Sitting of 15 April 2002

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

    Redundancies
    Lawrie Quinn: What plans he has to help employees of companies affected by large-scale redundancies to find new work. [45011]
    David Cairns: What plans he has to help people affected by large-scale redundancies to find new work. [45021]
    The Minister for Work (Mr. Nicholas Brown): We have developed the rapid response service to support people affected by significant redundancies and help them make the transition to sustainable new jobs. This enhanced service allows a flexible response based on local need. I am pleased to announce that, on 1 April, the rapid response service became fully operational, supported by a further £6 million investment over two years.
    Lawrie Quinn: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. He might recall the major threat of a factory closure in my constituency just under a year ago. Indeed, his Department helped considerably in creating a renaissance for the factory's prospects. However, many people still faced redundancy and a lot of those who came to my surgery thought that the Government should work closer with the citizens advice bureaux and local agencies that have local knowledge to help them through that difficult period when they have just been made redundant and are looking for new work. Can the Minister comment on working in conjunction with local agencies to help people to find their way back into work?
    Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend makes a fair point and I am grateful for what he says about the work of officials in difficult redundancy rounds. Although it may not seem like it at the time, it is the case that those who are in work mostly go on to get further work. However, it is right that the Department is able to help. It is also right that we co-ordinate our work with other agencies. Indeed, part of the extra £6 million is intended to do exactly what my hon. Friend requests.
    David Cairns: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the threat of job losses at the Coalport and Faslane bases
    344
    on the Clyde. Although I believe that such job losses are neither inevitable nor necessary, will he confirm that if they materialise, his Department will work at once with the Scotland Office, the Scottish Executive, the management and unions to form a lower Clyde jobs taskforce along similar lines to the successful upper Clyde taskforce that followed recent redundancies and threats of redundancies in the upper Clyde last year?
    Mr. Brown: First, let me sympathise with my hon. Friend. Representing a shipbuilding constituency myself, I know how difficult the threat of major redundancy rounds can be to communities that rely on a single large employer. I pledge that the Department will work with others to do what we can to help in the event of a redundancy round, although I understand that work is being done within the industry on the viability of the business, so we are not in that situation yet. The Department is in touch with others who have an interest in the event of a major redundancy round, including the agencies of the Scottish Parliament and of local government. If the help is needed, it will be there.
    Annabelle Ewing: The Scottish National party shares the anxieties about the potential job losses at Faslane and Coalport. The Minister referred to significant redundancies. Presumably he accepts that redundancies on a numerically smaller scale may none the less have a greater marginal impact on small communities. Does he also accept that the real issue concerning jobs in Scotland and elsewhere in the United Kingdom will not be solved until the Government start to address the underlying structural problems that face business in the UK, including their high-pound policy and the infliction of the highest fuel taxes in the industrialised world?
    Mr. Brown: May I say gently to the hon. Lady that more people are in employment in our country than ever before? If it is the policy of the Scottish National party to oppose defence expenditure, how does she hope to preserve defence jobs?
    Rachel Squire: Does my right hon. Friend share my deep regret at the recent closure of Scotland's only deep coal mine and the loss of 500 jobs? Will he join me in welcoming the rapid partnership that developed between the Employment Service, Scottish Enterprise Fife, Fife council, the Department of Trade and Industry, the Scottish Executive, the mining unions and many others to give those men every possible assistance in training and job opportunities? Does he agree that those miners have many skills and special qualities and that their needs should continue to be prioritised by the Government and the partnership in the weeks ahead?
    Mr. Brown: As I told my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (David Cairns), I understand how difficult these major redundancy rounds are. Shipbuilding and coal mining communities rely on a single, focused employment base, and when that is jeopardised the situation for the local community becomes very difficult. I can confirm that the Department's officials are working very closely with agencies of the Scottish Parliament and with Fife council to do everything that we can to help people who are displaced into other employment opportunities. We know that the

    345
    opportunities are there, and my hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the experience and skill base in the industry.
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: I associate myself with the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Rachel Squire) on Scottish mining jobs. Will the Minister take into account the fact that most large-scale redundancies come out of the blue, and the Government have to react to them?
    May I also tell my right hon. Friend that when colleges go into a review—this is not his Department, but he should listen carefully—it means that the Government may indirectly cause large-scale redundancies? There is one such college in my constituency, North Derbyshire tertiary college, and I hope that it is imprinted on the mind of every Minister. Instead of closing it down and causing large-scale redundancies, the Government should save it.
    Mr. Brown: I always listen particularly carefully when a matter being put to me is not my responsibility, in case I inadvertently give a commitment that I should not. The fairest thing that I can say to my hon. Friend is that I will draw his remarks to the attention of the appropriate Minister. He has made his point, and he is right to say what he does about redundancy rounds, whether they occur in education or in traditional heavy industry.

    New Deal
    Huw Irranca-Davies: What assessment his Department has made of the effect the new deal has had on youth unemployment. [45014]
    Mr. Graham Brady: If he will make a statement on his proposals to reform the new deal for the young unemployed. [45016]
    The Minister for Work (Mr. Nicholas Brown): Since 1997, youth unemployment has fallen by 43 per cent. and long-term youth unemployment has been reduced by more than three-quarters. The new deal for young people has played an important part in that, helping more than 350,000 young people off benefit and into jobs, and improving the work prospects of many more.
    We are building on the success of the new deal and are well advanced in making the improvements to the programme which we announced in last year's Green Paper, "Towards Full Employment". In the last three months, we have launched "progress2work" pathfinders, which provide help for unemployed drug misusers, and announced tailored pathway pilots to give personal advisers more flexibility to combine new deal options to suit the needs of the individual client. This month we are introducing StepUp pilots, which will provide transitional employment opportunities, and outreach initiatives to provide more effective support for people from ethnic minority communities.
    Huw Irranca-Davies: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. The new deal programme and associated Government measures are undoubtedly turning round the despoliation of many years of Tory rule in Wales.
    346
    However, will he expand on the new deal's effect on the local and national economy because, surely, great savings are made if youngsters are in work?
    Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks, and I welcome him to Question Time—we hope to see him here again.
    Every study on the new deal has confirmed that it adds substantially to the national economy. One way of looking at it is to consider that for every £5 that the Government spend, we get £3 back, either in social security expenditure that is no longer undertaken or in tax revenues.
    Mr. Brady: Why do Wildcat and other schemes in the United States achieve far higher success rates than the new deal for young people at a fraction of its £8,000 per job cost?
    Mr. Brown: The Conservative game has already been given away by the party's health spokesman. First, the Conservatives pretend that the Government's programmes are not working and that they can never work, and then they say that the provision should not be made at all or that it should be funded by insurance or by people's own resources. They then try to wrap that up—this is apparently the most difficult part—into a message that they can sell to the electorate. The electorate will say, "Under the Conservatives there were a third of a million young people out of work, and under Labour the figure is below 4,000."
    Vernon Coaker: The new deal has been a tremendous success in tackling youth unemployment, and we should strongly congratulate the Government on that. In my constituency, many young people who previously languished on the dole are now in work. Many of the young people who are still unemployed have associated problems, such as physical disabilities, learning difficulties, drug abuse problems or, indeed, literacy and numeracy problems. In any development of the new deal, will my right hon. Friend ensure that advisers are supported with a package of measures to help such young people back into work?
    Mr. Brown: We have two new pilot schemes. One is to look at greater flexibility, and the other of course is the StepUp pilot. They are designed to help those who have been through the new deal but not found work so far. This is a radical programme, and there are 20 pilots. The Government are, effectively, purchasing the job for the individual for a year. We are absolutely determined that nobody is left out or bypassed by the schemes. Everyone who can work should have the right to work, and the Government should help them do so.
    Mr. James Clappison: The Minister is not exactly being reckless in predicting that the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) will be in the House in future, but is he not being a little cavalier with the facts? Was not the National Audit Office right when it said that, to evaluate the new deal, it is necessary to take into account those who would have found jobs anyway? When that is done, did the NAO not find that the reduction in youth unemployment brought about by the new deal is not 350,000, as the Minister has just claimed, but 35,000.

