old regime, there will be people ignorant of the consequences. They may not even know that they have acquired title through 12 years' adverse possession. They may, through mistake or lack of capacity, not be able to take decisions during that time, and there will be no discretion—as there is normally with a limitation period—to take account of exceptional circumstances.
I understand perfectly that the moment you put in a discretion you create some uncertainty, but if you have no discretion and then you have a hard luck case, the concern remains that it will be said that property rights are being taken away unfairly. One will then finish up with litigation, not about the proportionality and rationality of the scheme in general but about the rigidity and inflexibility of the formula that will be

1337
introduced. It is fairly well known in case law from the European Court of Human Rights that rigidity and inflexibility are regarded as showing a lack of proportionality because one cannot deal with the particular hardships of individual cases.
I hope that that point will be considered before Third Reading. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Goodhart will then decide whether to come forward with a narrower amendment to give a discretion in very exceptional. cases. Having said all that, I thank the Minister again and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 20A not moved.]
Clause 15 [Right to lodge]:
[Amendments Nos. 21 and 22 not moved]
Clause 13 [Cancellation]:
Viscount Bridgeman Viscount Bridgeman moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 10, line 11 at end insert—
"( )For the purposes of subsection (2), consent given for a limited period is to be ignored after the period has expired."
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 23, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 48, 49 and 51.
Amendment No. 23 seeks to address the case where a landowner may consent to the registration of a caution against first registration to protect a time-limited interest—for example, an easement granted for a specified term. If the consent is granted only for that specified period, there is no reason why the landowner should not apply for the caution to be cancelled once that period has expired.
An interest in land may be granted for a limited period—for example, a right of way for access to a quarry for a period intended to be while stone working continues; or to a tip until such time when it will be full. Where such an interest is protected, we feel it is unnecessary that, once the period has ended, the person entitled to that interest, who will no longer be concerned, should have to take any part in any further procedure. Similarly, where consent is needed, it should be possible for a person with a limited period interest to give it for that period. Amendments Nos. 48 and 51 relate to limited period interests.
Amendment No. 49 is a new amendment. It is tabled to deal with an issue which was discussed in Committee. Paragraphs 6.22 to 6.31 of the report describe the system in the Bill and indicate that it is intended not only to allow the entry of so-called "agreed" notices which are not in fact consensual (paragraph 6.24), but to go further and prescribe by rules that certain interests can be protected only by "agreed" notices, without any specific procedure for cancellation on the proprietor's application (paragraph 6.25), giving "matrimonial home rights" as an example.
The Government indicated in Committee that the ordinary procedure by way of rectification will be available if such an "agreed" notice is disputed. That may sometimes be a sledgehammer to crack a nut, but it is much better than no nutcracker at all. However, it
1338
would be wrong in principle to allow entries to be made without the proprietor's consent, possibly even without his knowledge, and without giving him an opportunity to resolve the applicant's claim where it is disputed.
Clause 32(3) provides that a notice does not validate an interest but does protect its priority if it is valid. A so-called "agreed" notice in respect of a claim which is in fact disputed will be a serious interference with the registered proprietor's ability to deal with his land—any prospective purchaser will insist on having the entry "cleared off", which may be a protracted process if it arises out of a dispute between the proprietor and the applicant. The amendment now before the House will ensure that the registered proprietor always knows of any "agreed" notice entered without his actual consent, so that, if he thinks fit, he can immediately take steps to clear it off by applying for rectification. The object is to ensure that this remedy, which the Government acknowledge should be available, can always be effectively exercised. I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, these amendments deal with cautions and notices. In relation to the first amendment, it may be helpful if I start my response to the noble Viscount by agreeing with him that the detailed arrangements for giving effect to the Bill will need to take account of the circumstances set out in the amendment and with what he has said. I do not, however, believe that it is necessary to amend the Bill to secure that, and that it is preferable to leave this issue, and no doubt many others, to be covered in the more flexible provisions of rules.
Amendment No. 48 seeks to remove any possible doubt that the consent given to the entry of an agreed notice under Clause 34 can be for a limited period. This might be the case when the interest being protected by the notice is time-limited in some way. Rules made under Clause 39 can make provision about the form and content of notices on the register to make this clear. But the amendment itself is unnecessary.
Amendment No. 49 seeks to ensure that the registrar serves notice of the entry of an agreed notice when the proprietor of the land or charge affected applies or consents to its entry or when the registrar is satisfied of the applicant's claim. This might occur when, for instance, the registrar is satisfied that the registered proprietor has granted the applicant an option over the land or when an entry confirming the existence of a matrimonial home right is requested.
I can confirm that at present the registrar does serve notice on the registered proprietor of any such applications and that he does serve notice on any other persons whose rights are protected on the register if those rights might be affected by the action he is taking.
I can confirm that it is also intended to use the general rule-making powers contained in Schedule 10 to the Bill for the purpose of setting down the minimum requirements in this regard. Such rules will

1339
be looked at by the Land Registration Rule Committee and will be subject to the negative resolution procedure. The detailed provisions adopted in relation to the giving of notice in specific circumstances are not a matter for the Bill.
I hope that these explanations and undertakings have reassured the noble Viscount to an extent where he will feel able to withdraw the amendments.
Turning to Amendment No. 51, the amendment to Clause 36 provides that an agreed notice may be removed in particular circumstances—namely, when time-limited consent to the registration of the notice has run out. While I agree that it would be appropriate to update the register and remove the notice when the underlying interest has expired, I suggest that the amendment is unnecessary.
As I have said, notice entered on the register does not affect the validity of the underlying interest which it protects. If the underlying interest has expired, then the notice, even if still present on the register, will have no legal effect. This would be the case whether or not the consent given to the entry of the notice was time-limited.
Whenever the interest protected by an agreed notice has come to an end, either through time limitation or determination for other reasons, the owner may apply to the registrar for the register to be updated by the removal of the notice. The registrar has power to update the register under paragraph 5 of Schedule 4.
For these reasons, we respectfully suggest that no amendment is needed to the clause as drafted and I invite the noble Viscount to withdraw the amendment.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her comprehensive reply, in the light of which I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Bridgeman Viscount Bridgeman moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 10, line 15, after "period" insert "(not being less than seven days)"
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, perhaps I may speak also to Amendments Nos. 52 and 57.
These amendments specify a minimum period which must be allowed to the recipient of a notification for him to respond and protect his rights. Such provisions can in effect have substantive results, since such a person may lose his rights if the period is too short for an effective response.
We have taken note of what the Government said in Committee about what is practicable and about the risk of impeding transactions by allowing objectors longer periods than necessary to respond to notices. The amendments as now formulated set the minimum period at seven days, the minimum under the present rules. Anything less would be liable to give objectors—and, if their objections are justified, their property rights—insufficient protection by requiring them to respond in a time-scale which did not allow them to
1340
take effective advice on what will often be a highly technical matter. Alternatively, in some cases too short a response period would increase delays by generating "holding" objections which would not have been made if more time had been available. I beg to move.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 24, 52 and 57 share a common theme, and I shall therefore deal with them together. That theme is the inclusion of a statement on the face of the Bill of minimum periods of notice that can be specified in certain rule-making powers.
The first amendment provides that at least seven days' notice is given to a cautioner of an application to cancel his caution against first registration. The second deals with the notice period given to the beneficiary of a unilateral notice of an application for its cancellation; and the third with the period of notice given to the registered proprietor to object to third party applications to make entries on their title.
I agree that the right to object in these situations is an important right for the persons whose interests are protected by registration and that, accordingly, sufficient time must be given for the right to object to be exercised. This issue was first raised in Committee, where the suggested notice period was 28 days.
My concerns about the suggestion then were twofold. I suggested that this is a matter better dealt with in the rules. More practically, it seemed to me that 28 days would in some circumstances be too long. The essence of my worries about these amendments have similar elements.
First, and practically, the minimum period of notice put forward in these amendments is seven days, which is shorter than the period of 14 days currently given, and—if it became general practice—may be too short. Now, there is automatically added to that 14-day period a seven-day period given under the deemed delivery provisions to allow for the notice to be received through the post.
As I said in Committee, our first thoughts are that the current rules are broadly right, and there is no intention to change the deeming provisions or the periods of notice in the foreseeable future. However, the Bill is laying down the framework for land registration for a considerable time to come, and will do so in the most dynamic period in the development of land registration services since the 1925 property law reforms.
I am therefore strongly of the view that the Bill should not restrict the ability of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, with the assistance of the Rule Committee which advises him, to make the right decision in rules for the length of these notices as circumstances change from time to time. I am thinking particularly of the time when e-conveyancing comes fully on stream. I have come to this view for a variety of reasons: first, the minimum period for objection to the removal of a caution against dealings under the current system is set out in rules and not on the face of the Land Registration Act 1925; secondly, if anything, complaints from conveyancers and other users of the registry is that notice periods are too long rather than too short; thirdly, modern technology, as I mentioned earlier, is moving towards faster and more efficient

1341
communication; and, finally, improvements needed to reduce the length of the home buying process and to introduce electronic conveyancing point to generally shorter timescales for all stages of the process. We all know how quickly and dramatically this area has developed in relation to what one could have reasonably expected only a few years ago.
While a seven-day minimum period may seem necessary now, there is no way of knowing if that will continue to be the case in the future. Therefore, we respectfully suggest that the amendments are unnecessary in that land registration rules may specify minimum notice periods and these will be approved by the Land Registration Rule Committee and following amendments that will be introduced today subject to the negative resolution procedure. They are also undesirable as they potentially impose restrictions on a future which we cannot reliably predict.
With that assurance that these issues will be addressed on the face of the rules in a way which will respond to the needs of conveyancers and their customers, I invite the noble Viscount to withdraw the amendments.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for the careful consideration she has given to the points and for her explanation, in the light of which I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 22 [Supplementary]:
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 11, line 10, leave out "his personal representative" and insert "such other person as rules may provide"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall take the amendments in numerical order. As to Amendment No. 25, Clause 22 serves a simple purpose and as originally drafted mirrors that which is already to be found in the existing legislation. Cautions can remain on the register for a considerable time. It is therefore sensible to enable personal representatives of someone who lodged the caution but has since died to be able to take action in respect of it. However, the personal representative is not the only person who may "stand in the shoes" of the cautioner as time goes by. Government departments might change their responsibilities, an owner of land might become bankrupt, utility companies might be reconstructed. In any of these situations, unlike on a sale, it may be difficult for those acquiring the interest to have sufficient information to be able to update the register entry.
This amendment is designed to modify the clause to provide for rules to specify who may be regarded as the cautioner for the purpose of objecting to the removal of the caution, or indeed for seeking its withdrawal. The purpose of the clause is thereby widened to cover a larger group of persons who might legitimately be entitled to the benefit of the caution. In the light of those comments I commend the amendment to the House.
Turning to Amendments Nos. 50 and 53, Clauses 35 and 36 make provision for unilateral notices. Amendments Nos. 50 and 53 relate to the same issue, the identity of the person who can remove or object to the removal of a unilateral notice, and, therefore, I shall deal with them together.
Subsection (3) of Clause 35 specifies that the person shown on the register as the beneficiary of the unilateral notice can apply for the removal of the notice. Clause 36 makes provision for challenging the entry of a unilateral notice by applying for its cancellation. Subsection (4) of Clause 36 originally defined the beneficiary who could object to the cancellation of the notice to mean the person shown on the register as the beneficiary of the unilateral notice.
There is no intention to change the current approach adopted by the Land Registry in relation to the removal of cautions against dealings, which your Lordships will recall is being replaced by the unilateral notice system. The registry will currently allow a caution against dealings to be removed at the request of a personal representative of the cautioner and, in appropriate cases, their trustee in bankruptcy or statutory successor. The registry will also allow such persons to object to the cancellation of a caution against dealings if they show reasonable cause. However, there is potential to construe these clauses as originally drafted as intentionally more limiting, linking as it does the ability to apply for the removal of the notice to the name specified on the register. These amendments allow rules to be made which specify in some detail who additionally may apply for the removal of the notice or object to its removal. The rules will have the added advantage of in built flexibility to modify and improve that detail in the future. In light of the comments I have made, I commend these amendments to the House.
As to Amendments Nos. 74 and 76, Clause 73 sets out the means by which an application to the registrar may be challenged. Apart from two minor exceptions, anyone can object to such an application. As originally drafted, the two exceptions were, first, on application to cancel a caution against first registration, only the cautioner or his personal representative may object; and, secondly, on application to cancel a unilateral notice only the beneficiary of the notice may object. Amendments to both Clauses 22 and 36 have widened the category of persons who can object to such applications to include all other persons who are specified in rules. These amendments to Clause 73 are consequential amendments which reflect those earlier changes.
No detailed consideration has yet been given to the content of those rules. However, leaving these details to rules will enable careful thought—and no doubt further representations—to be given to the practicalities of the various situations that might arise. Where common situations arise, it might prove possible expressly to address the situation on the face of the rules, listing specific persons who will be able to apply. Equally, the rules may say instead or as well that objection may be made by any person who satisfies the

1343
registrar that they should be entitled to object. I commend the government amendments to the House. I beg to move.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I welcome the Government's amendments.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 23 [Owner's powers]:
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 11, line 20, at end insert—
"( ) A charge by way of legal mortgage created by an owner gives the mortgagee the protection, powers and remedies provided by section 87 of the Law of Property Act 1925 (c. 20), despite the fact that an owner does not have power to create a mortgage by demise or sub-demise."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 26 I speak also to Amendment No. 27 and the government Amendment No. 113.
The Bill proposes to take away the power to create a mortgage by demise. This is a useful and welcome modernisation. However, as currently drafted, it leaves a query. How does one define what a legal charge is when what it is said to be equivalent to can no longer be created? Our amendment is intended to overcome any illogical impasse.
The Government have responded to this concern which we first raised in Committee with their proposed Amendment No. 113. While we support Amendment No. 113 in principle, we believe that our amendment is preferable as it resolves the problem more directly and simply. The Government's amendment is unnecessarily complex and may even be technically defective as the difficulty does not arise from any change to Section 87 of the Law of Property Act 1925 made by Clause 23(1)(a), which is the basis on which the Government's amendment proceeds. Clause 23 does not affect the meaning of Section 87 but provides that a registered proprietor cannot make a disposition of the kind to which Section 87 refers. I beg to move.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, government Amendment No. 113 and Amendment No. 26 have been drafted to address the same issue although the approach used is somewhat different. I am disappointed that the noble Baroness does not appreciate the elegance of our solution. However, I may be able to persuade her of that in due course. I shall deal with the amendments together.
Clause 23(1)(a) states that an owner's powers to deal with a registered estate do not extend to the creation of a mortgage by demise or sub-demise. As your Lordships will recall from Committee, that is a simplification of the existing law, introduced because those methods of creating mortgages are not used any more. I very much appreciate the welcome that the noble Baroness gave to that change.
Noble Lords opposite helpfully spotted that Section 87 of the Law of Property Act 1925 provides that a mortgagee of a charge expressed to be by way of
1344
mortgage has the same protection, powers and remedies as a mortgagee by demise or sub-demise. The amendment should make the intended effect abundantly clear.
However, we respectfully suggest that it is necessary to retain the reference to the creation of mortgages by demise or sub-demise, as that will still be possible in relation to unregistered land. It is beyond the scope of the Bill to legislate in respect of such land.
We prefer our amendment to Amendment No. 26, as it inserts a new subsection directly into Section 87 of the Law of Property Act 1925. It would be more helpful to insert the new subsection directly into the section whose interpretation it is designed to assist.
Amendment No. 27 deals with a related matter. Clause 23(2) lists the powers that an owner of a registered charge has to deal with that charge, which will no longer include the possibility of creating a mortgage by demise or sub-demise. The appropriate way of securing a mortgage over registered land is to create a charge. The Bill also simplifies the powers of the chargee to deal with his charge. After the Bill comes into force, the appropriate way to do that will be by way of sub-charge. The amendment would allow the chargee to create a charge by way of a legal mortgage over the charge as well by way of a sub-charge. That would add an unnecessary complication.
The important issue as a matter of substantive law is not the mechanism by which the sub-charge is created but its effect and the powers that the subchargee may have. Those are dealt with in Clause 53. There should be only one way of creating a charge over a charge, and that is by creating a sub-charge, as is currently prescribed in Rule 163(1) of the Land Registration Rules 1925.
Amendment No. 27 is therefore unnecessary and undesirable. It is better for the Bill to set out one clear and easy method of mortgaging the indebtedness under a charge, which is a sub-charge. On that basis, I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment in favour of ours.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I regret that the Minister has not convinced me this time. I have listened with care to what she has said before and agreed with most of it, but I found the arguments of my noble friend Lady Buscombe in favour of Amendment No. 26 more powerful than the Minister's in support of Amendment No. 113.
Will the Minister be kind enough to take the issue away and have another look at it before Third Reading? It is important to get this aspect right.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I have said that we shall consider any position, but we have given the issue a lot of thought. We thought, perhaps naively, that Amendment No. 113 might give noble Lords opposite a little pleasure. I am disappointed that we seem to have failed in that regard. I hope that on mature reflection the pleasure will manifest itself.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response. I also thank my noble friend Lord

1345
Caithness for preferring our Amendment No. 26. I have listened with care to the Minister and I, too, am not convinced that her amendment is preferable to mine. I, too, would greatly appreciate it if the Government could think again about our arguments on Amendment No. 26 versus Amendment No. 113. I accept with pleasure that the Minister is responding to our concerns, but I should like her to consider whether our track is preferable. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 27 not moved.]
Clause 24 [Right to exercise owner's powers]:
Baroness Scotland of Asthal Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 11, line 36, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Clause 24 deals with the identity of the persons entitled to exercise owner's powers in relation to a registered estate. The clause states that both the registered proprietor and a person entitled to be registered as proprietor can exercise those powers, although the exercise of the rights by a person who has not yet been registered is made expressly subject to rules. The amendment deletes that rule-making power from Clause 24.
Your Lordships will recall that the wide drafting of the rule-making power gave rise to some concerns in Committee. It was suggested that the power could be used effectively to remove the rights altogether. I therefore undertook to clarify the intended use of the power and to come back with an appropriate government amendment on Report.
The intended use of the power is as stated in that earlier debate. It is intended to deal with the manner in which the rights to deal with the land are exercised and does not seek to restrict the actual powers of disposition. Under the present system, rules stipulate that the person who is entitled to be registered must use the same forms as he would use if he were the registered proprietor, and specifies the evidence of his right to be registered that must accompany the application. It is envisaged that very similar rules will be made following the enactment of the Bill.
That clarification of the intended use of the power shows that the general rule-making powers contained elsewhere in the Bill will be sufficient to achieve that more limited purpose. The rule-making power has therefore been deleted rather than amended. On that basis, I ask that the amendment be accepted. I beg to move.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, we on these Benches welcome the amendment, which substantially accepts the point that we made in Committee that rules as to the exercise of proprietor's powers should relate only to the form of dispositions and should not be able to limit the substantive scope of what a proprietor can do. The amendment is welcome.
1346
We believe that effectively the same point arises on our Amendments Nos. 29 and 103, which we shall deal with next, so we very much look forward to what the Minister has to say on those. I hope that she will be able to be positive.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 25 [Mode of exercise]:
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 12, line 3, leave out "and content"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I shall be brief. As I have just said, we believe that this point relates to Amendment No. 28, with which we have just dealt. The purpose of our amendments is that the content of registrable dispositions should not he prescribed by rules. The content will be determined by the particular terms of each individual transaction. We believe that there is no reason why the contents should be prescribed by general rules, as it will vary widely, depending on the individual terms of each transaction.
We should also remember that freedom of contract makes the United Kingdom an attractive place to do business and that it should not be constrained unnecessarily. The amendments are intended to protect that point. In essence, the form is fine but the content could easily be construed as meaning "more than is necessary". The content is, and should remain, a matter for the parties. I beg to move.
6 p.m.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I hope that I shall be able to give the noble Baroness some reassurance. I shall deal first with Amendment No. 29. Clause 25 relates to the way in which an owner can exercise his power to deal with a registered estate or charge. A registrable disposition will have effect only if it complies with detailed rules. The amendment put forward by the noble Baroness seeks to limit the rule-making power to the form of a registrable disposition.
As mentioned in Committee, this clause will be a very important provision as we move towards electronic conveyancing. Under the system which is now being drawn up, and as some of your Lordships have seen, the form of a disposition may become merely the completion of fields on a computer screen. If, or rather when, that model becomes a reality, it will be necessary to ensure that the type of content to be entered into the necessary fields is prescribed in order to ensure the proper operation of the system.
But even the current initial models of conveyancing which have been prepared provide for a wide choice in the substantive import of the content of each field or for conveyancers to be able to tailor entries to take account of the peculiarities of a property; for example, by entering the details of a restrictive covenant. That gives an idea of the balance which must be struck in the next stages of the preparation of the system between sufficient consistency to ensure the smooth working of the system and flexibility sufficient to capture the myriad circumstances required for all the property transactions which the system must handle.