    347
    and that the cost per job under the new deal is far greater than the Government have maintained? In fact, is the new deal not one more example of this Government taking and spending a great deal of taxpayers' money and not making much difference in return?
    Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman rather confirms the accuracy of the answer that I gave the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady). We can see what the Conservatives are about. The hon. Gentleman selectively quoted the National Audit Office report. Neither that report nor any other has said that the new deal is not value for money. There will always be an element of dead weight cost in these schemes. One might just as well argue that teaching children to read has a dead weight cost because some of them would learn to read anyway. That is a ridiculous argument. We are talking not about a job-creation project but employment schemes. 'They are serving our country, and in particular disadvantaged people. They are serving them well and are value for money too.
    Mr. Peter Pike: The Minister knows that Burnley will have one of the StepUp programme pilots. What steps will be taken in that significant programme, which will be important to those who have not been able to gain employment, to publicise, particularly in the local and regional press, exactly what is being done?
    Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question and for the close interest that he has taken in the pilot scheme. It will—I hope—have an important impact on his constituency. It is the Government's intention to publicise the programme. Indeed, we intend formally to launch the pilots in the next few weeks. I will make sure that proper publicity is given locally, and I shall draw his remarks to the attention of those who are managing the scheme locally. It is a very significant new scheme. For the first time, the Government are saying that we guarantee a job for a year to someone who has found the labour market intractable so far. I think that that should be welcomed.
    Mr. Brady: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I give notice that I wish to raise the matter on the Adjournment following the Minister's woeful failure to answer on the fact that schemes elsewhere in the world perform better?
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has given notice.

    Pension Funds
    Dr. Julian Lewis: If he will make a statement on trends in the value and expected yield of pension funds since 1997. [45017]
    The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Alistair Darling): The investment return achieved by pension funds between 1997 and 2001 has seen real returns of 6.8 per cent. The real rate of interest available from savings accounts over this period was 2.8 per cent.
    348
    So, put simply, by investing in pension funds, people have had more than double the amount of return that they would have received from a conventional savings account.
    Dr. Lewis: I thank the Secretary of State for that Alice-in-Wonderland answer. On the eve of the Chancellor's sixth Budget statement, should we not remember what he did in his first Budget, which was to mount a £5 billion a year raid on pension funds? Is it not as a result of that that firm after firm is abandoning final salary pension schemes, with the effect that a stealth tax whose effect was meant to dawn in people's realisation many years hence is becoming obvious now? It is obvious that people's pensions will be worth a fraction of what they would have been worth without the Labour Government raiding their pension funds.
    Mr. Darling: First, the hon. Gentleman may not like my reply, but it was a reply to the question that he put. I can see why he might have shifted his ground in the light of my answer.
    As for his other remarks, the hon. Gentleman will recall that when, more than four years ago, we made changes to the corporate tax regime, we cut corporation tax as well. This country has the lowest ever rate of corporation tax, which has been of great help to companies' profitability and therefore to their shareholders, the vast majority of whom are pension funds.
    The hon. Gentleman knows well that the reasons for the trend to close down defined benefit pension funds are twofold. First, in the past couple of years, the value of the stock market has fallen dramatically, for reasons that we know. Secondly, as the Conservative spokesman, the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts), said only today, people are living longer. In response to those changes, we will later this year publish proposals that we believe will help companies and individuals to save more for retirement. However, the overall changes that the Chancellor made four years ago have greatly enhanced the profitability of companies in this country and are therefore right for pension funds, which benefit from that increased profitability.
    David Winnick: Despite my right hon. Friend placing responsibility as he has, is it not a matter of much concern that many employees are to be cheated of a decent pension as a result of employers closing down their final salary pension schemes? Why should employees—unlike Members of Parliament and others—be faced with inferior pension arrangements such as money purchase schemes, which will deprive them of a decent standard of living in retirement? I hope that the Government will take action.
    Mr. Darling: As I have said on several occasions, later this year we will publish proposals that will, I believe, help both individuals and companies to contribute to pensions. It is worth bearing it in mind that in the past few years sales of pensions have increased by some 50 per cent.
    Lest the hon. Member for Havant forgets to mention it, let me point out that the latest figures on stakeholder pensions, which were designed to bridge some of the savings gap, show that 750,000 pensions have been sold. According to the Association of British Insurers,