1347
There will be ample consultation on the detail of the system. The rules which will finally prescribe the shape of the documents will themselves be the subject of consultation before they are laid before the rule committee. Those processes will provide plenty of opportunity to identify and remove any prescription which inadvertently would reduce the range of options that conveyancers need to have at their disposal.
In short, there is no intention to curb the owner's powers to deal with the registered estate beyond what is necessary to make the system work effectively. Neither is there any intention to prescribe anything other than the heads of content to be contained in a disposition. The detailed terms of the disposition will, as now, be a matter of negotiation between the parties, and responsibility for the detailed drafting will, as now, be firmly with the parties' legal advisers. I hope that what has been said has reassured the noble Baroness and that she will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response. I am somewhat disappointed by it but am much reassured by the fact that she said that only the heads of content are to be contained in the disposition. However, I should have preferred—I believe it to be the simpler route—that she had accepted the amendment and left out altogether the words "and content". However, the Minister has certainly reassured us in some detail, and that will be clear for all to see in Hansard. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 26 [Protection of disponees]:
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 12, line 12, after "this" insert "or any other".
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 30 relates to Clause 26. I shall set out its purpose. Although it may be the intention to reflect limitations of owners' powers on the register, if a qualification is omitted from the register in error, it is against public policy to legitimise dispositions which statute has made void. There are, for example, restrictions on dispositions by local authorities and by charities. Subsection (3) appears to mean that someone would otherwise acquire a good title.
The Bill seeks to protect people who take a transfer of registered land when it is apparently valid on the face of the register. While that is undoubtedly useful, it must surely be against policy that it should overrule statutory restrictions imposed on particular landowners. The important point here is that the register would normally reflect such restrictions, but, in practice, one must deal with the cases in which that safeguard fails.
Restrictions are placed on certain disposals by charities, by local authorities and by registered social landlords. In those cases, we believe that it is extremely important that human error is allowed for. In essence, it is, in our view, simply wrong to write off a
1348
qualification of an owner's powers on the registrar in the event that the registrar makes a mistake. I beg to move.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, although I have listened very carefully to what the noble Baroness has said, we have considerable concerns about this amendment. We believe that there are two substantial objections to the amendment. First, it would undermine the fundamental objective of the Bill. Secondly, it would make a substantial change in the existing law. Perhaps I may deal with each aspect in turn.
Clause 26 is one of the clauses which embody the fundamental objective of the Bill. In their joint report, the Law Commission and the Land Registry recommended that that objective should be:
"that, under the system of electronic dealing with land that [the Bill] seeks to create, the register should be a complete and accurate reflection of the state of the title of the land at any given time, so that it is possible to investigate title to land on line, with the absolute minimum of additional enquiries and inspections".
Thus, to achieve the objective, it is important that any limitations on the powers of the owner to deal with the land or a charge must either be the subject of entries on the register or the limitations must be imposed by the Land Registration Bill itself. One implication of that approach is that it suggests that Parliament should avoid legislation which could affect owners' powers, except, of course, by way of amendment to this Bill, should it become an Act.
The amendment runs directly against that. It seeks to widen the limitation so that the powers of an owner can also be limited by other statutory provisions. If the amendment were agreed, it would undermine the fundamental objective and would do so in a way which would have a direct and practical effect on potential buyers. People dealing with the title would need to consider what, if any, statutes might impose a limitation on those powers. They would then need to investigate to see whether that was the case. That would detract from the completeness and clarity of the register of title. We believe that that can be described as the argument of principle against the amendment.
The other argument—that it makes a significant and undesirable change in the existing law—is very largely a question of practicality. The clause as drafted codifies the existing law and practice. I invite your Lordships in particular to remember the comments of Lord Justice Peter Gibson in the well known case of State Bank of India v. Sood. He said:
"It is fundamental that any registered proprietor can exercise all or any powers of disposition unless some entry on the register exists to curtail or remove those powers".
Therefore, the register is already conclusive as to the existence of any such limitations, and a sale made beyond the powers of the current owner already cannot be undone. So far as land registration is concerned, it simply is not contrary to policy, as the noble Baroness argued, for dealings with land which are contrary to the general law or contrary to statute to be rendered irreversible by a change in registration.

1349
We respectfully suggest that the solution proposed by the amendment is far worse than the problem. Creating a novel situation in which a buyer would have to check that a proposed disposition was within the powers of someone who purported to be the owner would add significantly to the delays and to the costs of conveyancing. It will be difficult to prepare a detailed checklist of the circumstances where there might be room to doubt the actual powers of the owner, and the legal position could very often be obscure. All buyers would have to consider whether there was any possibility of those circumstances applying to their transaction. Where that appeared to be possible, they would be put to the trouble and expense of attempting to ascertain the actual extent of the seller's powers. In the worst circumstances, they would get that wrong. They would then be confronted with the prospect both of losing their land and of protracted and expensive litigation against the person who purported to have sold it to them. That would not be a change for the better.
That is why the Government prefer the simplification of the existing law that will be effected by the Bill. That will reduce the ways in which questions can be raised about owners' powers to dispose of land. Limitations on powers can now be recorded by procedures involving both restrictions and inhibitions. Under the Bill it will be possible to record limitations on powers only by restriction, which will give a clear and certain picture. In the absence of a restriction reflecting the limitation on the owner's powers, a sale or other transaction could not be challenged. That gives buyers the protection that they need.
It worth noting that someone who had bought land in such a transaction might also be accountable in equity for having received something that was transferred by an illegal transaction if they were aware of the impropriety. That is the right way to deal with any problems that might arise—it is preferable to creating a:substantial and universal new burden on buyers, which would undoubtedly give rise to many hard cases.
It is intended that current Land Registry practice will continue after the Bill comes into force, and it is right that it should do so. Third parties should be able to look to the register—and to the register alone—to determine what limitations exist on the owners' powers to dispose of their interest. I therefore invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her very full response. I am sorry that she raised such a wholehearted objection to the amendment. We on these Benches felt confident that this was a good point to make. However, I am much persuaded by what she said and shall read it with care in Hansard. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 27 [Dispositions required to be registered]:
[Amendments Nos. 31 to 33 not moved.]
6.15 p.m.
Viscount Bridgeman Viscount Bridgeman moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 12, line 38, at end insert "or one granted or reserved by an instrument creating a term of years absolute which is not registered or required to be registered".
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 35 and 39. The amendments are intended to ensure that easements and rights of entry for short terms of years do not have to be registered or noted on the title to the servient land where they are created by short leases that are not themselves registrable.
We have taken note of the point that the Government made in Committee; namely, that it is undesirable for there to be easements and so on that cannot readily be discovered. We accept that a tenant who acquires an express easement by a transaction that is separate from his lease can fairly be asked to register it. However, if an unregistrable lease itself grants or reserves an easement, a buyer of the reversion will anyway have to look at the lease and will see the easement, so it is entirely right for the easement to be binding on him.
However, as the Bill stands, such easements will be registrable under Clause 27(2)(d). By Clause 27(1), they will not operate as law unless registered against a landlord's title. I refer to paragraph 7(2)(a) of Schedule 2. Therefore, on a subsequent dealing with the landlord's title, there will not be overriding interests under paragraph 3(1) of Schedule 3 because that applies only to legal easements. By contrast, implied easements, including continuous and apparent easements, and rights of way of necessity, will operate as legal easements without being registered, because paragraphs (d) and (e) of Clause 27(2) refer to "express" grants. Implied easements will be overriding interests when the land over which they are exercised is sold.
Let me give an example. Consider two flats on opposite sides of the landing on the upper floor in a block. Both are let for a term that is not long enough to make the leases registrable. One of them expressly grants the tenant the right to use the lift and staircase, but the other is silent on that point. Neither tenant registers anything. As the Bill stands, if the landlord sells the block, the first tenant's right of access, although clear in his lease, will not bind the buyer, whereas the second tenant's rights will be perfectly good over both the lift and the stairs, although they are not mentioned elsewhere. That is absurd.
I suggest to the Minister that to justify such an absurdity along the lines that -are suggested in paragraph 6.11 of the report by the Law Commission and the Land Registry adds something that will encourage tenants to register short leases voluntarily and is machiavellian. I beg to move.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I say straightaway that it is certainly not the Government's intention to be machiavellian. I hope that when I deal with our view of the matter I shall make that clear.

1351
Amendments Nos. 34 and 35 relate to interests which, when granted out of registered land, are required to be completed by registration. Amendment No. 39, as I understand it, is purely a consequential amendment on them. I will therefore deal with them all together.
Amendment No. 34 deals with the category of interests that are set out in Clause 27(2)(d). That category of interests relates to easements and profits à prendre as described in Section 1(2)(a) of the Law of Property Act 1925. They include both profits à prendre which are attached to land and those which exist independently of any land. Profits à prendre in gross are registrable in their own right for the first time as a result of the Bill's provisions.
The subsection certainly contains one exception. Where the interest is capable of registration as a right in common, it should be registered under the Commons Registration Act 1965, not under the land registration system. The amendment seeks to add a further exception—it seeks to exclude from the requirement to complete by registration an easement or profits à prendre which are contained by way or grant or reservation in a lease which is not, and does not have to be, registered.
The amendment goes against the fundamental objective of the Bill, which is that, where possible, any matters that affect that registered estate should be apparent from the register of title, thereby minimising the additional inquiries and inspections that have to be made. There should be excepted from registration only those matters where there is good reason to do so. In our view easements and profits à prendre that are contained in leases that are carved out of registered land do not fall within that category.
There are several reasons why that is so. First, easements granted or reserved for a term of years—however short—must be granted or reserved by deed. That is so even though the easement forms part of the arrangements arising from the grant of a lease of less than three years, which does not itself need to be in writing. Secondly, while the existence of a short leasehold interest is often apparent because the tenant is in actual occupation of the land, the fact that the arrangement includes an easement is not so apparent. In our view, therefore, the creation of that exception would undermine the transparency of the burdens affecting the land that this Bill seeks to bring about.
Amendment No. 35 seeks to make a similar exception to the interests that fall within paragraphs (b) and (e) of Section 1(2) of the Law of Property Act 1925. Those are less common in practice. While the paragraphs cover both rent-charges issuing out of land and also rights of entry that are exercisable over a legal lease or a legal rent-charge, in practice that exception is likely to be relevant only to a right of re-entry under a lease. The same considerations apply. If those matters were contained within a lease that would not otherwise be registered, they should be recorded on the register of title.
1352
Amendment No. 39 makes consequential amendments to Schedule 2(7), which sets out the registration requirements in respect of matters falling within the two paragraphs of Clause 27 that are the subject of the two amendments. Schedule 2(7)(3) is worthy of note in that context, as it goes some way to address the concerns raised by Amendment No. 35. That paragraph states that rules may specify how the normal registration requirement will be modified
"in relation to a right of entry over or in respect of a term of years absolute".
The reason for that rule-making power is that currently the benefits of re-entry rights under a lease are not recorded on the title to the reversion to the lease. Although that practice may change in future, the power to modify the requirement means that the current position can be maintained for the present.
The clause and the amendments deal with the very edge of what is possible in registration. We will of course consider whether anything can be done. Frankly, at this stage we are not optimistic but we will look at the matter again. In light of those comments, I invite the noble Viscount to withdraw the amendment.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, any implication that Machiavellianism was going on must of course be withdrawn. I am most grateful for the Minister's attention to our carefully structured example and look forward to further correspondence. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 35 to 42 not moved.]
Schedule 3 [Unregistered interests which override registered dispositions]:
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 49, line 32, leave out sub-paragraph (2).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 44 to 49 not moved.]
Clause 35 [Unilateral notices]:
Lord Bassam Lord Bassam moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 15, line 37, after "notice" insert ", or such other person as rules may provide,"
On Question, amendment agreed.
[Amendments Nos. 51 and 52 not moved.]
Clause 36 [Cancellation of unilateral notices]:
Lord Bassam Lord Bassam moved Amendment No. 53:
Page 16, line 11, at end insert ", or such other person as rules may provide"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 37 [Unregistered interests]:
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 54:
Page 16, line 19, at end insert "after giving notice to the person who appears to the registrar to be entitled to the benefit of that interest"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the effect of the registration of a notice of an overriding interest in Schedule 3 is to cancel the automatic protection of its priority in Clause 29(2)(a)(ii). It is only right that the beneficiary should be warned that a notice is to be registered. The general principle must surely be that where somebody is deprived of a right, he ought at least be given notice of the fact.
Amendment No. 54 is substantially the same as government Amendment No. 55—which we welcome in response to our concern in Committee that the beneficiary of the interest might be unaware of its change of status. While we are in principle supportive of the government amendment, ours is preferable—in part, because the substance of what is required is in the legislation itself rather than in rules.
More importantly, because Amendment No. 54 requires notice to be given before the entry is made, that will facilitate the cheap and speedy resolution of any question that may arise as to whether and on what terms an entry should be made. The government amendment appears to have the effect that notice will only be given after the entry has been made. We look forward to the Minister's reassurance. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I believe that I will be able to provide the reassurance that the noble Baroness seeks. We are approaching the same problem in not dissimilar ways but perhaps with greater flexibility. Amendment No. 54 seeks to make the service of a notice on the person entitled to the benefit of the overriding interest a prerequisite to the noting of the interest on the register under Clause 37.
Government Amendment No. 55 provides that, when making the entry, the registrar is obliged to serve notice of that fact on persons specified in rules. As the entry of the notice can occur without a specific application, there will be occasions when the registered proprietor will need to be informed. Rules would be the most appropriate way in which to make provision for informing the beneficiary of the interest because of the difficulty in identifying the owner of that overriding interest or in discovering a current address at which they can be contacted.
The use of rules also provides the flexibility needed to improve the provisions if difficulties are experienced in implementing them. In light of those comments and the noble Baroness's welcome for the government amendment, I hope that she will feel able to withdraw Amendment No. 54. If she continues to have concerns, we will be happy to listen when the important meeting to discuss some of the minor irritations in the Bill takes place.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. I should have made it clearer that I welcome the government amendment in principle but prefer ours m practice. On the basis of the Minister's comments, l beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 55:
Page 16, line 19, at end insert—
"(2) The registrar must give notice of an entry under this section to such persons as rules may provide."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 44 [Obligatory restrictions]:
Viscount Bridgeman Viscount Bridgeman moved Amendment No. 56:
Page 18, line 20, after "restrictions" insert ", if any,"
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this probing amendment is to clarify that no restriction needs to be entered where co-proprietors are beneficial joint tenants. The amendment is intended to ensure that the legislation cannot be read as making it mandatory for the rules to require a restriction in some form to be entered in all cases of co-proprietorship—even where the co-proprietors are beneficially entitled as joint tenants and no one else has any interest—so that the survivor will be entitled to the whole land.
In those circumstances, there is no need for a restriction to make sure that the general law is observed. Under the present rules, no restriction is required. I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I can reassure the noble Viscount that the intention is to replicate the current arrangements. No restriction is entered in cases where both the legal and beneficial interests are held by the trustees as joint tenants because the survivor of them can deal unrestrictedly with the legal interest in the land as the sole owner of it.
Rules will therefore only be made under this clause to address the other situation in which co-ownership occurs. The amendment seeks to make it clear that only such restrictions as are to be prescribed by the rules need to be entered in the circumstances the rules provide. In our view that is implicit in the permissive way in which the rule-making powers have been formulated, though I agree with the noble Viscount as to the situation that would be achieved as a result of the making of rules under this clause.
In our view, therefore, the amendment is unnecessary, although I can understand it being raised as a probing device. In the light of those comments, and my reassurance that there is no intention to change the current practice, I invite the noble Viscount to withdraw the amendment.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, in light of the reassurances given by the Minister, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 45 [Notifiable applications]:
[Amendment No. 57 not moved.]
Clause 46 [Power of court to order entry]:
[Amendments Nos. 58 and 59 not moved.]
Clause 54 [Proceeds of sale: chargee's duty]:
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 60:
Page 21, line 10, at end insert "immediately before the disposition on sale"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Clause 54 is an important new provision. It affects the exercise of a mortgagee's duty when applying proceeds of sale of registered land; that is, when he has sold the property to repay the moneys due to him and there is a surplus left over. This clause states that a person shall be taken to have notice of anything in the register.
This provision is needed because of a legal technicality, otherwise entries on the register would not count as notice for this purpose. Under the present law, a chargee should pay any surplus to the chargor unless he has been notified of the existence of a subsequent charge. Clause 54 changes the law and, as a result of the provision, the chargee will have to consult the register to determine who is entitled to the surplus. This will impose no significant burden as it is an easy search to do.
However, the clause as originally drafted does not specify when such an inspection must be undertaken. When the property is sold by the chargee, the buyer will apply for registration of his title. In registering the buyer's title, the Land Registry will remove the entry relating to the charge of the chargee who sold, and also entries relating to any subsequent charges on the register. This means that if the chargee searches at the time when he is ready to release surplus funds, some time after the sale has occurred, the entries disclosing the existence of the other charges may already have been removed. The advent of electronic conveyancing could heighten the need for the inspection of the register to have occurred before the sale goes through.
In order to make it clear when the inspection of the register must have occurred, Amendment No. 60 specifies that it is the moment immediately before the disposition on sale. I beg to move.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment No. 61 and also refer to the Government's Amendment No. 60.
We believe that these amendments overlap. To some extent we welcome the Government's amendment and believe it is right as far as it goes; but we believe that Amendment No. 61 is preferable because it restricts the matters of which the mortgagee has notice to those registered in relation to the mortgaged property plus anything of which he has express notice.
Amendment No. 60 leaves him on notice of anything in "the register", which means the whole of the register maintained by the registrar under Clause 1(1). Clause 129(1) defines the register as meaning the "register of title", without any qualification such as, "unless the context otherwise requires". That means that under Clause 54, with the government amendment, a selling mortgagee would be on notice of any entries anywhere in the register; for example, as to bankruptcy of the mortgagor—even if
1356
they were not recorded against the title with which the mortgagee was dealing and he did not actually know about them.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 61 not moved.]
Clause 55 [Local land charges]:
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 62:
Page 21, line 12, after first "charge" insert "for value"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I can be extremely brief. The purpose of Amendment No. 62 is to ensure that this provision only applies to monetary charges. Some local land charges have no monetary value. We would like to know from the Government whether or not the clause is meant to apply to them. I beg to move.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, Clause 55 relates to the registration of local land charges. Local land charges are registered under a separate registration system maintained by local authorities. A search of the local land charge register forms part of the local authority search undertaken at the beginning of the property-buying process. Local land charges bind the land irrespective of whether or not they are recorded at HM Land Registry.
Local land charges arise under the Local Land Charges Act 1975 and its predecessors. They also arise under other statutes if that intention is expressly stated. They often cover charges securing the payment of money, but can also involve, for instance, restrictions on the use of land in a national park.
Clause 55 is only aimed at those local land charges which give rise to a charge over the property. Its purpose is to make sure that when a local or other public authority has the rights of a chargee to dispose of the property, that is recorded on the face of the register before the right is exercised. The reason for that is to ensure that the land register is as complete a record as possible of the powers of disposal that exist in relation to the land and to give confidence to the buyers from those authorities by focusing attention on the familiar land register rather than the local land charges register.
This clause is in fact a restatement of the current law. Section 59(2) of the Land Registration Act 1925 states that before a land charge, which is a charge to secure money, is realised, it must take effect as a registered charge under the Land Registration Act.
I hope that my explanation reassures your Lordships that the clause operates in the same way as existing law and in accordance with the aims of the amendment. In the light of that explanation, I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment as being not necessary to achieve the intended purpose.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response. I am disappointed that Amendment No. 62 does not take preference but I have been somewhat reassured by her words. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 60 [Boundaries]:
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 63:
Page 22, line 15, leave out "may" and insert "shall"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the rules for fixing boundaries are well established, though little used. Amendment No. 63 seeks to ensure that that continues.
The overwhelming majority of property boundaries shown on land registry plans are subject to the general boundaries rule; that is, they are approximate. That flexibility is valuable. At least one US state abandoned registration of title early in the 20th century because fixing precise boundaries was found to be impractical. However, the procedure for fixing boundaries—that is guaranteeing what is shown on Land Registry plans—is well established and sometimes useful. We believe, therefore, that it is important that it remains.
The Law Society therefore proposes the amendment we have tabled, such that there should be a duty to make rules for that purpose, rather than making it discretionary. The report states that fixed boundaries may become more common, particularly where adverse possession proceedings succeed in boundary areas. I beg to move.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, as the noble Baroness said, Amendments Nos. 63 and 64 affect Clause 60. Therefore, I shall deal with them together. Amendment No. 63 changes the permissive nature of the scope of the rules. It makes it essential if rules are made for them to cover certain aspects.
The rules covering this area and any other areas of land registration will be approved by the rule committee, and, following a government amendment, will be subject to the negative resolution procedure. There will therefore be a large degree of scrutiny as to the matters which they contain.
These land registration rules will form part of a substantial body of rules affecting all and every type of application and procedure under the land registration system. As happens now, the way in which the applications are conducted may be governed by general purpose rules, and only certain limited aspects peculiar to the determination of boundaries will be recognisable as rules made under Clause 60. The answer to the question, "Will fixing procedures continue?" is "Yes". They may be little used now because of the cost of the procedure, but the techniques will be improved, which may make them easier and cheaper in due course.
The style of drafting adopted throughout the Bill—indeed, the general practice when conferring a power to make rules—is to make it possible for rules to cover certain items but not to require rules to be made for any specific purpose. In our view that is the correct approach, to give the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor maximum flexibility to adapt the rules as the registry embarks on major changes towards electronic conveyancing.
The current intention is to make rules dealing with all of the headings set out in the clause. However, we should not place any artificial limitations on the
1358
registry's ability to adapt its procedure in appropriate ways, which we cannot at present envisage. I therefore believe that the amendment is undesirable.
I turn to Amendment No. 64, which arises from a concern raised by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, in Committee. The concern was in relation to applications to be made under Clause 60 and one or two other provisions in the Bill. It was not totally clear that the applications were to be made to the registrar. The main reason for the concern arose from the effect of Clause 73(7). Under that subsection, only objections to applications made to the registrar can be heard by the adjudicator.
In the light of the debate, we have looked again at the various provisions. I am pleased to be able to table amendments which will, I hope, make abundantly clear how applications should be made and what is to happen in the event of a dispute. Rules made under Clause 60 must specify that applications for determination of fixed boundaries dealt with in those rules are applications to the registrar.
In the light of those comments, I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her full response. I feel reassured and, on that basis, beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No. 64:
Page 22, line 22, at end insert—
"( ) Rules under this section must provide for applications for determination to be made to the registrar."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 62 [Power to upgrade title]:
Viscount Bridgeman Viscount Bridgeman moved Amendment No. 65:
Page 23, line 6, at end insert—
"( ) In the case of a registration made pursuant to an application under paragraph 1 of Schedule 6, subsections (4) and (5) shall apply as if the number of years stated there was two."
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the purpose of Amendment No. 65 is to provide that if someone in adverse possession can apply after 10 years occupation and obtain a possessory title, he should have to wait only a further two years to upgrade the title.
Paragraph 1 of Schedule 6 states that a person in adverse possession may apply to be registered as the proprietor of the estate after 10 years. Clause 62(4) and (5) state that a possessory title entered in the register as possessory will be absolute (freehold) or good (leasehold) after 12 years. That means that it would take 22 years in which to obtain full title rather than the present 12. The amendment reduces the present number of years from 22 to 10. I beg to move.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, it appears that there may be a misunderstanding of the effect of a squatter's application under paragraph 1 of Schedule 6 to the Bill being successful. That may have arisen

1359
because it has been Land Registry practice in the past to register the squatter under a new title. That was sometimes a possessory title, even when the land squatted against was registered with absolute title.
Under paragraph 4 of Schedule 6 the successful squatter is registered as the new registered owner of the existing registered estate against which the application was made. The squatter's own title is not registered; it is extinguished under paragraph 9(1). That means that in most cases the squatter will be registered with absolute title because the former registered owner will have been registered with absolute title.
The squatter will be registered with possessory title only on those rare occasions when the former registered owner was registered with possessory title. It will therefore be rare that the newly-registered squatter has to consider the upgrading provisions relating to possessory titles in Clause 62. I hope that that explanation will serve to remove the general concerns expressed by the noble Viscount.
However, it might assist the House if I explain how the amendment would work in the comparatively rare circumstances where a squatter became a registered owner of a possessory title because the estate squatted against had such a title. A possible example of such circumstances would arise where A dies owning at her death an unregistered freehold estate; her executor cannot find the deeds and assumes that they are lost. Within a few weeks of A's death the executor applies for voluntary first registration on the basis that the deeds are lost. A possessory title is approved. Unknown to the executor the deeds are in the custody of a lender who has a first legal charge, created before such charges triggered first registration. As the executor has a possessory title, he is subject to the legal charge.
Three years after registration, a squatter applies for registration of part of the land, based on 10 years' adverse possession. She is successful and is registered in place of the executor in respect of that land. Under the amendment, the squatter could apply for the upgrading of the possessory title to absolute freehold immediately because the title has already been registered for at least two years.
If the effect of the amendment had been that in such circumstances the squatter could apply for upgrading two years after her registration in place of the executor, she would again be placed in a stronger position than, say, a buyer who would have to wait a further seven years. I hope that that clarifies the situation.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her explanation. I am particularly grateful for her clarification by way of that example. In the light of that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 64 [Use of register to record defects in title]:
Baroness Scotland of Asthal Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No. 66:
Page 23, line 34, leave out "has become" and insert "is"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, moved an amendment, the purpose of which was to make clear that where a defect in the title had arisen, it could be recorded on the register only if, at the time that the making of an entry was proposed, the defect still existed.
I accepted a need for an amendment and the principle behind it and undertook to introduce a government amendment on Report. Amendment No. 66 fulfils that undertaking. It makes it clear that the right to determine must still be exercisable when the registrar considers the matter by replacing the words "has become exercisable" with "is exercisable". I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her suggestion land commend the amendment to your Lordships.
Amendment No. 67 proposes the deletion of Clause 64. This clause deals with a situation not currently catered for under the land registration system where something happens in the course of the ownership of the property that itself makes the title bad. This occurs in only a limited number of situations and in most of those situations there are already simple and well-developed practices for protecting buyers of the land affected. In such cases there is no need to record the defect in title in the register.
Perhaps I may explain how the clause will work using two examples. One example is on the assignment of a lease. There is a risk that the assignor is in breach of covenant and that the landlord will, therefore, be able to exercise his or her right to re-enter and determine the lease. However, where a landlord accepts rent from a tenant whom he or she knows to be in breach of covenant, he or she will be taken to have waived the breach of covenant. Conveyancers take advantage of this principle and require the assignor of a lease to produce the last receipt for rent prior to the assignment. This creates a rebuttable presumption that all the covenants and provisions of the lease have been fully performed. Because there is already a procedure for dealing with this situation, we respectfully suggest that there is little point in empowering the registrar to enter on the register the fact that the lease might be determined.
Rules are likely to confine the exercise of the power to those cases where there is presently no established procedure for dealing with the problem and in particular to cases concerning rent charges. My first example may suffice. I could give noble Lords a second example but I think that the first probably clarifies the position.
This clause is also needed to help achieve one of the principal objectives of the Bill: to create a conveyancing system in which title can, so far as possible, be investigated online by computer. It follows from this principle that every effort should be made to make the register as conclusive as to title as is practically possible. That includes recording the fact that the right to determine the estate has become and is still exercisable.
An obvious objection to this new duty is that it will not be easy to enforce. A solicitor or licensed conveyancer will be very reluctant to inform the

1361
registry of a defect in his or her client's title, particularly where it is one that could lead to the determination of that client's estate. However, the move to electronic conveyancing will provide a means of enforcing such obligations via network access agreements. Under the system of electronic conveyancing that is to be created under the Bill it will be solicitors or licensed conveyancers acting for buyers who will actually carry out the process of registration. They will do so in accordance with the terms of a network access agreement with the registry that may require them to disclose specified information. They are likely to know far more about the conveyancing transaction than the registry does at present when documents are submitted for registration. They may, therefore, know the facts that make a title bad even though these will not necessarily appear from the conveyancing documents that, under present arrangements, would be sent to the registry for registration.
I hope that that explanation will have convinced the House that the clause fulfils an important purpose. It introduces a useful and flexible procedure which can be initiated by application or as a response to events which have come to the attention of the registry or the court. I beg to move.
Baroness:Buncombe: My Lords, first, perhaps I may say how much we welcome the Government's response to the concerns we expressed in Committee by bringing forward Amendment No. 66. The Minister has answered a number of questions which I had proposed to ask in relation to Amendment No. 67. On that basis, I am pleased to say that I shall not move Amendment No. 67.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 67 not moved.]
Clause 66 [Inspection of the registers etc]:
Viscount Bridgeman Viscount Bridgeman moved Amendment No. 68:
Page 24, line 8, after "document" insert "other than a lease or charge"
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in moving the amendment, I speak also to Amendment No. 69. Amendment No. 68 is intended to address concerns about confidentiality. It is to restrict the availability of information that individuals may consider private or that companies may consider commercially confidential.
Land Registry records have been open to general inspection for less than 20 years. At the time the change was made, removing confidentiality, an undertaking was given to safeguard the privacy of people's private and commercial information by not disclosing the contents of leases and charges. The Administration of Justice Act 1982 contained express provision to that effect. In consultation with the Law Society we wish to ensure that that distinction is maintained. I beg to move.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, Clause 66 is an important provision of the Bill. It replaces and extends the scope of Section 112 of the Land
1362
Registration Act 1925. Section 112 in its present form was substituted by the Land Registration Act 1988 which first made provision for an open register, as the noble Viscount indicated. The open register is an essential element in the move to a system of electronic conveyancing under which virtually all entries can be made online.
Clause 66 provides that, subject to any exceptions and the provisions specified in rules, anyone may inspect and make copies of the register of title together with any other documents either referred to in the register or kept in relation to an application affecting that register.
At present the current legislation excepts leases or charges from inspection or from making copies. Under the new clause these provisions will be modified—but only modified—to conform with the policy of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and data protection principles.
Amendment No. 68 seeks to reproduce the current position where leases and charges are automatically and permanently excluded from the list of documents which are available to the public as of right. This would offend the principle underlying the 2000 Act: that the information should be made publicly available unless there are good reasons why this should not be so.
There are also strong arguments relating to the property market in favour of wider publication. Although I have not looked back at the earlier debates on this subject, I have little doubt that very similar concerns to those raised by the noble Baroness were raised a decade ago in relation to opening the register. But I am happy to say that the Land Registry reports to me that it received virtually no complaints about the way in which information about sales was published in the register.
It does, however, tell me that its users are very keen indeed to see an extension of the information which it is able to provide about the state of the property market and changes in it. The consultant who carried out the quinquennial review of the Land Registry's work reported that there was particular enthusiasm among users at the prospect of wider information on leasehold property. That would shed light on commercial property transactions and so foster a free and competitive market. Providing information in a form which permits valid comparisons to be drawn, however, may require rather greater public access to information to ease terms and conditions than we have been used to. But we are told that the commercial property market thinks that it would be very much in the public interest for such material to be available. There does not seem to be conflict on that.
However, there are two Important exceptions to the right to information. These protect comrnercially sensitive information and private information. These safeguards are sufficient to protect parties to leases and charges from commercially sensitive terms being released to third parties. Rules made under the Bill to govern the publication on the register of information would need to take account of those principles, and