    349
    97 per cent. were bought by or on behalf of individuals of working age. The idea that they were all being sold to grandchildren turns out, like so many other things the hon. Gentleman says, to be nonsense.
    Mr. Steve Webb: The Secretary of State will be aware that, on average, employers contribute far more to final salary pension schemes for their employees than to money purchase schemes. He referred to proposals that he will bring forth later in the year. Is the goal of those proposals merely to slow the rate of decline of employer contributions to schemes, or does he think that they will cause those contributions to increase from their current level?
    Mr. Darling: The objective must be to make sure that people save more for their retirement. The big problem facing us and Governments throughout the world is that, because people are living longer, we need to persuade them to save more for their retirement.
    The hon. Gentleman is right to a certain extent. The problem with the closure of final salary schemes is not necessarily that money purchase schemes are worse than final salary schemes; in fact, money purchase schemes can sometimes be better for people who move from job to job. The real problem is when the contribution made is reduced. As I said a few moments ago, the proposals that we will publish later this year are designed to make sure that more money goes into building up people's retirement pensions. That must be the central objective of Government policy.
    James Purnell: Has the Secretary of State read the unanimous report of the Select Committee on Work and Pensions, of which the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell) is a member, which welcomed the spending and principles underlying the State Pension Credit Bill and thought that the Bill would achieve its goals? What will my right hon. Friend do to ensure that the pension credit is taken up by as many pensioners as possible, which is central to making it work?
    Mr. Darling: I read the Select Committee's report and am delighted that the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell) has joined his predecessor in welcoming the pension credit as a much needed and overdue reform. We shall wait to see just how public he makes that support over the next few weeks.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (James Purnell) is right to draw attention to the fact that the pension credit will benefit more than half of pensioner households. It is important that we make sure that people get their entitlement. As people learn that the average gain will be about £400 per household, and as our proposed improvements to the system make sure that people get their entitlement, more and more money will go to the people who most need it. I strongly believe that the pension credit which, for the first time, rewards people's thrift and their efforts, is long overdue. We are determined to ensure that it works efficiently and effectively.
    Mr. Peter Viggers: The Secretary of State cannot be allowed to duck the Government's responsibility. Is he aware that there is a direct link between the Chancellor's changes to advance corporation
    350
    tax and the closure of final salary schemes? Is it not a fact that millions of people in their 30s and 40s will no longer be able to look forward to an independent retirement as the Government force more people on to means-tested benefits? Will the Secretary of State apologise to them, or is it the Government's strategy to force more people on to means-tested benefits?
    Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman, not for the first time, is talking a load of nonsense. There never was a time, unfortunately, when everybody looked forward to retirement on a high pension through a funded pension system. We have introduced reforms to the pension system to make sure that the state system does more to help people on low incomes. By introducing stakeholder pensions, we are providing pension options that were never available in the past for some 5 million people. With regard to final salary schemes, as I have told the House on a number of occasions, not least a few moments ago, the Government will introduce proposals to help both individuals and companies save for retirement.
    I must make another point about the corporation tax changes to which the hon. Gentleman referred. If he was right about the ACT changes, one would expect all the closures to have taken place when the changes were made four years ago. What is driving the present spate of closures is, first, the stock market's dramatic fall in value and, secondly, the fact that the people running the schemes are beginning to realise that individuals are living longer, for which they have to budget. Thirdly, a lot of companies have been taking contribution holidays from their pension funds; those holidays are coming to an end, so they are closing some final salary schemes down Some companies are not doing so; they are to be commended on taking a stand on their employees' interests. However, as I said, the Government will introduce proposals that will help individuals and companies to maintain and build their pensions for retirement.
    Mr. Terry Rooney: Can the Secretary of State confirm that between 1988 and 1992 5 million people left occupational pension schemes following the disastrous reforms of the Social Security Act 1986? As a result, £11 billion of compensation had to be paid, which has had a serious effect on the balance sheet of life assurance companies?
    Mr. Darling: Opposition Members tend to forget that what happened during the 1980s, one of the worst examples of the mis-selling of pensions, would have resulted in hundreds of thousands of people losing, in some cases, just about everything if they had not got the compensation for which we fought hard. When we look at pensions and put in place a pension system, it is important to ensure that people who ought to be in the state system are looked after and remain there. People who have privately funded pension provision should also be adequately protected. The Conservative party should remember that its policies in the 1980s had near-disastrous effects, not just for individuals, but for the pensions industry, for which it sometimes claims to speak.
    Mr. David Willetts: May I thank the Secretary of State for the Department's letter to me about pensions headed, "Important information from the

    351
    Department for Work and Pensions"? However, it is difficult to have confidence in its advice on pensions, when it was addressed to
    "Mr David Willetts, Member of Parliament, Labour Party, Regent Street, Barnsley, South Yorkshire."
    Perhaps it is not surprising that a Department that cannot correctly address a letter does not know how many assets we have in our pension funds or how much money we put into the funds as our contributions.
    During the previous Work and Pensions questions, the Secretary of State defended his hapless Department and its useless figures. Will he confirm that in a letter to me he has admitted that he does not know how much we are saving or how much our pensions are worth? When will he have an answer to those questions?
    Mr. Darling: First, it is a tribute to the Post Office that it managed to find the hon. Gentleman despite the way in which his letter was addressed. The Post Office—or Royal Mail, Consignia or whatever it is called now—will be pleased to know about that.
    Secondly, the hon. Gentleman well knows that the statistics are prepared by the Office for National Statistics. The chief statistician has issued what I suppose for the ONS amounts to almost an apology for the fact that it has withdrawn a series of statistics. Apparently it will produce the statistics again. The Government do not produce the statistics, so I cannot accept responsibility for what Mr. Len Cook is up to.
    Mr. Willetts: It was the Secretary of State who quoted those statistics all the time when he was trying to argue that there was not a problem when it was obvious to everybody else that there was one.
    Let us try another simple, straightforward and factual question. What does the right hon. Gentleman estimate the impact on the value of pensions funds to be of the increase in the taxation of income from dividends in the 1997 Budget? The Department is responsible for pensions and it must have an estimate. What is it?
    Mr. Darling: The value of pension funds depends to a large extent on the value of the stock exchange. As I explained to Conservative Members a few moments ago, the reason that some pension funds face a problem is that the value of the stock market has fallen for reasons that we are aware of over the past two to three years.
    When we consider pensions, as the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis), who first raised this line of questioning ought to know, we need to take a long-term view of stock market values. We cannot do what the hon. Member for Havant did in the Financial Times today, and take a snapshot of one year. That is certainly the way to mislead people.
    Mr. Willetts: So the Secretary of State does not know how much our pension funds are worth or how much we are contributing to our pension funds. He will not even give an estimate of the impact of a tax change that his Government introduced. No wonder the Government deny that there is a crisis in our funded pensions when they are taxing them more, regulating them more and spreading
    352
    means-testing to penalise saving. Millions of people will have a poorer retirement as a result of the Government's policies.
    Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman is wrong in a number of respects. First, in relation to taxation, I shall take individual savings accounts, for example, which were roundly denounced by the Conservative party. It is worth bearing it in mind that that tax advantage savings vehicle has meant that 12 million people now have £60 billion of savings. That sum is far more than that invested in PEPs and TESSAs, which the Conservative Government introduced. More important, many of those saving in ISAs, for example, are on low incomes. They are precisely the people whom we should encourage.
    As for general taxation, the hon. Gentleman well knows that we reduced corporation tax, which the Conservatives could not do during all the years that they were in power. That has helped shareholders, and especially pension funds. The greatest single factor that will help pensions and pensioners is that, unlike the Conservative Government, we are running a strong and stable economy that will do more than many of the measures to which the hon. Gentleman refers to ensure that people can build up good pensions and retire with a good standard of living through a combination of both what the state does and what individuals do through their own effort. Above all, that effort will be rewarded through the pension credit, which the hon. Gentleman opposes.