1363
will of course be the subject of extensive consultation, as well as consideration by the Rule Committee. It appears unlikely that they could—initially, at least—permit disclosure of amounts borrowed by individuals, but it may be that other information included in the charge should be published. In future, greater openness in relation to borrowing may become acceptable. On that basis, I ask the noble Viscount to withdraw Amendment No. 68.
I have already dealt with the major question addressed by Amendment No. 69—whether or not leases and charges should automatically and permanently be excluded from disclosure—and argued that such an approach would be contrary to the intent of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Amendment No. 68 deals with a subsidiary question.
Clause 67 deals with a specific aspect of the provision of official copies of the registers and supporting documents and restates the existing law. It provides that when such official copies are supplied, they can be produced in a court of law as if they were original documents. It is an important provision to support the conclusive nature of the register and the documents referred to in it. It also has enormous practical benefits, avoiding the unnecessary production of originals held by the registry that could be mislaid while outside the registry's custody.
The amendment seeks to limit the ability of a litigant to produce an official copy of a lease or charge in court in place of the original. I suggest that the amendment is misplaced. The question of whether a copy of the lease or charge should be released to a third party is entirely separate from the question of whether the official copy document should be treated as admissible in evidence as if it were the original. It is desirable that an officially issued document be so admissible.
In the light of those comments, and with electronic conveyancing in mind, I invite the noble Viscount to withdraw the amendment.
7 p.m.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for reporting to us on her inquiries with the Land Registry. In the light of her reassurances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 67 [Official copies of the registers etc]:
[Amendment No. 69 not moved.]
Clause 71 [Duty to disclose unregistered interests]:
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 70:
Page 25, line 27, at beginning insert "( I) Subject to subsection (2)."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I can be brief in speaking to Amendments Nos. 70 and 71. We believe that no one should be obliged to give information that he does not have or could not reasonably obtain, especially if failing to fulfil the obligation may prejudice him in later proceedings about the accuracy of the register. Obviously, if the information that he supplies is patently deficient, the registrar will make an
1364
appropriate entry on the register. It is clearly reasonable that an applicant for registration should make full disclosure. The consequences of not disclosing something that should have been disclosed are serious. The applicant may not qualify for an indemnity if, as a consequence, the register is wrong. However, we are keen to ensure that, in fairness, such consequences should not follow from the applicant failing to disclose something that he neither knew nor could reasonably have known. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I shall deal with both amendments together. Your Lordships will already be aware of the Bill's fundamental objective, which is to create a register viewable on-line that, at any given time, is as complete and accurate as possible a reflection of the state of the title to the land, to minimise the need for additional inquiries and inspections. To help to achieve that laudable objective, all express dispositions of registered land will have to be appropriately protected on the register, unless there are good reasons for not doing so.
Clause 71 creates for the first time a duty to disclose interests which are overriding, either on first registration or on disposition of registered land, and are therefore binding on the proprietor even though there is no entry on the register. That will help the register to become as complete a record of title as is reasonably practicable, and to achieve our aims and objectives.
The amendments would make it clear that the obligation imposed under the clause extends only to such as information as falls within the actual knowledge of the applicant or that that person could reasonably have obtained. I am pleased to be able to say that the clause applies to the disclosure of interests as provided for in the rules, and that it has always been our intention to make the position outlined in the amendments clear in those rules.
It should be noted that the registrar will wish to enter in the register only such rights as are clear and undisputed. Such rights would be revealed in any preliminary inquiries and searches, such as a conveyancer already makes at the beginning of the conveyancing process on behalf of a purchaser. There is no intention to impose on conveyancing practitioners a greater burden to investigate matters affecting the land than they already carry in representing their clients' interests. I hope that those reassurances will enable the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, it is regrettable that the Government feel unable to accept our amendments. However, I feel somewhat reassured by what the Minister has had to say, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 71 not moved.]
Clause 72 [Priority protection]:
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 72:
Page 25, line 40, after "register" insert ", whether or not for value."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I shall be even briefer. The amendment would simply ensure that all applications were protected, not just those for value. I beg to move.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I shall emulate the brevity of the noble Baroness. I assure your Lordships that we intend to apply the clause to any application, whether or not of value, to which a priority period is attached.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, on that basis, I wish that the Minister would accept the amendment. However, as she is clearly not inclined to do so, with some sadness I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 73 [Objections]:
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 73:
Page 26, line 32, leave out from "only" to "may" in line 33 and insert "a person who can demonstrate that he is entitled to be the benefit of the caution"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I shall try again, and shall speak to Amendments Nos. 73 and 75 together. Simply put, their purpose is to ensure that all those who are entitled to the benefit of the caution, in addition to personal representatives, may object to an application to cancel a caution. Indeed, Amendment No. 75 would ensure that all those entitled to the benefit of the notice may object to an application to cancel a unilateral notice. I beg to move.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, government Amendments Nos. 74 and 76, which we have already debated, deal better with the issue than would these amendments. The government amendments address the concerns raised by Amendments Nos. 73 and 75, but have the advantage of retaining a degree of flexibility further to clarify the application of Clauses 73(2) and 73(3) in rules. For that reason, I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment, and commend the government amendments to the House.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response and her reference to earlier amendments that cover rules that may be applied in future. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No. 74:
Page 26, line 33. leave out "his personal representative" and insert "such other person as rules may provide"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 75 not moved.]
Baroness Scotland of Asthal Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No. 76:
Page 26, line 36, after "relates" insert ", or such other person as rules may provide,"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 80 [Compulsory registration of grants out of demesne land]:
[Amendments Nos. 77 and 78 not moved.]
Clause 86 [Bankruptcy]:
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 79:
Page 31, line 6, leave out "limitation under section 284" and insert "effect"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 79 and 80 amend the effect of Clause 86 and I shall deal with them together. Clause 86 addresses a situation in which a sole registered proprietor of land or a charge becomes the subject of a bankruptcy petition or a bankruptcy order. The clause ensures that the title registers on which it appears that that individual, the subject of bankruptcy proceedings, is the sole registered proprietor of a registered estate or charge for his or her own benefit contain an entry recording that fact. Such entries are routinely made under the present system.
Under the existing system, when a debtor is adjudicated bankrupt and a bankruptcy order is made against him, the registrar is then required to enter a bankruptcy inhibition which totally blocks any dealing with the property by the registered proprietor until the inhibition is removed. The Bill prospectively abolishes inhibitions and provides instead that the registrar will enter a restriction. A restriction is a more flexible entry than an inhibition and can be used to block all or only some of the owner's powers to deal with the land.
A restriction must be entered in any case where the owner's powers are limited. If no restriction is entered, a person acquiring title from the registered proprietor would take free of any limitation on the powers of disposal.
In the case of the making of a bankruptcy order, Clause 86 as drafted requires the registrar to note the effect of Section 284 of the Insolvency Act 1986 which prevents a sale by the registered proprietor during the period between the issue of the bankruptcy petition and the making of the bankruptcy order, unless sanctioned by the court.
What the amendments do is place the registrar under a wider obligation to reflect the effect of the Insolvency Act 1986 more generally. This means that the registrar must also record the fact that the registered proprietor is unable to deal with the property at all following the vesting of the title to the property and the trustee in bankruptcy. Although this action by the registrar was permitted by other provisions in the Bill and the intention of the registrar from the outset, this fact is now apparent on the face of the Bill.
In the light of those observations and the clarity that the amendments bring, I commend them to your Lordships' House.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 80:
Page 31, line 7, leave out from "(c. 45)" to end of line 8.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 91 [Electronic dispositions: formalities]:
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 81:
Page 33, line 15, leave out paragraph (c).
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 81, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 83 to 87 and 89. They relate to Clauses 91 and 92 which deal with electronic conveyancing and the land registry network. It is a key area which goes to the heart of the Bill.
As the Government know, we on these Benches are most supportive of the introduction of electronic conveyancing. Our concerns relate to the mechanics of the system and the security of transactions. We note the Government's response to suggestions that we advanced in Committee and we welcome them. However, we continue to have concerns and I shall now turn to some of them in detail.
The system needs to be secure in order to retain the confidence not only of the public in their house-buying processes but of commercial enterprises and inward investors buying factories and offices in England and Wales. Therefore, individuals, firms and companies should not be liable where authority was not actually given.
Organisations which provide electronic access to facilities have developed a practice of transferring to the user of the facility the risk of forgery of the access control code. By way of example, we offer the access terms of the providers of access to the National Land Information System and the statutory terms applicable to the electronic filing of income tax or value added tax returns.
Searchflow, for example, states:
"The Customer warrants that it/he/she will keep confidential and secure all user names and passwords used in relation to the Services and accepts that use of a user name and password allocated to a Customer shall constitute sufficient authority to the Company to perform the Services and be entitled to payment for so doing".
Teramedia, for example, states:
"You [the customer] are responsible for all use, activity and charges associated with or arising out of your use of Territorium, including any unauthorised charges or used by a third party using your subscription, user name and/or password".
Another, MacDonald Dettwiler, states:
"You will be liable for all charges incurred through the use of your TransAction Online Password".
A common feature of all these examples is that if someone other than the user is able to impersonate the user successfully by obtaining control of a copy of the user's access mechanism, the user is either bound by
1368
the consequences or carries the burden of rebutting a presumption of responsibility. Access mechanisms may take the form of a user ID combined with a password, or a cryptographic key, or a number of other mechanisms. For the purposes of any practical scheme of electronic conveyancing, all such mechanisms involve supplying the password, key or other security data to a personal computer which forms part of the computer network which also has access to the Internet.
There are no available secure operating systems for personal computers and the security risks to which they are vulnerable are notorious. The risk of surreptitious copying of security information from a personal computer or its subversion to carrying out transactions other than those apparent to and intended by the user are risks which solicitors' firms are in no position either to eliminate or to bear.
For those reasons, we can confirm that, for example, the Law Society would regard it as unacceptable for solicitors to carry the risk of their electronic signature keys being obtained and misused by third parties. The use of presumptions and statutory terms and their contractual equivalents should, in our view, be ruled out by clear statutory language such as we propose. Its effect should be that it is for the relying party to prove that a disputed signature was made by or with the authority of the purported signatory.
In particular, the purpose of Amendment No. 81 relates to the Trustee Delegation Act 1999, which reinforced the two trustee rules in the 1925 legislation by providing that they are not satisfied by a single attorney acting for the only trustees. That consumer protection should not be sacrificed when electronic transfers are executed. The 1925 property legislation put in place some, though we suggest not very effective, consumer protection by ensuring that some transactions can be done only by at least two trustees so that one alone does not have access to someone else's money. The Trustee Delegation Act 1999 sought to bolster this by preventing one person being appointed the attorney of two joint owners (so that one person acted for two trustees and nullified such protection as there was). We seek to ensure that the electronic disposition arrangements do not undermine this recently strengthened consumer protection.
Amendment No. 85 is a probing amendment which seeks to ascertain the Government's reasons for making the system compulsory. Certain of these are understood, especially those relating to a time in the future when perhaps most conveyancers are using this system, but in the early stages who will be the pioneers if they are not able to return to using a paper system when it does not work as envisaged? What will happen by way of back-up when the systems go down? This was a matter to which my noble friend the Duke of Montrose referred in Committee.
I turn to Amendment No. 86 which is a probing amendment to seek confirmation that solicitors/ conveyancers and conveyancers generally will not be obliged to override client confidentiality. I believe that I have covered the gist of Amendment No. 86.
In Amendment No. 89 we propose a new clause after Clause 93, the purpose of which is as follows. The established consumer protection which limits technical land registry work to solicitors and certain other conveyancing professionals should be continued when a land registry network is established. Licensed conveyancers are permitted to undertake the acts authorised by Section 22 of the Solicitors Act 1974 by Section 11(4) of the Administration of Justice Act 1985. All professionals entitled to carry out conveyancing are, therefore, treated equally by this amendment, so extending the consumer benefits as widely as possible.
Current legislation restricts the right to do technical land registration work for payment for other people to suitably qualified professionals. Although the restriction appears in the Solicitors Act, licensed conveyancers and others qualified and authorised to do conveyancing are included. We believe it would be wrong if the introduction of electronic conveyancing weakened this consumer protection. Our proposal seeks to extend the current provision to ensure that it covers the new forms of working. The intention, therefore, is to maintain the status quo. I beg to move.
7.30 p.m.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the difference between noble Lords opposite and the Government may be one of emphasis as opposed to substance. In speaking to Amendment No. 81 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 82 to 87 and Amendment No. 89 inclusive. The common theme of this group of amendments is the development and growth of electronic conveyancing. Within this broad theme there are several more specific topics. Amendments Nos. 81, 83 and 84 relate to the creation of electronic conveyancing documents under Clause 91 and Amendments Nos. 85, 86 and 87 to the use of the land registry network referred to in Clause 92. I understand the importance that noble Lords attach to these matters. I hope, therefore, to deal as fully as I can with all the issues that are of greatest concern to noble Lords.
I start with Amendment No. 82. This takes up a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, in Committee. The amendment will extend the application of Clause 91(6) to the authentication of an electronic document as agent by companies and other bodies corporate as well as individuals. For example, a firm of solicitors incorporated as a limited liability partnership will be able to benefit from the deeming provision in Clause 91(6). This amendment removes any artificial and unnecessary limitation on the scope of this clause. I express gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. Although he is not in his place, I hope that he will read my words. I thank him for spotting the point, and I commend the amendment to the House.
Clause 91(6) is also the subject of Amendments Nos. 83 and 84, but before I turn to them I should first like to consider Amendment No. 81. The amendment seeks to amend Clause 91(3). This subsection specifies the conditions that must be satisfied if an electronic document is to be effective under Clause 91. If
1370
accepted, the amendment would remove the requirement that the electronic signatures of the persons by whom the document purports to be authenticated must be certified. As such a condition could still be introduced in due course under Clause 91(3)(d), the amendment is clearly intended to probe what certification is intended to entail.
In replying I am very conscious that it is simply not possible to give a detailed account, still less a permanent account, of how certification processes will work in detail. It may, however, assist the House if I first explain the terms "electronic signature" and "certification" as used in this context. Both are taken from the Electronic Communications Act 2000. An electronic signature is so much of anything in electronic form as is incorporated into, or otherwise logically associated with, any electronic communication or data, and purports to be so incorporated or associated for the purpose of being used in establishing the authenticity of the communication or data or its integrity, or both. "Authentication" refers to the process of verifying whether a communication comes from a particular person or other source; whether it is timed and dated; and whether it is intended to have legal effect. "Integrity" refers to the process of identifying whether there has been any tampering with, or other modification of, the communication or data. "Certification" means a statement confirming first, an electronic signature, and, secondly, the means of producing, communicating or verifying the signature, or a procedure applied to the signature which either alone or with other factors is a valid means of establishing the authenticity or the:Integrity of the communication or data signed electronically, or both.
The requirement of a certified electronic signature is a bare minimum. The definition is intended to allow for a multiplicity of forms of electronic signature and certificate, and it is an onerous one. Our present expectation is that electronic signatures will use "dual key", also called "public key", cryptography. It is perfectly possible that in time the market will find better or simpler methods. The requirements to be satisfied in any given transaction will be specified in rules. These rules will undoubtedly change as the market responds to developments in technology.
The essential point is that all these rules will be subject to consultation, because the system which we will put in place must be worked out by extensive consultation with conveyancers and those who will supply the technology to support the system. In the light of this explanation of the approach of the Bill to the development of electronic conveyancing, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw Amendment No. 81.
I turn now to Clause 91(6) and Amendments Nos. 83 and 84. Amendment No. 83 raises the relationship of subsection (6) and Section 7 of the Trustee Delegation Act 1999, while Amendrnent No. 84 seeks to undo the effect of subsection (6). I shall consider them in reverse order. Amendment No. 84 is intended to probe, as the noble Baroness said, the Government's intentions regarding the role of agents within the electronic conveyancing world. Clause 91(6)

1371
does not confer authority where none exists. Clause 91 does not create a general presumption of agency; nor does it compel agents to use electronic signatures. It is fundamental to the Government's approach that the electronic conveyancing system must be secure and trusted and that it will be developed in partnership with the stakeholders.
Clause 91(6) is a technical provision intended to remove the need to ask whether an agent had written authority. It is relevant to the statutory provisions that require an agent to be authorised in writing; for example, Section 53(1)(a) of the Law of Property Act 1925 states that no interest in land can be created or disposed of except by writing signed by the person creating or conveying the same, or—these are the important words—by his agent thereunto lawfully authorised in writing.
Nor will subsection (6) operate in a vacuum. It is likely that, when electronic conveyancing is first introduced, many people will not have their own electronic signatures. They will therefore sign a standard form giving their solicitor or licensed conveyancer express authority to execute any electronic conveyancing documents on their behalf that they have approved. In other words, the only matter that they will be authorising will be the electronic signature on the document. The standard form and the requirements for its use will be specified in the rules relating to the network access agreements under which electronic conveyancing will be conducted.
Amendment No. 84 seeks to undo the effect of Clause 91(6). Essentially the amendment provides that if a document to which Clause 91 applies is authenticated by an agent, the agent will be deemed for the purposes of any enactment to be authenticated as the agent under the written authority of his or her principal if—I repeat, if—the agent had actual written authority to do so or subsequently obtained it. The end result of the amendment would be a regular request for evidence of the authority, making the procedure for electronic conveyancing somewhat less electronic and somewhat more cumbersome than it need be. I hope that in light of those comments the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw Amendment No. 84.
I now turn to Amendment No. 83. I have listened with great interest to what the noble Baroness has said. However, I shall endeavour to persuade her that the amendment is not necessary and would, if accepted, have an adverse effect rather than providing any useful safeguards.
Section 7 of the Trustee Delegation Act 1999 was enacted by the Government to bolster the protection given to trust beneficiaries. The effect of the section is broadly that the rules of law that at least two trustees must both execute the conveyance and receive the capital proceeds of any sale cannot be circumvented by all the trustees individually delegating their functions to one person under a power of attorney pursuant to Section 25 of the Trustee Act 1925.
1372
I am happy to confirm that Clause 91 will have no effect whatever on the rule that the proceeds of any disposition must be paid to at least two trustees or to a trust corporation. That rule will continue to apply to protect beneficiaries. Nor does the Bill undermine the protection given by the rule that at least two trustees must execute any deed of conveyance.
I shall now explain why the Bill does not adversely affect the operation of Section 7 of the 1999 Act. It is necessary for me to outline certain legal rules by way of background so that Clause 91(6) can be understood properly.
First, Section 1 of the Powers of Attorney Act 1971 provides that a power of attorney must be made by deed. Secondly, it is a rule of common law that only an agent authorised by deed may execute a deed for his or her principal. However, a deed not only has to be executed, but it must also be delivered. At one time, an agent had to be authorised by deed to deliver a deed as well as to execute it on behalf of his or her principal. However, that rule proved to be highly inconvenient in practice, and it was changed by Section 1(5) of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989. Under that subsection a solicitor, notary public or licensed conveyancer or their agents or employees is conclusively presumed to have authority to deliver a deed in favour of a purchaser. Thirdly, an individual trustee may only delegate the exercise of his or her trustee functions by power of attorney.
Clause 91(5) of the Bill provides that an electronic conveyancing document authorised under Clause 91 is to be regarded for the purpose of any enactment as a deed. That means that the electronic document itself is not a deed and the rules relating to deeds do not therefore apply to it. It will therefore be possible to authorise an agent to sign an electronic document without the need for a power of attorney. That does not however prevent the parties from creating a power of attorney if they want to or from having to do so if there is another rule of law that applies—for example, if a trustee function is to be exercised by the agent. I think that that is as it should be.
As I explained in relation to Amendment No. 84, Clause 91(6) has a limited effect. It is concerned only with evidential requirements and not the substance of the agency relationship. The true effect of Amendment No. 83 would be to extend the application of Section 7 of the 1999 Act to every electronic document made by trustees under Clause 91. It would require every electronic conveyance or transfer by co-owners of land to be electronically signed by two different solicitors even if in the paper world a power of attorney would not have been necessary and so, Section 7 would not have applied. Some might say that this is just a charter for more lawyers to earn more money. I am sure that that is not anyone's intention.
The amendment would significantly and needlessly increase the expense and complexity of conveyancing. It would be at the very least as inconvenient as the old rule that an agent had to be authorised by deed to deliver a deed. Furthermore, it would provide little in the way of additional safeguards. Where trustees are