    Benefit Fraud
    Bob Russell: What progress has been made in meeting his Department's targets on tackling benefit fraud. [45018]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Malcolm Wicks): We are making good progress in tackling benefit fraud, and we expect that progress to continue. Results show that by March 2001 we had reduced the level of fraud and error in income support and jobseeker's allowance by 18 per cent.—nearly double our first milestone of 10 per cent. That was a year ahead of schedule. By 2004, we are committed to reducing fraud and error by 25 per cent., and to halving it by 2006.
    Bob Russell: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. All fraud is to be deplored, but does he agree that it is important that the message goes out that genuine applicants should not be put off by whatever propaganda the Government are using, rightly, to attack fraud? Will he join me in supporting the Government message, and make it loud and clear that the majority of asylum seekers and refugees, when they are given an opportunity to work, are net contributors to the public purse and do not take from it?
    Malcolm Wicks: I certainly agree that when, for reasons that we all understand, people are properly granted asylum, they become economically active and are an asset in all sorts of ways to our community and our economy.
    On the first point, it is vital that we present the message that people must claim the benefits to which they are entitled. Government have a role to play in that, as do

    353
    local authorities. It is also vital that every pound that we spend on social security is spent properly and honestly. That is why publicising entitlement and waging the war against the fraudster go hand in hand and are largely dependent upon one another.
    Mr. Bill Tynan: I am sure my hon. Friend would agree that in spite of the successes in countering benefit fraud, it continues to be a major drain on the country's resources. Does he agree that one of the problems is the lack of co-operation between the various Government Departments in exchanging information that would ensure more convictions and less fraud?
    Malcolm Wicks: We all agree that the more we can crack down on fraud, the more money we will have for social priorities such as care of the elderly, education and health. There is now a great deal of co-operation between Government Departments. That was a major problem in the past, but under, for example, the Social Security Fraud Act 2001 we can not only share data with other Government Departments but require data from banks and even utilities. It is vital that the fraudster cannot play off one Government agency against another, which is why we have taken the powers to collect the data to attack the fraudster.
    Patrick Mercer: Between October 1999 and December 2001, there were 50,000 investigations of working families tax credit fraud, but only 28 prosecutions. Will the Minister undertake to look into the matter more carefully and demonstrate a new resolve to deal with fraud in relation to the working families tax credit next year?
    Malcolm Wicks: Working families tax credit is, properly, the responsibility of the Treasury. I will draw the hon. Gentleman's question to the attention of its officials. We have responsibility for, among other things, the Benefits Agency. Between 1997 and 2000–01, the total number of prosecutions, cautions and penalties increased from 11,700 to almost 27,000. That demonstrates that we are tough on the fraudster and detecting fraud out of the system, and tough on the causes of fraud.

    Pensions
    Gareth Thomas: What assessment he has made of the adequacy of pension provision in the UK. [45019]
    The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Alistair Darling): As I said a short while ago, people need to save more for their retirement. Our approach is based on a partnership between state and private provision, as both are essential. Since 1998 we have reformed the structure of pensions in this country to build and strengthen existing partnerships between the state, the pensions industry, individuals and employers.
    Gareth Thomas: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he accept that there is real concern that people are not making adequate provision for their retirement? Does he also accept that the Government have a crucial role in educating the public and encouraging them at an
    354
    early stage to make adequate provision for retirement, given the fact that there is a decline in occupational pensions and that people are living longer in retirement?
    Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend is right. People need to be aware of the fact that as we can all reasonably expect to live longer we have to make provision to finance us at whatever standard of living we think we want in retirement. The introduction of annual pension statements will help to concentrate minds, but more needs to be done with pensions and other financial products. As I said on previous occasions, when we reach the stage when pension products and the way in which they are sold are heavily regulated, we may unintentionally impede access to the very products that we want people to buy. A number of measures are necessary—first, to make people aware of the need to save and, secondly, to make it easier for them to acquire the means to save.
    Mr. George Osborne: Following the Government's heavy defeats on Friday on the Pensions Annuities (Amendment) Bill, will they now accept the Bill and give people the chance to have a decent income in retirement?
    Mr. Darling: No, because the purpose of the Bill is to benefit a minority of people in this country who are better off and on higher incomes. I have made it clear time and again that although the Government are willing to consider ways in which the annuity market might be improved—indeed, we are consulting on them—we will not introduce a system that blatantly benefits a tiny minority at the top of the income scale at the expense of everybody else. That approach might be all right for the Conservatives, but it does not commend itself to us.

    Jobcentres
    Ross Cranston: What plans he has to make jobcentres more responsive to the needs of those who are out of work. [45020]
    The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Alistair Darling): At the start of this month, we launched Jobcentre Plus, bringing help on jobs and benefits together under one roof with a very clear work focus. That will ensure that personal advisers are more responsive and can inform claimants of the full range of support available and the options open to help them move from welfare into work.
    Ross Cranston: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer and for all the work that he and his Department have done to reduce unemployment in Dudley, which has fallen by about 25 per cent. since 1997. One of the problems in old manufacturing areas such as Dudley is unemployment among older men. Will he explain what the new institutional changes will do to address it?
    Mr. Darling: My hon. and learned Friend raises a very important problem. At our previous Question Time, hon. Members on both sides of the House expressed support for increasing the effort that we put into helping men over 50 to get into work. It is worth reflecting on the fact that a third of people over 50 but under retirement age are out of work, and that half of them depend on benefits for most