1373
making a disposition, each of them will have to sign a written authority to authorise a solicitor or licensed conveyancer to sign the document electronically on their behalf.
I have sought to reassure your Lordships that the amendment is unnecessary and to explain the reasons that also make it undesirable in the wider context. In the light of those comments, I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
I now turn to Amendments Nos. 85, 86 and 87. The amendments relate to Schedule 5 to the Bill. Amendment No. 85 seeks to remove the power of the Chief Land Registrar to specify, as a condition of access to the Land Registry network, that the network must be used for the transactions specified in the network access agreement. The provision is important because extending the use of the electronic conveyancing system as widely and as quickly as possible will maximise its benefits for practitioners, consumers and the Land Registry.
However, the power is not absolute. First, rules will regulate the terms on which access to the network is authorised. Those rules will only be made following proper consultation, consideration of the possible economic impact of any changes and an affirmative resolution. Secondly, the Land Registry will want to develop the system on an incremental basis with testing and piloting to ensure that the system is robust. It would not be in the interests of the customers or the Land Registry to risk the success of the e-conveyancing project or the integrity of the register by premature implementation. In short, the power in paragraph 2(1)(a) will be exercised only when the time is ripe.
In the meantime, the Government will work with their commercial partners to develop the infrastructure of electronic conveyancing using whatever business vehicles are appropriate to deliver the required outcomes. I cannot, however, emphasise too strongly that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and I, and those responsible for detailed planning in the Land Registry, understand that the electronic conveyancing project depends for its success on a partnership with conveyancers. Both sides are confident that it will enable them to give the public a better service. Dragooning conveyancers into electronic transactions before they are ready to do so willingly is unlikely to be productive.
The Bill is intended to create a legal framework in which electronic conveyancing can be fully developed. The fullest development is of course a completely electronic system. The power to require users of the Land Registry network to use the system is a necessary building block. To accept the amendment would be to limit the way in which the system can be developed. In the light of my comments about how the system will be used and developed, I invite the noble Baroness not to move Amendment No. 85.
Amendment No. 86 also relates to the terms of network access agreements. It seeks to delete paragraph 6 of Schedule 5 to the Bill which provides for obligations under such agreements to discharge
1374
other obligations. I quite understand that this may appear rather striking, perhaps even startling, but when properly understood and taken in context, I do not think that paragraph 6 is unreasonable. Noble Lords may find it helpful to read the explanation provided in paragraph 13.58 of the recent Law Commission report on land registration. It explains succinctly the purpose of this paragraph and the Government share the views expressed. I commend it to noble Lords.
The rules governing network access agreements will of course be subject to parliamentary approval. The House will be aware that, under government amendments which we shall consider shortly, many of those rules will be subject to an affirmative resolution procedure in recognition of the complex and sensitive material with which they will have to deal. That approval will be sought only after an extensive period of consultation, which must include the professional bodies for conveyancing practitioners.
I hope that my comments have reassured the noble Baroness and that I have said sufficient to satisfy her queries in relation to the matter. I invite the noble Baroness not to move Amendment No. 86.
Amendment No. 87 would remove the deemed authority of an agent acting as an authorised person under a network access agreement to sign—that is, to authenticate—an electronic contract or disposition on behalf of his or her principal. This deemed authority exists only in favour of a third party and only if the agent has expressly claimed the authority in the electronic contract or disposition.
The reason for paragraph 8 of Schedule 5 is that there is no general implied authority that an agent may sign a contract or disposition for his or her principal. This means that where an agent signs as such, the other party to the transaction is entitled to call for evidence of the actual authority under which he or she claims to be acting. The requirement for paper evidence of that authority and its delivery would operate to defeat some of the benefits of electronic conveyancing. That reflects the issue that I raised earlier.
I understand that noble Lords are concerned about fraud, but fraud takes place now. Regrettably, it will not cease simply because conveyancing becomes electronic. When it does affect owners of registered land, their lot is indeed happier than that of many others. The Bill, just as the present law, provides a comprehensive system of indemnity and rectification, supported by rights of recourse to the Land Registry against the wrongdoer. Safeguards have been put in place.
I believe that paragraph 8 is a considered and proportionate measure. It will be of practical benefit and will not expose consumers to undue risk. I hope that, in the light of this explanation, the noble Baroness will feel able not to move Amendment No. 87.
I am cantering towards the end of my remarks. The primary purpose of Section 22 of the Solicitors Act 1974 is to protect the public from unqualified persons setting themselves up to act for the consumer in the

1375
conveyancing process. The criminal sanction acts as a deterrent and has been applied only very rarely. Notwithstanding that, there may well be other issues which would need to be addressed in relation to a successful prosecution under Section 22. Those matters can be addressed in the rules which will support the electronic conveyancing process, by regulating the use of network access agreements that govern the conduct of business with the registry electronically.
I mention also Clause (32) in this context because it provides that, when electronic conveyancing becomes compulsory, any conveyancing document which purports to be a disposition of registered land, or a contract for such a disposition, will be effective only if it is in electronic form and communicated electronically to the registrar at the time of completion. When electronic conveyancing is compulsory, network access agreements are therefore likely to be at least as effective a consumer protection mechanism as is Section 22, as well as being a useful additional protection mechanism in the mean time.
If the noble Baroness is not exhausted after having to listen to these long explanations, I invite her not to move Amendment No. 89. I hope that, as is usual, we shall be in total comity on this matter.
7.45 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, I am sure that she appreciates that we shall not be able to respond to all the points she has made in her remarks, but we shall certainly read them in Hansard.
When the noble Baroness commented on Amendment No. 84, she gave a comparable. I did not jot down where that comparable came from, although I did note that when written authority was given in the comparable cited by the noble Baroness, she added the words, "lawfully given". Can the noble Baroness consider whether that could be put into subsection (6) of Clause 91? It would provide a further reassurance to noble Lords on this side of the House.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I shall take into account the point made by the noble Earl. However, once the noble Earl has had an opportunity to read at a more moderate pace my detailed remarks, I think he will find that the issue is covered. I shall take away the noble Earl's point. I rather doubt whether much amendment will be needed, but I undertake to look at the matter.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her extremely full and clear response. I shall not begin to attempt to respond to her remarks, but I thank her for that detailed explanation. It will give all noble Lords the opportunity to consider with care what the Government have to say. This area is extremely important and, as I said at the start of my remarks, it goes to the heart of the Bill.
1376
I echo the concern expressed by my noble friend Lord Caithness about Amendment No. 84. I am not convinced that the point has been dealt with, but I shall read with care all that the noble Baroness has said in response. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No. 82:
Page 33, line 23, leave out "an individual" and insert "a person"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 83 and 84 not moved.]
Schedule 5 [Land registry network]:
[Amendments Nos. 85 to 87 not moved.]
Clause 93 [Power to require simultaneous registration]:
[Amendments Nos. 88 and 89 not moved.]
Clause 95 [Disapplication of periods of limitation]:
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 90:
Leave out Clause 95.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment concerns the important issue of adverse possession. I should like to draw the attention of noble Lords to paragraphs 10.18 and 10.19 of the Law Commission consultative document, which sets out the commission's conclusions regarding the law of adverse possession. In particular I draw attention to paragraph 10.19(1) and (2) where it states that:
"(1) A restriction had been entered on the register to freeze all dealings with the registered estate, but the circumstances which made that precaution necessary had subsequently passed;
(2) An interest protected on the register by one entry was adequately protected by another".
We have no argument with paragraph 10.19(2). However, the proposal, as adopted in the Bill, to recast the law of adverse possession to reflect the principles of title registration causes us real concern.
The law of adverse possession is based on social and economic factors. Surely it cannot matter whether the land to which it relates is registered. Either there are valid social and economic reasons for a particular rule as regards adverse possession or there are not; and those policies, if they exist at all, should apply regardless of registration.
Surely this clause presents a case of the tail wagging the dog. We have here a system of land registration which we like, and in consequence of that the Government have now decided to amend the law on adverse possession to fit with the system. With respect, we believe that the Government ought to decide what is their policy with regard to adverse possession and then make the registration system fit into that. I beg to move.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I have listened very carefully to what the noble Baroness said on the amendment. I have tried to find some way in which her approach might be said to improve the Bill. On this occasion, I have not been able to find one.

1377
In our submission, accepting the amendment would at best undermine, and probably simply wreck, all the provisions of Part 9. It would therefore destroy one of the major achievements of the Bill, the introduction of a new system of protection against adverse possession, founded upon the principles which govern the ownership of registered land, which gives registered owners far greater protection than ever before. In explaining why, I shall need to cover both the overall approach of this part of the Bill and the effect of the amendment in some detail. I must ask for the indulgence of the House while I do so.
Clause 95 disapplies certain provisions of the Limitation Act 1980 from registered land and registered rent charges. It does this so that a new and better scheme of acquisition of title by adverse possession can be created. The scheme will give greater protection to the registered proprietor. In doing so, it will strike a fairer balance between the squatter and the owner.
The clause lays the foundation for that by making radical changes to the role of limitation periods in determining; title to registered land, which I shall need to explain. Under the current law, there is very little difference of principle between registered and unregistered land in the way in which title to land can be acquired by adverse possession. The 12-year period is, as many noble Lords will be aware, the period specified in Section 15 of the Limitation Act 1980 as the period of time after which no action can be brought in the courts to recover land. Once an action in the courts can no longer be brought, Section 17 of the 1980 Act provides that in most cases the previous paper title is extinguished.
One of the main arguments of policy in the Bill is, in effect, that this similarity of approach for both systems of conveyancing is illogical, and that the one should be clearly separated from the other.
Limitation is absolutely fundamental to the operation of unregistered conveyancing. This is because it depends on proving title by an historical investigation of a chain of ownership, going back to a point, known as a "good root of title", where the right to ownership of the land cannot be brought into question. The present requirement is for a good root of title of at least 15 years. This period has been revised from time to time, but, because title to unregistered land is ultimately based upon possession, it has always borne a close relation to the limitation period applicable to actions for recovery of land.
Indeed, there would be grave danger in any attempt to weaken the link to the limitation period since that would open the prospect of substantially lengthening the root of title that would need to be established. This would make a system which is already expensive and uncertain far more costly and risky. It would also run counter to the longstanding trend of progressive reduction in the length of title that has to be proved.
The whole point of a system of registered land, by contrast, is that title should depend on the register. The whole purpose of the Bill is to ensure that who owns a piece of land and what are their powers, rights and
1378
obligations in relation to it, should, as far possible, be established by the register and be immediately obvious from it.
One of the most powerful criticisms of the current registered system in England and Wales is that it does not follow this principle. In a fully developed registered system, the fundamental issue of who owns the land should be as clear as the words on the page or the screen. Because it is made dependent on possession for a specified period, it is still little clearer than it is in the unregistered system. This clause puts that right. It gives the register its proper function of determining title by removing limitation from the ownership equation.
I turn now to the detail of Clause 95. I shall be as brief and as non-technical as the material permits. Subsection (1) contains the basic provision that Section 15 of the 1980 Act will not apply to actions to recover registered estates in land and registered rent charges. It contains one exception. This applies where a charge has been created over the land and the landowner, as the person who created the charge, is in possession of the land. In these cases, the rights of the chargee to recover possession or to foreclose will remain subject to the provisions of the Limitation Act 1980. This is necessary because a charge is both a contract and an interest in land. The chargee therefore has contractual and proprietary remedies against the owner. The exception ensures that the same overall limitation period applies to both sets of remedies.
Subsection (2) of Clause 95 is even more technical. It exempts actions for redemption in relation to a registered estate or a registered rent charge from Section 16 of the Limitation Act 1980. An action for redemption is a legal action to redeem a mortgage by a landowner against a chargee who has taken possession of the land.
The disapplication of the 12-year limitation period is a significant change to the law, but the present position is anomalous. It produces the result that where a chargee has been in possession of land for 12 years or more, the owner loses his or her right to redeem the mortgage. Given the remedies available to the mortgagee, this is an unnecessary extra bonus for a mortgagee. The Bill therefore disapplies Section 16 in relation to registered estates in land or registered rent charges.
Subsection (3) of Clause 95 is a necessary concomitant to subsections (1) and (2). Its effect is that Section 17 of the Limitation Act 1980 will not operate to extinguish the title of a person against whom, under Clause 95, a period of limitation does not run.
The effect of Clause 95 will be to make ownership of registered land more attractive than ownership of unregistered land. The converse, of course, is that unregistered land has been made relatively less attractive than it is at present. Noble Lords may have therefore wondered whether the same provisions could be extended to unregistered land so as to preserve the parity and to avoid further divergence between the two systems of land ownership.

1379
The simple answer is that they cannot. Limitation periods are an essential part of the structure of unregistered conveyancing. Even if they were not, there is no register of owners of unregistered land, and squatters may simply not be able to discover who owns the land that is being adversely possessed. By contrast, the register provides an authoritative public record of ownership of registered land. This gives the new system both its practical and its theoretical base.
Our debates have shown that we are all agreed that the future of conveyancing and land law lies with registered land. Unregistered land has diminished and will continue to do so at an accelerating rate as a result of the Bill. Clause 95 will make an important contribution to that process. As I said, it is fundamental to the new system.
I hope that having heard that explanation—exhaustive as I have found it—the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, will accept that registered land is entitled to a life of its own and that the dying hand of unregistered conveyancing should not hold back the future, and so withdraw her amendment. I hope that I have satisfied her. I have fully explained the Government's intentions in relation to adverse possession and the difference between registered and unregistered land.
8 p.m.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her very full response. This was in a sense a difficult amendment to respond to. We were making a broad point about adverse possession—and one which I hope the Government will take on board to some extent. We believe that the whole aspect of the social and economic reason for a particular rule as regards adverse possession should be carefully considered. That said, we shall read the Minister's remarks carefully in Hansard. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 6 [Registration of adverse possessor]:
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 91:
Page 56, line 4, after "apply" insert "to the registrar"
The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 91 and 92 arise from a concern raised by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, in Committee. The concern was that in relation to applications to be made under Clause 60, and one or two other provisions in the Bill, it was not entirely clear that the applications were to be made to the registrar.
The main reason for the concern arose from the effect of Clause 73(7). Under that subsection, only objections to applications made to the registrar can be heard by the adjudicator.
In the light of the debate, we have looked again carefully at the various provisions, and I am pleased to bring forward amendments which I hope make it
1380
abundantly clear how applications should be made and what is to happen in the event of a dispute. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendments Nos. 92 and 93:
Page 56, line 7, after "apply" insert "to the registrar"
Page 57, line 5, after "unconscionable" insert "because of an equity by estoppel"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 94 not moved.]
Lord Thomas of Gresford Lord Thomas of Gresford moved Amendment No. 95:
Page 59, line 21, leave out paragraph 12.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, my ears pricked up when I heard the Minister say that this is not a charter for more lawyers to earn more money. I note the attempt to streamline and simplify conveyancing. It takes me back to my conveyancing days in the villages of Ruabon and Rhosllanerchrugog, where my dying hand was certainly placed upon the conveyancing of houses in the neighbourhood. The villagers there would fully understand the modern expressions used in the Bill: "incorporeal hereditaments", "franchises" and "profits à prendre in gross"—they talk about nothing else! This is the new modernising language of the Bill.
In the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart—to whom many tributes have been paid and whose previous suggestions have been accepted by the Government—perhaps I may refer to his Amendment No. 95. The noble Lord raised the necessity of having paragraph 12 in Schedule 6 to the Bill. The point is this: why should time not commence to run for the purposes of adverse possession simply because an estate is subject to a trust? Why should time cease to run if in the course of that time the property becomes subject to a trust?
The trustee is the proprietor for the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3 of Schedule 6, and thus he or she has every power under these provisions to take action against a squatter, against a person who is seeking to rely on adverse possession against the estate. If he is under a disability—a matter discussed in Committee—the provisions of paragraph 8 of Schedule 6 apply and time will not run against a trustee while he is under that disability. This is an improvement on the existing law that the trustee becomes the proprietor.
It should be entirely irrelevant whether a beneficiary has an interest in possession in the estate. The whole thrust of property legislation over the past 100 years has been to keep equitable interests away from the investigation of title. There can be nothing more frustrating than to have to look into the provisions of trusts under the Settled Land Act—which I am old enough to remember doing in my youth—and to investigate how equitable interests can apply.
Under paragraph 12 of Schedule 6 the practical effect must be that the registrar must make inquiry of every applicant who is relying on adverse possession to

1381
ask whether there are any interests under the trust that are not in possession during the period for which he is claiming. I can envisage that question having to be on every form that is sent to the applicant in those circumstances.
Furthermore, if there were proceedings for possession of the estate, the defence of a person to an action for possession under Clause 97(1) would involve an investigation by the court into periods during which the beneficial interests in the trust were or were not in possession. In other words, far from going for the legal title to the land and investigating that—considering who is the proprietor and what is the position of the trustee—the beneficiaries and their position over a period of time would have to be investigated.
Just as the Minister hoped that these provisions for adverse possession would prevent lengthy court cases, the inclusion of paragraph 12 in Schedule 6 could indeed result in conflict and in legal costs. It could indeed make the Bill a charter for more lawyers to earn more money. Although I applaud that in one sense, I am sure that that is not the Government's policy. I beg to move.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the noble Lord has prompted a helpful discussion on how the Bill's new and radical approach to the law of adverse possession will work. As a fellow lawyer, I welcome him to this particular fray. There obviously cannot be too many of us involved in this debate.
I am considerably tempted by an amendment that would enable a definitive answer as to whether or not a squatter would be entitled to absolute possession by determining a claim against the current beneficiary and trustees rather than against the remainder man.
However, we believe that the Bill as it stands gives the fairer answer. The Bill introduces a new principle; namely, that within a system of registered land it should be the register which determines ownership, not occupation. It should therefore be much more difficult when the Bill is in operation than it has been in the past for a squatter to obtain good title to a property—that is, except where the defences set out in the schedule apply. A squatter will be successful only against a registered proprietor who cannot be bothered to respond to the registrar's notices and take sufficient action to recover possession.
One of the Bill's aims is to make sure that land that is being neglected remains in economic use. It is a sensible derogation from the general principle that registration determines ownership that an owner who is so little concerned with the land as to fail persistently to take the simple steps required to secure possession should yield to a squatter who will.
Matters are inevitably more complicated when land is held in trust and where the ultimate beneficiary of the trust has not yet taken possession. To put it briefly, the difference between us is that the noble Lord believes that the general law of trusteeship provides adequate protection for the interests of the ultimate beneficiary if the trustees and the current beneficiary
1382
do not take adequate action to retain the registered interest if there is a claim for adverse possession, We, however, think that more is needed. Certainly we do not dispute that the general law would give the ultimate beneficiary recourse against: a trustee who had been negligent, but establishing that right would almost certainly require litigation. If the claim was unsuccessful as the title to the land had now passed to the squatter, the ultimate beneficiary would be exceedingly unlikely to be able to recover the land. Money rather than land would generally be a second best and it may be a poor second best. In view of what I have said I invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, there are two points on which we fully support the Government. First, we believe that land should be used economically and, therefore, if a title is to be established by adverse possession it should not have put in its way the technicalities of trust law as the beneficiaries have an adequate remedy against the trustee if he fails in his duty. We also believe, contrary to the submissions—if I may use that word—that were made on the previous amendment, that it is a good idea for registration to be an effective defence against adverse possession and that there should be a difference between registered and unregistered land. As the noble Baroness has said, that would encourage people to register land. I ask the Government to reconsider this issue before Third Reading. If the noble Baroness is prepared to do that, as I hope that she will, I shall withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I indicated earlier that I should be happy to meet any noble Lord to discuss issues still outstanding before Third Reading. However, the matter has been given extensive consideration. It was first stimulated by the extensive intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, in Committee. I tried unsuccessfully to touch the heart of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, with the plight of the poor remainder man, the orphan thrown out by the squatter who has taken injudicious occupation of the land to no effect. I am happy to consider the matter further but the noble Lord should not be too optimistic in that regard.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, if the flint-hearted noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, can prevail upon the tender hearted noble Baroness to reconsider the matter that is enough for me. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 100 [Annual Report]:
8.15 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amend:ment No. 96:
Page 36, line 28, after "section" insert "and may do so".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Clause 100 deals with the preparation and publication of the annual report on the business of the Land Registry. Your