    355
    of their income. That is clearly unsustainable in the long run, so one of the principal objectives of Jobcentre Plus and the rest of the Department is to ensure that we do more to help men over 50 to stay in work or get back into it if they lose their jobs. The rapid response service, to which my right hon. Friend the Minister for Work referred, will help in that regard. All the evidence suggests that if somebody can be helped as soon as they lose their job, it is better in the long term.
    Other measures such as the new deal and StepUp, which my right hon. Friend also mentioned, are designed to ensure that people who find it more difficult to get back into work get all the help to which they are entitled. Getting the over-50s into work is an essential part of our welfare to work policy and has a very strong bearing on pension policy, as the two are inextricably linked.
    Mr. Archy Kirkwood: The Secretary of State is right to point out that the creation of Jobcentre Plus a fortnight ago is a welcome step forward, as it introduces the concept of personal advisers who offer advice and back-up when people are trying to get off benefit and into work. Does he accept that analysis of the ONE project, the precursor to Jobcentre Plus, indicated that the personal advisers' case load was such that they did not have enough time to give advice and spent most of their time processing benefit claims? Will he assure the House that when Jobcentre Plus is properly launched—I accept that it will take some time—there will be a proper balance between the efficient processing of benefits and the provision of adequate time to get people off benefits and into work?
    Mr. Darling: A number of problems with the ONE project became obvious in the first year or so of its operation; the hon. Gentleman highlights one of them. The advantage of setting up a single agency that brings together benefit processing and job search is that, once and for all, we can get rid of the artificial distinction between people who sign on for work and those who sign on for benefits. That is especially important for some older people who are simply written off on disability benefits.
    Under the new system, when somebody goes into a Jobcentre Plus office, their benefit entitlement will be assessed by somebody whose sole job is to undertake that task. At the same time, they will be interviewed with a view to getting them back into work. The object should be to sort out their benefit as quickly as possible and then to talk to them about job search. That approach was tried out over the past couple of years, not only in the ONE project but in some of the mainstream jobcentre offices, especially on the Clyde coast. I know that the hon. Gentleman is familiar with the situation there. The approach is beginning to produce results. It is early days yet, but there is no doubt that bringing together benefits and job search is beginning to have results by not only putting people into work but ensuring that we pay the right benefit to the right person at the right rate—something that was conspicuously lacking in previous years.
    Fiona Mactaggart: My concern is with younger unemployed people. How will the new Jobcentre
    356
    Plus arrangements connect with the Connexions service to create a better gateway to work for young unemployed people?
    Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend is right. I was talking about older people because whereas in the past youth unemployment was by far the biggest priority that the Government had to tackle, we now need to put the same vigour and enthusiasm into tackling unemployment among older people.
    We must ensure that we help young people who had difficulties at school, have fallen through the system and are not receiving the right level of help. That can be achieved through the Connexions service, and, when they are a bit older, the Jobcentre Plus network. All the evidence shows that the sooner young people can be placed in work, earning money and appreciating all the doors that that opens, the less risk there is of their falling back into unemployment or the other difficulties that they often unfortunately face.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: Does the Secretary of State realise that there is a problem of access, especially in a deeply rural constituency such as the Vale of York, where not a single jobcentre is to be found? Does he accept that there is a gulf between his Department's aspirations and its delivery on the ground?
    Mr. Darling: We try our best to position jobcentre offices around the country. As I understand it, it is not Conservative party policy to spend millions of pounds more on setting up jobcentres—indeed, it is quite the opposite.
    Miss McIntosh: I am asking you.
    Mr. Darling: It is very good of the hon. Lady to do so. It may be some time before her party is again in a position to have a hand in these matters. She cannot say that we should spend less on the administration of my Department and that she wants more jobcentre offices. As we roll out the Jobcentre Plus network and make decisions about where the single offices are situated, we will make sure that there is an even spread and that transport communications are such that people can get access. If the hon. Lady supports me in ensuring that the Department is adequately resourced to do all that, I welcome her as a recruit to the cause.

    Minimum Income Guarantee
    Phil Sawford: How many pensioners in the Kettering constituency benefit from the minimum income guarantee. [45022]
    The Minister for Pensions (Mr. Ian McCartney): As at November 2001, 3,100 pensioners in the Kettering constituency benefited from the minimum income guarantee. Those pensioners are at least £15 a week better off in real terms than in 1997. More than 2 million pensioners nationally benefit from the MIG. Additionally, this winter more than 19,600 older people in my hon. Friend's constituency received a winter fuel payment, benefiting each eligible household by £200.
    Phil Sawford: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer and welcome the real help that the poorest

    357
    pensioners in my constituency receive. However, the minimum income guarantee is a means-tested benefit, and most pensioners would prefer a significant increase in the basic state pension. Will my right hon. Friend find time to speak to the Chancellor about that before the Budget statement on Wednesday?
    Mr. McCartney: The Government have substantially increased the basic income of all pensioners. Initially, our greatest priority was to help the 2 million pensioners who did not benefit from minimum increases, whatever the rate, because for various reasons they were excluded from the basic state pension. We make no apology for being the first ever Government to find out who those 2 million people were and to ensure that they benefit from the minimum income guarantee. We have moved on to the second phase with the introduction of the pension credit; the passage of the State Pension Credit Bill resumes tomorrow. I should have hoped that the Liberals and the Conservatives would have a last-minute change of heart and support the Government in this, not oppose giving extra cash to millions of pensioners.
    Mr. Tim Boswell: After those exchanges, I am not sure whether I should offer comfort to the Minister or to the hon. Member for Kettering (Phil Sawford). Unless the Kettering constituency is highly untypical—I rather doubt it, because it is next to mine and contains some of my former constituents—it, like mine, has 1,000 pensioners who are entitled to the minimum income guarantee but are not taking it up. Is not that wholly unsatisfactory? Will not the position get worse through the additional complexities of the pension credit scheme? Will the Minister consider whether it will be possible to reach out to pensioners who are entitled to the guarantee credit or the savings credit through a pension service that is to be located far away in another county?
    Mr. McCartney: If it was not for this Government, the pensioners in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Phil Sawford) and that of the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) would remain abandoned and not receive an extra £15 a week on average. In some instances, the poorest pensioners in the hon. Gentleman's constituency receive an extra £20 a week. When we discuss the State Pension Credit Bill tomorrow, he will have a dilemma, which he may as well face now: will he oppose a measure that will put an extra £2 billion in the pockets of many pensioners, especially women and people who would never benefit under the Tories' previous pension proposals? He should give a straight answer: will he frustrate the opportunity for those people to receive the £2 billion?

    Carers
    Mr. David Kidney: What his Department is doing to improve work opportunities for carers. [45023]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Eagle): Last April, we increased the earnings limit for invalid care allowance so that carers who combine some work with their caring responsibilities can keep more of their earnings. That was
    358
    the first increase since 1993. The earnings limit for ICA will now be increased regularly in line with changes to the lower earnings limit.
    Carers are also benefiting from the introduction of our new Jobcentre Plus service. A personal adviser will help carers making new or repeat claims for benefit to look for employment or training that suits their circumstances, and provide support that is tailored to their needs.
    Mr. Kidney: I am grateful for those details. I shall host a conference in Stafford on Friday about care for the elderly. I anticipate that many carers will say that it should be a reasonable aspiration to balance caring responsibilities with work.
    I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her comments on advisers and for saying that money for caring responsibilities will not be affected by earnings. However, there must be other support systems for those who are cared for, including out-of-school places for disabled children and daycare centres for elderly relatives. I appreciate that that extends beyond the Department for Work and Pensions, but will she bear it in mind that those matters need to be tackled as well as the steps that she has already outlined?
    Maria Eagle: I appreciate my hon. Friend's point. We want to encourage carers who wish to combine caring with some sort of work, and some 30,000 recipients of ICA already do so. We hope that the arrangements that we are making with Jobcentre Plus will enable carers who wish to do that to receive the appropriate assistance and help.
    On my hon. Friend's cross-government point, we must ensure as far as possible that we have joined-up services that mean something to people when they try to take up opportunities. There is no point in training people or assisting them to get to work if they cannot obtain the necessary support from social services to enable them to do that. I remind my hon. Friend that there are allowable expenses in ICA that enable those who wish to care to make alternative arrangements and pay for them without such payment being taken into account when their eligibility for ICA is considered. We do what we can about the benefits system, but my hon. Friend is right that we need to do more.
    Chris Grayling: Will the Minister look into a loophole that can affect carers who give up work to look after a member of the family who develops an illness or disability? If the disability assessment takes many weeks, carers can find themselves without both the income that they previously enjoyed and a benefit income. Local benefits offices are often not effective in helping those people to bridge the financial gap. Will the Minister consider that and encourage them to take a more enlightened view in such cases?
    Maria Eagle: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point. Clearly, there are eligibility criteria for ICA, and the person who is cared for must be in receipt of specific benefits to fulfil them. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not suggest that we should take steps that would prevent us from ensuring that those who claim benefit are eligible. We need to protect against fraud and error. We must ensure that those who become entitled to benefits

    359
    receive them as soon as possible. Our reorganisation of the Benefits Agency into a working age agency and the pension service should enable us to do that.
    Mr. Kevan Jones: Does my hon. Friend accept that a large number of carers—such as Mrs. Greenwell of Bournmoor in my constituency—are of retirement age? Will she comment on the fact that Mrs. Greenwell and others lose their carers allowance when they reach retirement age? Thousands of people are caring for their loved ones without the additional help that they previously received, at a great saving to the Government.
    Maria Eagle: I am aware of the problem that my hon. Friend raises. ICA cannot currently be paid at the same time as another income maintenance benefit. This is known as the overlapping benefit rule, and it has been a central part of the welfare state ever since it was established. I cannot promise to get rid of that rule, but my hon. Friend and his constituent may be interested to learn that a regulatory reform measure is making its stately way through the House that will—subject to the House's approval—extend the possibility of paying ICA to those over 65. This will particularly benefit women who do not have full national insurance contributions, and who do not, therefore, get a full retirement pension. The measure will not, however, abolish the overlapping benefit rule. I cannot give my hon. Friend any comfort on that.

    Housing Benefit Fraud
    Helen Jones: What progress has been made in tackling housing benefit fraud; and if he will make a statement. [45026]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Malcolm Wicks): Improving the overall performance of housing benefit administration is key to tackling housing benefit fraud, and many Members know that not all local authorities perform that task well at present. We have introduced new performance indicators to make an improvement possible.
    The benefit fraud inspectorate does very valuable work on fraud, and the great majority of local authorities—some 77 per cent.—have now signed up to our verification framework, which provides a rigorous check on people's claims. In these different ways, we think that we are winning the war against housing benefit fraud, and we estimate savings so far of some £100 million.
    Helen Jones: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply, and I acknowledge the work that has been done on this matter so far. Will he, however, undertake to discuss further with local authorities how we can ensure that people claiming housing benefit are actually living in the accommodation in which they claim to be living? I—and, I suspect, many other hon. Members—know of properties that are giro drops: addresses at which people register while living elsewhere. Those people are not only committing benefit fraud but depriving others of
    360
    much-needed local authority accommodation. Will my hon. Friend look into this matter and see what can be done to improve the situation?
    Malcolm Wicks: Among other things, the fact that we will not have girocheques redirected is one part of our armoury that I should draw to the attention of the House. It is also important that local authorities should make house visits, not only in suspected cases but more randomly to verify that people are living in the house that they claim to be living in.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: Is not the real test of the effectiveness of the Government's policies for dealing with housing benefit and social security fraud to be found in two simple facts? The first is that the level of fraud has significantly increased in the last four years; the second is that the number of prosecutions in 2001 was significantly less than in 1997. Is not all this exemplified by the fact that in one recent financial year, more than half of all local authorities did not bring even one prosecution for housing benefit or council tax fraud?
    Mr. Eric Forth: Is it true?
    Malcolm Wicks: I will answer the question in a formal way, rather than responding to heckling from the Opposition Front Bench. In terms of levels of housing benefit fraud in recent years, we simply do not know. It was this Government—not the last one—who initiated the first proper, ongoing research into this matter, and that will enable us to report to the House on levels of housing benefit fraud. I regret to say that the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman) is simply wrong about prosecutions following local authority investigations. My reply to the heckler is, therefore, that he is wrong, too—not, I think, for the first time. In 1997–98, there were 700 prosecutions following local authority investigations; in 2000–01, there were 1,100. That figure has increased under the Labour Government.

    Pension Service
    Mr. Mark Prisk: What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the new pension service in meeting the needs of pensioners. [45029]
    The Minister for Pensions (Mr. Ian McCartney): It is very early days yet, but we are committed to making a real difference to the lives of pensioners. The pension service, which was formally launched on 1 April 2002, replaced Benefits Agency services for pensioners and will provide a better service that is tailored to pensioners' needs.
    Mr. Prisk: I am grateful for that short reply from the Minister. Does he agree that one welcome aim of the pension service is its stated intention to simplify the pension system, but does he share my concern that simply shortening the forms and reducing the number of questions will not achieve that aim? Does he not accept that changing the forms will simply constitute window dressing if he is not prepared to change the means-testing system itself?
    Mr. McCartney: I had another two pages to my answer, which I shall send to the hon. Gentleman.

    361
    The pension service is the first attempt by any Government in history to establish a dedicated single unit that operates throughout the country, providing services not just for today's pensioners but for those approaching pensionable age. It is an advocacy service that not only
    362
    provides day-to-day services and pensions and other advice, but seeks out pensioners in the community and works with them to increase their income and access to services. It is also working with older people to design a service to meet their needs.