1383
Lordships will recall that we discussed in Committee whether the English used conveyed as naturally as it might do the intended sense.
The amendment makes it clear that there is an absolute obligation on the registrar to publish the annual report and, as a separate issue, that he has the discretion to decide how that publication should be done. This would enable the registrar, as now, to publish hard copies of the report and to place it on the website, or to use some alternative method of publication that might become available in the future.
I believe that the English in the clause is now as clear as it can be and I hope that noble Lords will accept the amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 8 [Indemnities]:
[Amendment No. 97 not moved.]
Clause 108 [Functions in relation to disputes]:
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 98:
Page 38, line 41, after "unconscionable" insert "because of an equity by estoppel"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment has already been spoken to. I beg to move.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 98 and 99 as I do not recall that the Minister referred specifically to them. I thought that he referred to Amendments Nos. 91 and 92.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, they were in the same group. I did not give as much detail as I normally would in view of the hour.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I appreciate the Minister's position. However, I wished to respond to Amendments Nos. 98 and 99. We feel with regret that those amendments are wrong in principle and that the Bill should remain unchanged.
As the Bill is drafted one of the three sets of circumstances in which an adverse possessor will be entitled to be registered despite opposition by the registered proprietor will be where it is unconscionable of the proprietor to dispossess him (with power for the adjudicator or the court to award the possessor something less than full ownership if that is appropriate in a particular case). "Unconscionable" is not qualified; the possessor can rely on anything which, on established principles of equity, make it against conscience to turn him out.
The amendment seeks to change this by restricting the adverse possessor's right to be registered to a situation in which it is unconscionable to dispossess him because of an equity by estoppel; that is, typically, a situation where the possessor has acted in some way to his detriment in reliance on the proprietor's encouragement or acquiescence. That is the only situation considered in the Law Commission/Land Registry report (in paragraphs 14.36 to 14.42) and there is no discussion of whether a proprietor's claim
1384
should be defeated because it would be unconscionable for some other reason to dispossess an occupier. It may not have been appreciated that such a situation could arise.
But in fact an equity by estoppel is not by any means the only basis on which it may be unconscionable, in the context of the regime proposed in the Bill, for a proprietor to dispossess someone whose possession is technically adverse. It could happen that the possessor and his predecessors have been on the land for many years—the scheme of the system in the Bill is that the proprietor does not have to take action with any fixed limitation period—and when a question of his right to be there arises, there is simply no record and no evidence of how the situation arose, for example, if both the original possessor and the original proprietor who let him in have died.
Under the system in the Bill there will be no applicable statute of limitations, so if the question was simply whether it was unconscionable to turn the possessor out, it would be right for the court to apply established equitable principles and conclude that it was unconscionable to do so where the proprietor had delayed so long that the possessor could no longer produce relevant evidence and could not show whether the original occupier had in fact had an equity by estoppel, or indeed whether he had agreed to buy the land and had paid for it. Under the Government's proposed amendments such a possessor will be turned out, even if there is evidence that the original proprietor's successor had said, "I do not know on what basis the occupier is there, but if I wait until after he has died I shall have a better chance of getting the land back because his successor will probably not know either and will be unable to discharge the burden of proving that there is an equity by estoppel".
The Government's amendments ask your Lordships' House (and, if they are accepted, will require the courts) positively to sanction unconscionable claims if they do not fall within the particular category of equity by estoppel. That is wrong.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the Law Commission report which led to the Bill made it clear that the exception that the noble Baroness mentioned arose because of an equity by estoppel, for example, where a squatter has built on a registered proprietor's land in the mistaken belief that he or she owns it and the proprietor has knowingly acquiesced in that mistake. The squatter eventually discovers the true facts and applies to be registered after 10 years. It has, however, become clear that the exception could cover the doctrine of laches; that is, very briefly and in simplified form, the doctrine that the court will not allow the enforcement of an equitable right where the person relying upon it has unreasonably delayed in asserting that right.
Under the Bill adverse possession in respect of registered land for however long is never in itself sufficient. If there was an exception which meant that a squatter could use the doctrine of laches to defeat a registered proprietor's objection, that principle would

1385
be severely undermined. Accordingly, Amendment No. 99 will put the point beyond question by making it clear that the only unconscionability covered by the exception is because of an equity by estoppel. Amendments Nos. 93 and 98 follow on from that amendment.
I understand the unhappiness that the noble Baroness has expressed about the government amendments, but we are seeking to clarify the issue and we draw very much on the advice and guidance provided in the Law Commission report.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 109 [Appeals]:
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 99:
Page 39, line 9, after "unconscionable" insert "because of an equity by estoppel"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 116 [Power to reduce qualifying term]:
[Amendment No. 100 not moved.]
Baroness Scotland of Asthal Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No. 101:
After Clause 119, insert the following new clause—
"REPEAL. OF LAND REGISTRY ACT 1862
(1) The Land Registry Act 1862 shall cease to have effect.
(2) The registrar shall have custody of records of title made under that Act.
(3) The registrar may discharge his duty under subsection (2) by keeping the relevant information in electronic form.
(4) The registrar may on application provide a copy of any information included in a record of title made under that Act.
(5) Rules may make provision about applications for the exercise of the power conferred by subsection (4)."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 101 and 121 both relate to the repeal of the Land Registry Act 1862. I shall therefore deal with them together.
At first blush, the amendments may look like a radical addition to the Bill, but the repeal will have little or no practical effect for conveyancers and land owners, particularly those with an interest in land that is subject to registration under the 1862 Act. However, it will tidy up the statute book by removing a provision that is now otiose and will also remove a purposeless complication in the Land Registry's internal procedures.
The current land registration system originated in 1875 with the Land Transfer Act of that year. However, there was an earlier, unsuccessful attempt to set up a registration system in 1862. When the current system was introduced, the 1862 registers, which numbered several thousand, were frozen, although there was provision for them to be converted to the modern system. Today there are several hundred registers remaining. However, they are no longer of any use to the conveyancing process for land subject to them. It is for any practical purpose impossible to reconcile the ownership of the land back in 1875 with modern title deeds showing ownership during the past 15 years. I can therefore assure your Lordships that the
1386
repeal of the 1862 Act will not prejudice the persons who were registered as owners on those records, nor those whose rights were recorded as burdening the land.
The 1862 Act registers were private and entries on them did not constitute notice to a buyer of the land. Any burdens recorded on those records must bind, the land independently of that registration and would therefore be picked up using modern conveyancing procedures. Additionally, any land ownership rights recorded on the 1862 Act registers that are at odds with the modern title deeds would have been effectively lost as a result of the application of the principles of adverse possession.
However, the records are of significant historic interest. Therefore, while repealing the 1862 Act, the amendments also allow For the registrar to keep the registers as part of the registry's historic records and to provide copies of them to members of the public on application. We are seeking to combine the complete replacement of all past land registration legislation with the preservation of the valuable historic records. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, will not weep at their disposal. I therefore commend the amendments to the House as a minor, but valuable, piece of law reform. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am a little suspicious of the Government on this. If the issue was so simple, why was it not dealt with when the Bill was published? If the 1862 Act is otiose, there seems to be a lacuna within the Government—or perhaps even incompetence—in not including the provision earlier. They all knew the result of the 1862 Act.
The noble Baroness kindly wrote to those of us who are interested in the matter before Report. I have a couple of points arising from her letter. I do not expect an answer now, but I should like her to write to me before Third Reading. She wrote that the registers do not confer any tangible benefits on the registered owner. What about any intangible benefits that there might be? At the end of her third paragraph she says that the registrar will not retain any other responsibilities regarding the 1862 Act regime. What responsibilities will be lost?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I am happy to do that, but I can reassure your Lordships that the problem was not incompetence on our part but frightening efficiency. (I am glad that approval for that is recorded by amusement in the House.) We want to clear everything. Everything that can be done at this stage should be done to put things in proper order. I had rather suspected that some may weep at losing the antiquity, but I hoped that there would be rejoicing at our efficiency.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 10 [Miscellaneous and general powers]:
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 102:
Page 66, line 27, leave out pa ragraph 3.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I shall endeavour to be brief. In the usual conveyance a number of covenants for title are implied. These are important covenants because in them the vendor gives warranties as regards his or her power to convey and as to the quiet enjoyment of the property that can be expected by the purchaser.
The precise wording of these covenants has developed over the centuries. They are now set out in Section 77 of the Law of Property Act 1925 and Part 1 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1994. They have stood the test of time and many lawyers over the centuries. As far as we are aware, there is no need to tinker with them. However, the rule-making power in paragraph 3 of Schedule 10 will allow someone—we know not who—to interfere with these covenants in some way, although we know not how or why.
We should therefore be grateful if the Minister could enlighten us by telling us what rules are proposed, what they will do and why there is any need to do anything. I beg to move.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, in order to respond fully to the concerns raised by the amendment, I shall first briefly try to explain the general purpose behind the use of implied covenants in the conveyancing process and address the way in which the land registration system currently deals with them.
An obligation to deduce title to land in accordance with a contract of sale comes to an end on completion of the sale. Establishing that there has been a breach of implied covenants for title is the only way in which a transferee can seek a remedy for defects in title that emerge after completion.
Covenants for title have been implied since the Conveyancing Act 1881 by the use of certain words in a conveyance, although the parties can expressly agree to modify the terms of the covenant.
Rule 77A(2) of the Land Registration Rules 1925 currently provides that a person will not be liable for breach of most implied covenants in respect of matters set out on the register of title. The Bill addresses this issue by inserting a new subsection into Section 6 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1994. This insertion does not exactly replicate the existing law, but the law is made clearer, more coherent and more accessible as a result.
The rule-making powers contained in Schedule 10 are fairly limited in scope but important nevertheless. First, rules may be made about the form of any provision in a registrable disposition that modifies covenants implied by Part 1 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1994. There are already rules under the existing legislation that achieve that end.
1388
Secondly, a power is given to make provision about the application of Section 77 of the Law of Property Act 1925. That section relates to implied covenants on a conveyance of land subject to a rent charge. Although many rent charges will he phased out in 2037 and there are only limited circumstances in which new ones can be created, rules can be made to enable the implication of the covenants to be modified or excluded.
Lastly, rules may provide for how implied covenants are recorded on the register and whether they are to be recorded there. Provision may also be made for the register to be conclusive as to whether or not such covenants have been implied.
These rule-making powers are important. They are designed to ensure that everyone knows when implied covenants have been given in relation to a transaction and whether the statutory form of the covenant has been modified in any way. For that reason, the rule-making powers should remain as part of the Bill. Accordingly, I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her very full and reassuring response. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 103 not moved.]
8.30 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 104:
Page 67, line 30, leave out "may".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is merely a tidying-up amendment. It removes the first word of paragraph 6(e), which is surplus to requirements. I ask your Lordships to accept the amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 124 [Exercise of powers]:
[Amendment No. 105 not moved.]
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 106:
Page 42, line 18, after "Conveyancers, insert—
"( ) a person nominated by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors,
( ) a person with experience in, and knowledge of, consumer affairs,".
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 125 [Rules, regulations and orders]:
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 107:
Page 42, line 31, leave out paragraphs (a) to (d) and insert—

"(a) regulations under section 99(2), or

(b) an order under section 99(3), 101 or 111,".

On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 108 not moved.]
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 109:
Page 42, line 37, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert—

"(a) land registration rules,

(b) rules under Part 11 or section 119,

(c) regulations under paragraph 5 of Schedule 9, or

(d) an order under section 5(1), 62(9), 80(4), 116(1) or 127,".

On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 110 not moved.]
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 111:
Page 43, line 2, at end insert—
"(5) Rules under section 93 or paragraph I, 2 or 3 of Schedule 5 shall not be made unless a draft of the rules has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.".
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 129 [General interpretation]:
[Amendment No. 112 not moved.]
Schedule 11 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 113:
Page 68, line 27, at end insert—
"( ) In section 87, at the end there is inserted—
"(4) Subsection (1) of this section shall not be taken to be affected by section 23(1)(a) of the Land Registration Act 2001 (under which owner's powers in relation to a registered estate do not include power to mortgage by demise or sub-demise).""
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 12 [Transition]:
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 114:
Page 79, line 24, leave out from first "cautions" to end of line and insert "against dealings lodged under that Act".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, again, these are tidying amendments to Schedule 12, which deals with transitional arrangements. I do not believe that the amendments will be controversial. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendments Nos. 115 to 118:
Page 79, line 25, after "cautions" insert "against dealings".
Page 79, line 25, leave out "in the register".
Page 79, line 26, leave out "section 54 of".
Page 79, leave out lines 36 to 38 and insert "against first registration lodged under that Act, or any enactment replaced (directly or indirectly) by that Act.".
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 119 not moved.]
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 120:
Page 82, line 6, leave out "this section" and insert "that Schedule".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a drafting correction. I am sure that your Lordships will be very grateful for that. I ask noble Lords to accept the amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 13 [Repeals]:
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 121:
Page 83, line 11, at end insert—

"The Land Registry Act 1862 c. 53.

The whole Act."

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Ballistic Missiles
8.36 p.m.
Lord Grocott: My Lords, as consideration of the Report stage of the Land Registration Bill is now complete, this evening's Unstarred Question on whether an assessment of the threat from ballistic missiles has been carried out is no longer restricted to the one hour available for such dinner-break business. Instead, a limit of one-and-a-half hours will apply. This change increases the maximum time available for all speakers to 12 minutes.
Lord Archer of Sandwell Lord Archer of Sandwell rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have carried out an assessment of the threat from ballistic missiles and how best to counter it.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I am most grateful to noble Lords who have set down their names to speak in this debate and who fasted so patiently while the business of the House pursued its course.
I set down this Question before the House rose for the Summer Recess. The concerns which then weighed on the minds of many of us, are still present and are still relevant. But they have been emphasised and augmented by the tragic events which have intervened.
I am well aware that I may be accused of teaching my grandmother. I propose to say little or nothing which has not already been said by many Americans. But it is the privilege and the duty of friends to tender frank advice, and I want to invite the United Kingdom Government to consider how best we can discharge that function.
Traditionally, the concept of defence has focused on the threat to a nation state from another nation state. It came from large countries with substantial resources and advanced technologies. I am grateful to Dr Stephen Pullinger of ISIS for pointing out that in September 1999 the United States National Intelligence Council, in an assessment of threats from ballistic missiles, looked at Russia, China, North Korea, Iran and, rather more cursorily, Iraq.
Even at that time this Cold War mindset presented a distorted picture. Certainly the wars in which this country has been engaged since World War II have been Korea, the Congo, the Falklands, the Gulf and