Points of Order
3.31 pm
Mr. Eric Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that, quite properly, the Government delayed by one day the Second Reading of the Enterprise Bill—by any measure, a very substantial Bill—precisely to allow the tabling of a reasoned amendment. Since then, in preparation for tomorrow's Committee proceedings, we in the official Opposition have worked on the assumption that the Bill's clauses will be dealt with in the normal sequence, and we had no reason to believe otherwise. To our shock, Mr. Speaker, and no doubt to yours, we found out on Friday that the Government have arbitrarily, and without consultation, changed tomorrow's order of consideration in Committee in such a way that no one could reasonably prepare the tabling of amendments to certain later clauses, consideration of which has now been brought forward.
That affects not only the position of the official Opposition, but of legitimate outside interests, which have been similarly caught unawares by this apparently underhand move by the Government. Is there anything that you can do, Mr. Speaker, to protect the House and Members, particularly those who participate in Standing Committee, so that we can ensure that this sort of thing does not happen; otherwise, we will be left in the invidious position whereby no one will be able properly and legitimately to prepare amendments for Committee. I look to you for guidance and protection, because this is yet another typical example of the Government's cavalier attitude to the House and its Committees.
Mr. Speaker: If the right hon. Gentleman looks at the order of business, he will see that the Enterprise Bill
364
Programming Sub-Committee meets at 7 o'clock this evening. That is an opportunity for the official Opposition—and, indeed, the Liberal Democrats—to raise this matter, so my strong advice is that a good attendance is required.
Andrew Mackinlay: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your help, guidance and clarification on business later today. Will you confirm and clarify my understanding that, at 7 o'clock—when we begin consideration of the City of London (Ward Elections) Bill—the 10 o'clock motion, which cannot be debated, will be put? Is there any vehicle by which hon. Members who have consistently resisted that grubby little measure—born of a clandestine and wholly illegitimate grouping of the City of London corporation and Ministers—might ensure that it is rightly the subject of a free vote? Certain hon. Members are under the illusion that it is Government business, and that they might somehow gain preferment, but they will not.
There is also a serious parliamentary point at issue. This is a private Bill and according to the traditions of the House, which you jealously safeguard, the vote, by definition, is a free vote, but the plot is that it is not. The nod and wink from those on the Treasury Bench is that Members should be present to provide parliamentary time through the night to see this squalid little measure through.
I hope that, at 7 o'clock, we can have the opportunity, first, to prove that all that I have described is the case and to highlight that and, secondly, to persuade colleagues, particularly Labour Members who year after year in opposition derided the City of London, but are now—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman has put his case.

Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Bill (Programme)
3.36 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Desmond Browne): I beg to move,
That the following provisions shall apply to the Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 10th July 2001:
Consideration of Lords Amendments
1. Proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Bill shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at Seven o'clock on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
Subsequent stages
2. The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.
I expect the official Opposition to oppose the motion, as they do all programme motions, as a matter of principle. Due to the circumstances of the Bill, it is incumbent on me to give the House a brief explanation of why the Government think the motion appropriate. First, the business has been given this allocation of time because the Lords amendments will deliver changes called for by the Northern Ireland parties and the Opposition. Secondly, by my calculation, the whole debate in the other place—Second Reading, Committee and Third Reading—took two hours and 59 minutes, which is short of the time that we have given the House to consider the amendments this afternoon.
Andrew Mackinlay: I apologise for intervening, but will my hon. Friend, immediately or during the debate, clarify a point relating to the Bill and the matters that are the subject of the first group of amendments? I understand and have no difficulty with the fact that the Bill rightly requires greater evidence of who people are, their qualifications and where they reside than is the case for the rest of the United Kingdom, but there is a difference between that and having different criteria for who can vote.
I want clarification. The amendments would require people to indicate where else they might be registered in the United Kingdom for electoral purposes, which is perfectly understandable and correct. That will not in any way alter the law, which I understand spans the whole United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, whereby people such as the Minister and colleagues from Northern Ireland may be registered to vote in London borough elections. No doubt they are tempted to vote Labour on 2 May. How will the Bill affect those with dual residence and dual rights to vote in municipal elections—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We are debating the programme motion. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will ask his question when we debate the Bill itself.
Mr. Browne: As you rightly point out, Mr. Speaker, the issue that my hon. Friend raises is germane to the amendments—indeed, it occupied our time in Committee
366
more than once—and I am sure that it will be debated at length. If he catches your eye, he will be able to contribute on that relevant issue.
I speak only to the programme motion, and I was making my second and last point. The whole debate in the other place accounted for less time than the Government are allowing for the consideration of these amendments in this House.
3.40 pm
Mr. Quentin Davies: The Government do some extraordinary things, and they sometimes make colossal fools of themselves. I am afraid that they are making colossal fools of themselves by moving this timetable motion on these Lords amendments. If someone is to be made a fool of, it is important that it is the Government who make fools of themselves and do not succeed in making a fool of Parliament, because it is the Government's fault and not Parliament's. I want to dwell for a couple of minutes on the background to the motion.
There are two reasons why it is extraordinary to introduce a programme motion on these amendments. First, there is no longer any controversy over the subjects dealt with in the Lords amendments between the Government and the Opposition, or between the Government and any hon. Member. As everyone knows, the Government belatedly, but nevertheless effectively, accepted the views put to them by every other party in the House—the official Opposition, the Liberal Democrats, and every Northern Ireland party including the Social Democratic and Labour party. I am delighted to see the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady). In my experience in the House, on 99 occasions out of 100 the SDLP vote with the Labour party, in government or in opposition. That is an extraordinary state of affairs. [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman wants to tell us that it is 98.2 per cent. of the time, I am perfectly prepared to give way to him and have the facts corrected.
It is most extraordinary to introduce a programme motion in those circumstances. The House will recall that it was in the Irish context that the system of programme motions was introduced in the 1880s, when the honourable predecessors of the hon. Member for South Down, the Irish parliamentary party under Parnell's brilliant leadership, succeeded in extracting important concessions from the Governments of the day, both Liberal and Conservative, by the use of aggressive filibustering. As Parliament virtually came to a halt at that time, for the first occasion in its then 600-year history some element of timetabling was introduced into its procedures.
From that time forth, including when most of us arrived in the House, until the new Labour Government appeared in 1997, the programme motion was regarded as exceptional, undesirable and something that we would accept only reluctantly to meet the danger of an abuse by people filibustering and holding up business unreasonably. Anyone who came to the House with a programme motion had to make an exceptional case. The onus was always on the Government to make an exceptional case, and to make it clear that the circumstances were such as to justify what by consensus of the whole House—that was true in my first two Parliaments—was regarded as an inherently obnoxious and undesirable procedure.