1391
Kosovo. The threats were less from major wars between heavyweights than from regional disputes fought to contain local acts of aggression. Resources devoted to intercontinental missiles paid fewer dividends than battlefield weapons.
But eyes were usually on distant horizons, and the discussion was of clashes between great powers. It was in that context that Star Wars and Son of Star Wars were conceived. There were then those who suggested that 8.3 billion dollars could be better spent, even within a military budget.
But there was a still more worrying concern—the destabilising effect on international relations. I have never been sold on the argument that weapons of mass destruction help to maintain peace because everyone knows that, if they are used, they are likely to attract massive retaliation. That doctrine came to be called "mutual assured destruction", and it was known by its wholly appropriate acronym. It rests on a very doubtful premise; namely, that everyone will always behave rationally and that global affairs are in the safe hands of diplomats, such as those in our own dear FCO, and of Presidents and Prime Ministers, such as ours. Anyone who has lived through the past few years could quote a dozen counter-examples.
I am certainly not suggesting that stability is best ensured by mutual threats. However, as is so often the case, the perception was probably more important than the reality. While the major powers believed that the balance of power was important, they were content to maintain it. When the United States Government announced that their objective was to render themselves immune from attack by ballistic missiles, while their potential enemies had no such immunity, it was seen not as a defensive measure but as a threat to tilt the balance of power.
Even that was not the end of the matter. One essential pillar for maintaining peace is to establish trust between nations. Fundamental to that is the observance of treaty obligations. What has been proposed would be in clear breach of the ABM Treaty. President Bush declared at a press conference as late as 11th October that the treaty was, "outmoded and outdated". However that may be, the proper response cannot be to denounce it unilaterally or even to offer negotiations with a threat to denounce it in the absence of agreement.
The immediate reaction from Russia and China was predictable—a counter-threat to escalate an arms build-up. Many voices in America pointed out that if the purpose was to protect the American people from long-range missiles, there were better ways of achieving that than by provoking another arms race.
Yet another factor was pointed out by the more percipient. The technology is very much at the exploration stage. When I last inquired, there had been three tests of a ground-launched interceptor, two of which had missed their target. It is not easy to hit an object that is six feet by 18 inches and which is travelling at 15,000 miles an hour. So far as I am aware, tests on sea-based mid-course interceptors have not even begun.
To complicate the picture further, someone who really is bent on launching ballistic missiles at the United States is unlikely to launch just one. In addition to those carrying warheads, they could dispatch numerous decoys to confuse the defences. Surely the primary objective should be not to erect a somewhat leaky safety net against ballistic missiles but to ensure, so far as possible, that they are not launched.
All of that was in the minds of many of us when I tabled this Unstarred Question. Then came 11th September, and now we are in a different era. Some of the things that we were saying have been demonstrated so tragically that even those who are devoid of imagination can read the signs. Threats no longer come solely from large nation states. As Arthur Schlesinger, Jr, said in The Times on 15th September:
"If the national missile defence were technologically feasible, and if it were already in place, it would have done absolutely nothing to protect the nation against this horror".
There may well be rogue states and deranged terrorists, but they are unlikely to choose intercontinental missiles to deliver their evil burden because, as the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee recently pointed out, that method would clearly advertise their origin and perpetrators. The 8.3 billion dollars would be better spent on airport security.
The argument goes further than that. Governments of powerful states do not usually need to practise terrorism. What gives rise to terrorism is an asymmetrical situation, in which one side cannot compete on the conventional battlefield. An arms race in which one side has a clear advantage is a perfect breeding ground for terrorism.
There is yet a further lesson. The United States is a great power. It was the lion that could stalk its prey and was immune to threats from other predators. The whole Star Wars saga was designed to complete that immunity. The lion walked by itself and felt little need for allies.
That situation has been transformed. The United States feels the need to gather an alliance and to hold it together. It is looking for friends. It is foremost in calling for a world that is united against terrorism. Isolationism is no longer an option. We all inhabit the same world and every day brings fresh evidence that that entails a world that recognises a legal order and in which all countries play their part in enforcing it.
The need is now obvious to all who have eyes to see. There could be no better time than now at which to initiate negotiations for a longer-term regime that could co-ordinate and legitimise a response to such outrages. It could even embrace the problems of ballistic missiles. This is an ideal time for proceeding by negotiation. I know that the United Kingdom Government have engaged in some commendable spadework on a wide front. This is the time when we might hope that America will lead the world in addressing what are clearly going to be the problems and opportunities of the present and future rather than of the past.
I have not made a point that was not made more succinctly but more clearly by an American Senator on 1st May. That Senator was Senator Thomas Daschle, who has since become the Leader of the Senate.
I am not so naïve as to ask my noble friend what answer the British Government would give to a request by America for facilities in support of anti-missile defence. It is wise to wait until such a request is made, if indeed it is but I hope that it will not embarrass my noble friend or the Government to indicate how they assess the threat from ballistic missiles and how they view the possible responses. I am aware that, as with most political questions, there are not simply two stark possibilities: to be or not to be. There is room for discussion and negotiation, for proceeding a step or two and reviewing the position.
I hear that at a recent meeting President Bush and Mr Putin reached a provisional understanding that they might negotiate amendments to the ABM Treaty, which would permit some further tests, on the understanding that the United States would not then proceed to unilateral abrogation.
There might be systems of localised missile defence that would not be seen by Russia and China as a threat. This is not the moment at which to advocate confrontation. The British Government, precisely because they have proved to be a friend of the United States, may be able to exercise the privilege and the duty of a friend: to caution against actions that their allies see as being ill advised and which hold as many dangers for America as for the rest of the world.
8.47 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford: My Lords, at the height of the Cold. War, the most convinced defenders of a policy of nuclear deterrence were at the same time the most convinced opponents of a space defence initiative—Star Wars in particular, which was launched by President Reagan in 1983. There were several reasons for that. First, it was believed that nuclear deterrence was essentially stable—there was in effect a nuclear stalemate. For the first time in human history, it could not possibly have been in the interests of any one superpower to go to war with another superpower.
Secondly, and against that background, it was judged that SDI was essentially destabilising. It might tempt a side that had a missile shield to launch an attack on another side, and that other side, fearing that attack, might try to get in its retaliation first. The situation was destabilising—it set up a great deal of insecurity in what was previously believed to be a secure system of deterrence.
Thirdly, it was pointed out that no missile shield could be secure because even if two or three nuclear missiles got through, the effect would have been totally devastating. At that time, I shared those views. We live in a very different world now. There is only one superpower and there are rogue states. After 11th September, we are all much more vulnerable and need to consider carefully what makes for true security. We are all grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord
1394
Archer, for this Unstarred Question because we need to think seriously about the possibility of defence against ballistic missiles.
Like the noble Lord, I have major doubts. The ABM treaty was a significant achievement and perhaps it could be renegotiated. Nevertheless, that was a confidence-building measure and we would need to think seriously before trying to renegotiate it.
What is the effect of missile defence on countries such as Russia and China? One expert has said that on any view, NMD—national missile defence—will darken relations with China.
The cost of NMD so far has been $60 billion and another $60 billion would have to be spent to deploy it. In a world in which 500 million people are still living below starvation level, that money could be put to much greater use.
There is much talk of rogue states—and perhaps this goes to the heart of the matter. What is meant by that phrase? Is a rogue state one with just an unpleasant government or one that does not care about the penalties that its activities draw? A rogue state in the second sense is what really matters. Sir Michael Quinlan, Permanent Under-Secretary of State for Defence from 1988 to 1992, has written:
"Given the enormous power and worldwide reach of the United States, the case for NMD needs to rest centrally on the second sense; but there is no real-life example. North Korea (at least until recently) and Iraq may amply qualify in the first sense; but what likelihood is there that they or anyone else qualifies in the second? Their most salient characteristic is the ruthless resolve of their leaderships to stay in power. Saddam Hussein and his like will know that a nuclear, biological or chemical-weapon attack on the homeland of the United States, by the unconcealable delivery route of inter-continental ballistic missiles rat her than any other possible method, would prompt a response which they could not hope to survive".
Even in relation to rogue states with extremely unpleasant governments, deterrence is still an operative factor.
We ought to rethink the whole issue. Those of us who were shaped by the thinking of the 1980s and 1990s need to look again at the world. The case for national missile defence has still not been made out. For the reasons I have suggested, there are serious arguments against it.
8.53 pm
Lord Judd: My Lords, I should declare an interest as Senior Fellow of the independent charitable think tank on security issues, Safer World. I thank my noble and learned friend Lord Archer of Sandwell for introducing this important debate. He put the case so well that all the rest of us can do is emphasise some of his points and endorse some of his questions.
Any role for the United Kingdom in a US-led missile defence system could have immense public expenditure implications and far-reaching implications for other defence priorities established as a result of the last defence review. That is not necessarily a bad thing but a reality that must be honestly faced—not swept under the carpet or regarded as a marginal adjustment.

1395
The relevance of a project of such significance has to be assessed against hard-headed, convincing analysis of the threats that confront us now and will do so in the foreseeable future. Not least when answering Oral Questions in another place on 24th October, the Prime Minister has made it increasingly clear that he is well-disposed to the American proposals. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will tell us more about the thinking that led the Prime Minister to that position.
Surely 11th September has brought home to us all the prospect of the asymmetric warfare to which my noble and learned friend Lord Archer referred. There are many ways in which to kill thousands of civilians without deploying ballistic missiles. Our opponents will not necessarily choose the weapons that we want or expect them to use. They will choose the weapons they want. In fairness, it must be acknowledged that most proponents of national missile defence argue that it is necessary to prepare against all possible threats. However, serious opportunity cost issues are at stake. By concentrating vast resources on meeting one particular potential threat, there is a danger that the essential defence budget will be distorted—paradoxically placing us at greater risk. I emphasise that that is not to say that existing expenditure patterns should be regarded as cast in stone. Certainly not. Those patterns should constantly be under review in light of changing circumstances—11th September tragically brought that home to us all.
How much is NMD a priority and why? If it is a priority, how much of a priority is it against other essentials? We need urgently to know far more about the detailed rationale before—as so often happens in defence matters—a self-generating momentum is allowed to develop. We need to be convinced also that NMD will work. Are the Government convinced? If so, what has convinced them? Many people with real professional authority argue that the system is not proven, is unlikely ever to be 100 per cent successful and is certainly fallible. Is it not possible that the resources devoted to NMD would be better deployed on other measures against the proliferation of hostile missile capability?
I suggest that 11th September should have left us in no doubt that the only effective ways of tackling global challenges are collective action and multilateral agreements. Were the US to insist on proceeding with missile defence, it should do so in a way that takes into account the genuine concerns of other major players—not least Russia and China. It is vital that Russia and China should be active, willing and co-operative participants in anti-proliferation action.
We need Russia and China to stop and prevent the sale of military materials and weaponry to unreliable customers. Were precipitate steps to be taken by the United States overriding Russian and Chinese concerns, the consequences might be a disinclination or a refusal on the part of those countries to co-operate in other critical areas. There are indications that as soon as their meeting in mid-November, President Bush and Mr. Putin may reach some agreement on amending the ABM treaty—which we know President
1396
Bush regards as an outdated hangover from the Cold War that prevents him preparing for the new threats which preoccupy him. But should they not reach agreement, the United States made plain that she will go it alone.
As the friends and allies that my noble and learned friend emphasised we are, and I take second place to no one in my commitment to that friendship and alliance, we have to say without equivocation, that that could have grave consequences for the whole future of collective security beyond the issue of missile defence alone. At the very time when we need to be building the international commitment which is indispensable for collective security to work, it would be setting a disastrous precedent whereby parties felt able to walk away from international treaties and obligations when they believed the arrangements no longer suited them. The prospects for nuclear, biological and chemical non-proliferation would become dire.
That is why I hope that my noble friend the Minister will today be able to reassure us that the United Kingdom is doing everything possible to encourage the United States to reach agreement with Russia and, indeed, China.
But all that is second order. The first order issue, which I hope my noble friend will today fully address, is why the Government believe a missile defence system to be an essential additional element in our anti-proliferation commitment, and one in which we must play our part whatever the cost. My noble friend the Minister will be aware that cynics have argued that the origins of this system have far more to do with US defence industry and corporate priorities than they have with an objective assessment of the real threats. My noble friend's comments on that assertion will be extremely important.
However, perhaps the most crucial questions of all are precisely what the Government see our role as being in any such system and whether we shall not anyway be involved should the United States decide unilaterally to go ahead because of the nature of the United State's facilities already situated in the United Kingdom.
9.2 p.m.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, I too thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, for initiating this important debate, though he will not be surprised to hear that I shall not be following him in his line of argument about missile defence.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Judd, I too must declare an interest in that I am chairman of the Missile Proliferation Study Group, which has been looking at this problem for many years. The group recently published a report called Coming into Range, demonstrating the dangers to this country that can be posed by those in possession of ballistic missiles and the mass destruction that can be delivered by them.
Doubt has been expressed, especially by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, about the reality of the threat. All one can say—I take into account what the right

1397
reverend Prelate said about rogue states—is that there are now 13,000 ballistic missiles in existence. They do not belong to the few countries mentioned by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer; they are in the possession of 37 different states throughout the world. That in itself' is a potential threat.
One of the most obvious examples of the threat is not this wild talk about attacks on the United Kingdom or the United States. Above all, we have to fear attacks upon our Armed Forces when they are engaged in operations outside the United Kingdom; in other words, expeditionary forces. Most of the defence policy in this country is based upon the expeditionary force concept. The whole question of the European Security and Defence Initiative is based upon an expeditionary force concept.
Noble Lords should ask themselves whether they would be happy to send British forces to confront a country armed with ballistic missiles without any defence against them except the possibility of deterrence. The right reverend Prelate mentioned the possibility that no country delivering ballistic missiles could feel safe from retaliation. I cannot imagine anyone developing an argument on the premise that if Sadclam Hussein attacked or threatened to attack the West with ballistic missiles, the United States or anyone in the western world would threaten to retaliate with nuclear weapons. There would be no massive retaliation, and no country could possibly believe that there could be. It is upon that fact that the argument for ballistic missile defence rests.
The whole concept of deterrence, as the right reverend Prelate said, has gone. Deterrence was a useful concept when there were two major powers facing each other, each with nuclear arsenals capable of devastating each other. It is from that that was developed the idea which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, mentioned of mutual assured destruction: that neither side would attack the other because they knew that retaliation would be instant and massive and therefore not worth it.
But we must get out of that Cold War time warp. We are no longer living in the world of balance of power between two great nuclear states. We are living in a totally different world in which the threat is different. This is no longer the threat from another superpower; it is a threat from what have sometimes been called "rogue states", but they are not necessarily "rogue" states. Any country which believes, for example, that the United States and everything about it should be destroyed—me now know that many countries believe that—is possibly one of the threats to the security of the West, and incidentally to this country.
Opponents of missile defence home in on the ABM Treaty as a cornerstone of international security. It is nothing of the kind. The ABM Treaty was a treaty between two superpowers. It was designed to ensure that Russia and America—which incidentally were the only signatories to the treaty—were each vulnerable to the nuclear power of the other. That is what mutual assured destruction was and what the ABM Treaty is for. It is not for any other purpose. That is why
1398
President Bush says that it is a relic of the Cold War, which it is. It serves no other purpose. For those who are against nuclear missiles to talk about it as the cornerstone of international stability beggars belief.
A point needs to be borne in mind. I believe it was the noble Lord, Lord Judd—forgive me if I am wrong—who said that the Americans could not unilaterally abrogate the ABM Treaty. That is not true. The treaty provides that either side can withdraw unilaterally giving six months' notice.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I said that it would set a dangerous precedent whereby when such arrangements existed, if one party became unhappy with them, it would feel able to walk away rather than negotiate a new situation.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. However, that does not alter the argument. As he will know, President Bush has recently negotiated with President Putin about this matter. They have gone a long way towards agreeing amendments to the treaty which would allow development and testing of a missile system. However, it is worth bearing in mind that if agreement cannot be arrived at, both sides are perfectly entitled, giving six months' notice, to withdraw unilaterally from the treaty. Let us be in no doubt. That is what the Americans will do. We may have all sorts of idealistic thoughts about what they should do, but they will do what is in their interests. If it is in their interests not to arrive at a treaty agreement with the Russians, it is in their interests to withdraw unilaterally, and they will do so.
One other argument has arisen today which always arises when this subject is being discussed. It is what I call the "suitcase bomb argument"; in other words, the theory that because there are other ways of delivering nuclear weapons or weapons of mass destruction, we should not defend ourselves against ballistic missiles, which is one way of delivering them. I hope that noble Lords will realise that what happened on 11th September is not an argument against ballistic missile defence but a strong argument in favour of it. It shows that people who want to do damage to the United States or to the West will use any means at their disposal.
On 11th September civilian aircraft were used as cruise missiles. That is one way of doing it; ballistic missiles are another. We should have learnt from 11th September that those who want to cause damage to our interests in the United States and in this country will use any method at their disposal. If they think that ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads, biological warheads or Anthrax are the right way to do it, that is what they will use. It is my contention that we should be prepared to defend ourselves against that kind of threat as well as any other.
As the right reverend Prelate stated, there is a need for the matter to be thought through again. We must take this whole subject seriously. We must not dismiss the project of missile defence, as the noble Lord, Lord Judd, has rather unjustly done, as being motivated by

1399
the famous old military-industrial complex. I have been involved in missile defence since 1983. I was first introduced to it in the White House by President Reagan when he was developing his Strategic Defence Initiative.
Throughout the whole of that period my impression has been that the American insistence upon missile defence was not only defence oriented but based on what I believe to be a strong argument. It is better to spend millions of dollars and years of development and research, if that is what is needed, if, instead of threatening to wipe out your opponent with massive retaliation and to incinerate his civilian population, a way can be found of defending yourself against him. I have always been strongly moved by that argument. I was moved by it when it was first put by President Reagan in 1983. Those who want to stick to the old idea of massive retaliation and mutual assured destruction are living in a Cold War time warp from which we should all try to extricate ourselves.
I have come to the end of the extended period allowed for speeches. I conclude by saying one thing which needs stating. Whatever we in this House may say, there will be an American missile defence system. Their programme of tests is going reasonably well. The last test out of three was successful, although it is true to say that the other two were not. The Americans will continue with this, however much it costs and for as long as it takes. We should bear that in mind when we are considering what we want to do about it.
I believe that at present the Government are taking a wise and prudent line. There is no need for us to answer questions, about Fylingdales for example, until they are asked. But as the right reverend Prelate said, we must think very deeply about the whole issue. First, we must recognise that the threat exists. It cannot be talked away. I do not think that we should pay too much attention to stories about the failure of the American test programme. It has been successful. However much it costs the Americans, they will go ahead with it. We should take that as one of our assumptions in deciding what we in this country need to do.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Chesterton: My Lords, I am grateful for this opportunity to speak in the gap. I want to follow up the contributions of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford and the noble Lord, Lord Judd.
It is relevant to this important debate on the response to the threat of ballistic missiles that we consider whether these issues should be discussed nationally and internationally in a different way, using an open international framework and quantitative and more objective methods such as are now common for describing and predicting natural and social phenomena as varied as climate change, spread of disease and fluctuation in economies. Various methods of mathematical modelling based on appropriate data have been and are being used by most
1400
advanced defence agencies. Some approaches are based on the statistics and psychology of game theory; others are based on analogies to biological and physical complex systems. There have been some interesting insights from previous modelling about the arms race and how wars began.
Those methods and data are published and discussed openly to only a limited extent. I have organised open academic meetings with the Ministry of Defence and the Institute of Mathematics. But in general there is insufficient international discussion about these studies. Without some open discussion government defence policy in the UK and US will not have the wide support it needs.
I strongly urge the UK Government, MoD and UN disarmament agencies to work much harder, at least as hard as the United States, to help formulate a common framework which all the major armed countries of the world can agree—we have just heard about the 37 or more with missiles—for example, about detection, accuracy and disarmament methods; and then to begin to find solutions in a more common language. The cultural and political language of diplomacy, such as "rogue states" is a vivid form of communication but, I suggest, is not likely to lead to a great deal of international understanding. We have seen that more objective methods apply in some of the other areas of social and natural phenomena so why not to disarmament and ballistic missiles as well?
9.18 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, the Unstarred Question asks Her Majesty's Government whether they have carried out an assessment of the threat from ballistic missiles and how best to counter it. The Question is not whether we think that the Americans are going ahead anyway and, if so, what we should do, or a number of other questions which have been introduced into the debate. I agree with half of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, and disagree quite strongly with the other half.
The ABM treaty is a relic of the Cold War. So is NATO. We do not want to get rid of NATO. There are those who think that there are relics of the Cold War that can still turn out to be useful. I find that argument extremely weak. Much that was achieved in arms control in the course of the 1960s and 1970s remains valid, including the exclusion of weapons from space. Part of the ideological rise in the United States is an argument that they want to bust all those arms control treaties, including the introduction of weapons into space. That seems very dangerous and the British Government should be standing up against it.
The Question asks Her Majesty's Government whether they have made an assessment of the threat. There is a potential threat. I hope that the Government are assessing it and conducting some research. However, I hope that the Government also recognise that it is one of a large number of potential threats that we face rather than the dominant threat. There are other forms of weapons delivery. NATO has suffered missile attacks. Many noble Lords will remember that

1401
on one occasion the Libyans fired a missile at Larnpedusa. It was not a ballistic missile. It was a short-range missile.
If our forces were in theatre on the ground, intercontinental ballistic missiles would not be needed to have a go at them; Cruise missiles would do just as well. I trust that the Government are considering the range of threats that we face, a range both of means of delivery—including non-conventional means of delivery such as we have just seen in the case of the towers of the World Trade Centre—and of forms of weapon.
The range of responses to new potential threats is wide, and the military response is only one. During the past 30 to 40 years, we have done well by negotiating away some potential threats, such as use of weapons in space. We have also had the chemical and biological weapons conventions, the anti-ballistic missile treaty itself and the various arms control treaties, which have reduced the number of ballistic missiles in the US and Soviet inventories. Those are all diplomatic and legal means of containing potential new threats. We must continue diplomatic approaches, including those to encourage regimes to change—either by sanctions or by forms of engagement.
I am doubtful about the concept of rogue states. This summer I was reading a book about the Rumsfeld programme for military reform in the United States that says bluntly that the concept of rogue states was invented by Colin Powell in 1990–91, when US chief of general staff, as a means to justify continuing spending a substantial amount on the American military. One needed a new threat. I would love to have chapter and verse on that; it sounds horribly plausible.
The label "rogue state" was then stuck on several states that could be said to be threats to the continental United States—none of which so far have missiles capable of hitting the continental United States. North Korea, on a good day, can manage to reach Japan, but certainly not yet all the way across the Pacific. We saw that the Iraqis could manage a pretty bad shot at Israel, but not much beyond that, as far as we are aware. Iraq and Korea fit the category of states that live outside international society, in a sense, and are intent on opposing the concepts of that society. In my opinion, Iran no longer fits that category; Libya is in some ways moving out of it. So the label of rogue states is an easy one. It covers a range of peculiar countries, not all of which are similar.
During the past few years, we have suffered from the over-dependence of American foreign policy on military responses to threats and problems, as opposed to the alternative of broader, multilateral diplomatic or economic engagement.
Massive investment in an anti-ballistic missile system is not justified by the current state of development of ballistic missiles by potentially hostile states—certainly not in the time scale suggested by the Republican Right and think tanks in Washington. There is no prospect that within the next five years any hostile state will be able to hit the continental United
1402
States, or, for that matter, that any hostile state will be able directly to hit Britain. Research and assessment are justified, not massive investment.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and others, that a strong military lobby in the United States, allied with a Pentagon that is obsessed with hardware and technical fixes, is locked into missile defence as the next great new project. On Monday, I listened to General Wesley Clark talking about the obsession of the United States Air Force with hardware, as opposed to occupying the ground or using conflict resolution. That American general spoke with tremendous passion against his own armed forces. I share all those views.
One talks about whether the Americans intend to go ahead with the project, but it is not in their interests to do so. It is an ideological commitment of a particular group within the United States and of a number of companies, but I doubt whether there will be an American system. The United States is heading into recession and the Democrats may well have control of both Houses of Congress after the next mid-term elections. At that point, the whole commitment to Star Wars may begin to change.
Her Majesty's Government should be conducting an assessment—I hope that the Minister will tell us that—but major departures by the United States or its allies are not currently justified; nor is major expenditure. I invite the Government to consider whether they want to report to Parliament in written form on how they see the potential threats.
9.26 p.m.
Lord Vivian: My Lords, this has been an interesting and thought-provoking debate. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, for introducing it today.
The main threat from ballistic missiles will probably arise from what are known as rogue states. A deliberate attack from Russia is no longer regarded as likely even though it holds a large arsenal of these weapons. An attack from China is also unlikely. Now about 37 countries either possess or are in the process of acquiring and developing ballistic missiles armed with weapons of mass destruction and nine hold nuclear weapons. The most significant of the so-called rogue states are North Korea, Libya, Iraq, Iran and Syria. It has been reported that during the next 15 years cities of the United States of America may well face ballistic missile attacks from North Korea, probably Iran and possibly Iraq.
From about five years all of Europe may well come into ballistic missile range from the Middle East. All these countries are developing their existing missile delivery systems by increasing their range and have stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons.
There should be no mystery about the reasons for the growth of missiles and weapons of mass destruction. Such weapons provide the most effective and reliable means of coercion and intimidation and thus constitute the most ideal weapons of terror. Some commentators have attempted to play down the

1403
problems arising form missiles claiming that Third World dictators and terrorist groups are far more likely to pursue their objectives by using human agents to deliver their deadly cargoes than to use missiles.
Indeed, "The man with the bomb in his suitcase is the real problem", has become one of the standard mantras of those opposing the development of ballistic missile defences. But to point to the existence of one problem is not to deny the existence of another similar problem. Both may exist simultaneously and ways for dealing with both will have to be found.
Nevertheless, the billions of dollars invested in such weaponry by relatively small nations strongly suggests that for many the ballistic missile is the weapon of choice, as do the elaborate schemes of deception to cover up the international traffic in missile and weapons of mass destruction components.
It is also clear that the ballistic missile has significant advantages over other delivery systems: it is cheaper than the fixed-wing aircraft, as well as easier to conceal; and it offers assured penetration, and political control over its use is more certain. The ballistic missile is also highly flexible in that it may be fired from a range of different platforms, including small sea-going vessels and submarines.
Finally, there is no doubt that in the eyes of Third World leaders, especially those who head volatile and despotic regimes, possession of these weapons confers status. It is clear that rogue states, from which may come the most likely threat, see the possession of weapons of mass destruction as an important lever in establishing a new relationship with the West. They believe that possession of these weapons will force the West to behave differently towards them, forcing it to accommodate rather than confront them.
It is clear that there is an increased risk of war between regional powers, but what chiefly distinguishes the new strategic environment is an increase in the number of states that possess nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction with the means of delivering them. Those who oppose the plans for ballistic missile defence on the grounds that it will lead to an arms race overlook the fact that it is already occurring in the Middle East, the Indian subcontinent and the Far East. Conversely, the acquisition of defences against missile attack may well have an important role in diminishing the drive to obtain ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction by reducing their military usefulness and, therefore, their values of coercion.
The USA has announced its intention to proceed with a limited missile defence capability, and without any doubt it is the only country in the West that has the technology to do so. It has been argued that the construction of a US national defence system would increase European anxieties that rogue states would consequently target America's allies, including the UK, rather than America itself. By contrast, the construction of a ballistic missile defence system which was global in scope—I emphasise those words—would
1404
protect the security interests of America's allies and thus enhance the cohesion of NATO, while contributing to international stability.
I turn to the current situation. Spain, Italy, Poland and Hungary have all made supportive statements on ballistic missile defence. At the Asia Pacific Economic Co-operation Forum in Shanghai during the weekend of 20th-21st October President Putin seemed to soften his opposition to the amendment or scrapping of the 1972 ABM treaty. He indicated that agreement might be possible.
In conclusion, the attacks of 11th September underscore the realisation that terrorists and terrorist states are not easily deterred from their horrific missions. We on these Benches believe that the Government should take a lead in building support in Europe for co-operating with the USA on the development of ballistic missile defences to counter the new threat from rogue states and terrorists equipped with weapons of mass destruction. A firmer and clearer statement of government support for the principle of missile defence than that made by the Prime Minister in the other place on 24th October would be helpful. As the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, has repeatedly pointed out, without missile defence it will be impossible to make a success of the Joint Rapid Reaction Force if faced by an enemy with ballistic missiles. Further, it will not provide protection for our own expeditionary forces, thus weakening the war-fighting and deterrence capabilities of our conventional forces.
It is for the United Kingdom to decide whether ballistic missile defence can enhance its security. It is irresponsible in the extreme to go on ignoring the opportunity to help shape and influence a debate, and ultimately a programme, on which British lives may come to depend.
9.34 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach): My Lords, in turn I thank my noble and learned friend Lord Archer of Sandwell for raising this important issue tonight. I also thank all noble Lords who have spoken from great expertise on the subject.
As the House would expect, Her Majesty's Government carry out continuous and rigorous assessments of the full range of potential threats to the United Kingdom homeland, including the threat from ballistic missiles. Our current assessment is that there is no significant threat to the UK from ballistic missiles. But I can assure the House that we continue to monitor developments closely.
I should make it clear at the outset that when we say that there is no existing threat to the UK homeland from ballistic missiles, that is not the same as saying there is no threat to UK interests. We are conscious in particular that we often deploy our Armed Forces to areas of the world where ballistic missiles are available to our potential adversaries, and where such weapons have been used before.

1405
So far as concerns the threat to the United States, that is first and foremost a matter for its administration. We have made clear that we share its concerns about the threat from ballistic missiles. We also recognise that in certain parts of the world—for example, the Korean Peninsular—it has security commitments that we do not. We also recognise that the threat to other NATO allies, closer to the states of concern and of course its deployed forces, might be more immediate than the threat to the United Kingdom. I can assure the House that we regularly discuss the threats both bilaterally with the United States and others and collectively at NATO.
A number of noble Lords have referred to 11th September and the events that so much changed our world. Those noble Lords made the quite obvious but true observation that those atrocities were carried out not using ballistic missiles. That does not mean that we should relax our vigilance to the dangers of ballistic missile proliferation. What the events of that day demonstrate is that there are those who will seek to threaten the United States, its friends and allies with whatever means are available. We accept that in the future that might include ballistic missiles.
We believe that it is important to tackle all of these potential threats with a comprehensive strategy encompassing diplomacy, arms control, export control, counter-proliferation, conflict prevention, deterrence and defensive measures. We are already working hard with our allies and partners in all of those areas But we must look to where we can do more and we must consider new elements for inclusion in what I have described as our comprehensive strategy.
Diplomacy, for example, forms a vital strand of the response to any security issue. By continuing to work closely with allies in areas of concern, by promoting international stability and by acting as a force for good, we believe that we shall be able significantly to reduce the risk from ballistic missiles not only to the United Kingdom and our deployed forces, but globally.
We are working specifically to combat missile proliferation through a range of actions. They include active engagement in preventing the supply of missile technology to programmes of concern through the missile technology control regime (the MTCR); greater counter-proliferation efforts against problem states; bilateral and multilateral efforts to urge restraint and to encourage roll-back of missile programmes; as well as wider international efforts such as the multilateral negotiation of an international code of conduct on ballistic missiles. As noble Lords will know, the MTCR is an informal non-treaty suppliers' regime made up of countries with significant missile-related technologies that have agreed to restrain the proliferation of missile systems, their components and related technology by controlling their transfer.
However, tackling missile proliferation goes much wider than technology control. But there are no international treaties dealing with the problem of missile proliferation. Over the past two years,
1406
therefore, the MTCR has been studying steps that the international community could take to address concerns about unconstrained ballistic missile proliferation. To that end, and based on an original text prepared by the United Kingdom, a draft international code of conduct, or ICOC, has now been developed. That draft will now be negotiated through an open multilateral process with a view to eventual signature during 2002. We hope that it will form the basis of a new international consensus against the destabilising spread of ballistic missiles.
As well as tackling the proliferation of missile delivery systems such as ballistic missiles, we need to target the spread of weapons of mass destruction that they could carry. Noble Lords will know that we have signed and ratified the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention and the Chemical Weapons Convention.
We also seek to minimise the threat through work in conflict prevention and resolution. By reducing tensions and increasing stability, we can remove the conditions in which proliferation thrives and in which the use of ballistic missiles becomes more likely. We are proud of the positive and leading role we have adopted with respect to supporting United Nations operations around the world. UK forces have been deployed to considerable effect in East Timor, Kosovo and Sierra Leone.
But, on its own, implementing non-proliferation and arms control agreements and seeking to enforce them is not enough. They continue to play a vital role in slowing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery, but even with those agreements in place, such proliferation has continued.
As I have said, we assess that there is currently no evidence that any state with ballistic missiles has the intention specifically of targeting the UK. We also assess that the threat from ballistic missile attack has diminished considerably since the end of the Cold War. Nevertheless, it is a cause for concern that some states are making considerable efforts to develop or to acquire ballistic missile capabilities of increasing range.
It is a matter of public record and has been referred to in our debate that North Korea and a number of states in the Middle East and North Africa have ballistic missile development and/or production programmes, and have the potential to develop or to obtain inventories of longer-range ballistic missiles. A particular cause for concern is the fact that North Korea is willing to sell its missiles to any country prepared to pay for them. For that reason, some states could achieve a capability to target the UK accurately with ballistic missiles within the next few years. But threat, of course, consists not only of capability, but also of intent. I repeat, there is no evidence that any state with ballistic missiles has the intention specifically to target this country.
However, the possibility that such capabilities might emerge, and the fact that our deployed forces in the theatre of operations can already face a ballistic missile threat, show that we need, in addition to the measures

1407
I have already set out, to be able to deter and defend against such a threat. We made clear in the Strategic Defence Review that all of Britain's military capabilities have a role to play in preventing war. The possession of robust military forces, in conjunction with those of our allies, presents potential adversaries with the prospect of losses outweighing any gains they might hope to make from aggression. This applies to the use of ballistic missiles no less than any other form of aggression.
Furthermore, there is a variety of forms of defence. I have referred to the potential ballistic missile threat to deployed forces. Let me assure the House that we have considerable capabilities for passive force protection against chemical and biological warfare delivery by such means, and we are developing more—detection, identification, warning and reporting of possible attacks, physical protection, medical countermeasures and hazard management. Those are all key elements.
And, of course, there is missile defence. It remains the case that we believe that it is premature to decide on acquiring a specific ballistic missile defence capability, either for deployed forces or homeland defence. But for some years we have been monitoring developments both in the potential threat and in the technologies available to counter it, in the context of needing to tackle the threat with a broad range of measures. The programme on this, set in train by the Strategic Defence Review, has recently been completed. In due course we shall announce a summary of its findings to the House. We will continue our national work and rule nothing out for the future. We will continue to support NATO in this area, and our bilateral dialogue with the United States, which has been ongoing for more than 15 years.
It follows from what I have said that Her Majesty's Government fully understand the potential role that missile defence could play as a part of this comprehensive strategy. A number of noble Lords have raised US missile defence proposals and asked whether they represent an appropriate response to the
1408
threat. Let me make clear that the United States shares our belief that missile defence can only be considered as part of a comprehensive strategy to deal with a wide range of threats. It has made it clear that it is not, and cannot form, a substitute for the other measures I have set out. The Prime Minister and President Bush agreed, following their meeting at Camp David in February of this year, that:
"We need to obstruct and deter these threats with a strategy that encompasses offensive and defensive systems, continues nuclear arms reductions where possible, and strengthens WMD and missile proliferation controls and counter-proliferation measures".
The United States continues to consult widely and fully. We have a regular and on-going dialogue with the United States on the subject, and President Bush has made it clear that missile defence is only one defensive strand of a comprehensive strategy that continues to include multilateral measures such as diplomacy and non-proliferation.
Russia and the United States are no longer enemies. It is right for them to look at a new strategic framework based on openness and mutual trust rather than enmity. Both have made it clear that they are approaching their on-going discussions positively and constructively. Both President Bush and President Putin have stressed their desire for a co-operative relationship, which, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, we want to encourage. We welcome this and very much hope that a positive way ahead will result. We value such a stable strategic relationship between those two countries. We see no reason at all why the process of nuclear arms reduction should not continue.
Let me conclude my remarks by saying, in answer to the question posed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, that while we currently assess that there is no significant threat to the United Kingdom from ballistic missiles, the Government believe strongly that our policy of pursuing a comprehensive range of measures to tackle proliferation and the potential threat from ballistic missiles is the responsible course of action.
House adjourned at twelve minutes before ten o'clock.

  Freedom of Information Act Training
  Freedom of Information Act Training
  Judicial Appointments Annual Report
  Judicial Appointments Annual Report
  Court Service Review
  Court Service Review
  Medical Records: Subject Access
  Medical Records: Subject Access
  Convicted Prisoners: Change of Plea
  Convicted Prisoners: Change of Plea
  Asylum: Language Analysis
  Asylum: Language Analysis
  Armed Conflict
  Armed Conflict
  Development Strategies
  Development Strategies
  Kuwaiti Missing Files
  Kuwaiti Missing Files
  Joint Strike Fighter Contract
  Joint Strike Fighter Contract
  Aviation Security
  Aviation Security
  Scotland's Railway
  Scotland's Railway
  Pedestrian Protection
  Pedestrian Protection
  Railtrack Land Holdings
  Railtrack Land Holdings
  Strategic Rail Authority Contracts
  Strategic Rail Authority Contracts
  People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
  People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
  Early Literacy Support Programme
  Early Literacy Support Programme
  Early Learning Framework: Montessori Qualifications
  Early Learning Framework: Montessori Qualifications
  AS-level Examinations
  AS-level Examinations
  Abandoned Vehicles
  Abandoned Vehicles
  Livestock Diseases: Insurance
  Livestock Diseases: Insurance
  Edmonton Incinerator: Dioxin Content of Ash
  Edmonton Incinerator: Dioxin Content of Ash
  Universal Banking Services
  Universal Banking Services
  Palace of Westminster: Works of Art
  Palace of Westminster: Works of Art
  Social Exclusion Unit
  Social Exclusion Unit