367
Part of the Government's devastating and obnoxious constitutional legacy will have been to introduce what has always been regarded in the House as an undesirable constraint on the freedom of Parliament and on its ability to do its essential job, which is to take its own time according to its own judgment to debate and consider the legislative proposals of the Government of the day. That tradition has been crudely set aside by the Government, who have benefited from their vast majority. They believe that they can do anything and get away with it.
For a long time, programme motions were seen as an exceptional measure, but they have now become a regular procedure. The Government's use of such a motion this afternoon shows that there is no rhyme or reason to it. There may be one explanation, which I shall put to the Minister and he can tell me whether it is correct. I have searched my mind to discover what possible function a programme motion could have, given that the whole House is in agreement, as the Government have reluctantly accepted the substance of the Lords amendments.
Lady Hermon: May I draw to the hon. Gentleman's attention the fact that, although I think that we agree that the Lords amendments about national insurance numbers are most welcome, they have thrown up inconsistencies with the rest of the Bill? There is also a question mark over whether those amendments are compatible with our EU obligations, on which we might debate for a considerable period today.
Mr. Davies: The hon. Lady may have the basis of a speech, which she will deliver to the House when we get on to the substance of the Bill. This timetable motion, however, is being introduced when it is known in advance that there is no substantive disagreement between the Government and the other parties in the House. I understand that that goes for the hon. Lady's party as well, and that she has no intention whatever of voting against the Lords amendments; indeed, she has indicated from a sedentary position that my assumption is correct. In those circumstances, it is extraordinary to introduce a timetable motion. It makes no sense at all, because, far from confronting the threat or the slightest hint of a filibuster, the Government know that they are going to have a very easy afternoon.
The only possible explanation that I can imagine for wanting to curtail debate in Parliament in such circumstances is that the Government are embarrassed that they have had to admit that their judgment is flawed and that they must finally concede that the judgment of the other parties in the House was correct. They feel humiliated by that—for a very arrogant Government, it is a humiliating situation—so they are anxious to restrict to a minimum the time available for Members of Parliament to comment on that and to rub salt in the Government's wounds. After thinking through any rational purpose for trying artificially to constrain and constrict parliamentary discussion of this matter this afternoon, that is the only hypothesis that I could form.
If one sets aside the hypothesis of mere perversity or a mindless ideological belief that timetables should always be imposed on Parliament in principle, there is perhaps a desire on the part of the new Labour Government, with their vast majority, to show everybody that they are the master, and that the legislature can be kicked in whichever
368
part of its anatomy the Government choose, at any time, and that it is a good idea to remind it of its subservience. Therefore, the Government will impose a timetable whether or not it makes sense. However, if one excludes explanations that do not have any logical or functional rationale attached to them, the only one that I can think of that makes logical sense is that the Government did not want us to have the opportunity to dwell on what is a turnaround—I shall not say U-turn, as that may seem gratuitously offensive—and an acceptance that the judgment of others was, on this occasion, superior to theirs.
It is ironic that the Government should attempt to limit Parliament's time, even though their operating principle, throughout the range of our legislative activities, is to constrain Parliament artificially in this way. In this case, however, it is clear that, if a time discipline should be imposed on anyone, it should be imposed on the Government. I remind the Under-Secretary that it is four years and a month since the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs made its recommendations in relation to electoral fraud, which, more or less, have been encapsulated in the Lords amendments. If anybody, therefore, needs to have a timetable motion imposed on them, the Government do. Were you to give us leave to table an exceptional motion this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, we should impose a timetable motion on the Government to make sure that they deal with Select Committee reports in a more business-like and timely fashion in future than they have done on this occasion. We might therefore speed up the Government's bureaucratic procedures, focus their minds, and impose on them some of the constraints that they are trying to impose on the legislature. They are abusing the vast majority that the new Labour party has—temporarily, I hope—in the House. Timetabling is the last thing that the Government should be talking about in Parliament. The dialogue should be going in the other direction.
I do not want to end my remarks without acknowledging positively—the Minister knows that I always try to see the best in everything, including the best in even the new Labour Government—that the Government's change of heart is very welcome. My hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) was assiduous in Committee and I heard him arguing eloquently. Every other party represented on the Committee also made the arguments that are now represented in the Lord's amendments before us. The Government would not listen in Committee, because they were in their arrogant mood and thought, "We have a vast majority and we don't care what you think. We'll do what we like. Get lost." That sums up the attitude of the Government, and not just in the Northern Ireland Office but right across the board.
I am glad to say that wiser counsels have now prevailed. After the issue has been discussed at great length in this House and in the other place, the Government have come forward with extremely important proposals. Electoral fraud has been a major problem in Northern Ireland for a long time and it is wrong to suggest that only the Unionist parties suffer from it. The SDLP has suffered just as much, if not more, from electoral fraud. All the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland suffer. By definition, they have scruples and are genuinely committed to the democratic process. They are not prepared to go in for cheating or for electoral fraud.

369
Therefore, they can easily suffer in an environment and a culture in which extremist parties do not have the same inhibitions.
We have discussed the problem and particularly the use of national insurance numbers. Like all brilliant ideas, their use seems obvious in retrospect, but it has been agonising trying to persuade the Government that national insurance numbers should be used in Northern Ireland. The Government have now accepted one of our ideas—and not quite for the first time. I draw attention to the fact that, before Easter, the Government made a small gesture in amending provisions of the Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill in relation to the display of the royal coat of arms on the outside of courthouses. I acknowledge and appreciate that gesture.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that he is straying into consideration of another Bill. We are debating the programme motion.
Mr. Davies: You are absolutely right to remind me of that, Mr. Speaker. I was glad to be able to touch on the other concession that the Government have made, but I recognise that it is not strictly germane to the timetable motion.
Although the Government have taken a long time and although they—and not the legislature—should have been subject to a timetable or guillotine motion, it is clear from the Lords amendments that the opposition of my hon. Friends and the Northern Ireland parties—the SDLP and the two Unionist parties—has proven to be correct. Indeed, we have received support—we much appreciate it—from the Liberal Democrats, so there has been complete unanimity. We have been right, and the Government have been wrong. I do not want to be churlish because, on an occasion that is all too rare, we must acknowledge that the Government have made a magnanimous gesture.
It is a pity that this entirely gratuitous, unnecessary and unjustified timetable motion should destroy the good will that the Government might otherwise have created. It is not justified by anything that the Minister said or by anything else that anyone can conceive of.
Andrew Mackinlay: From time to time, we need to interrupt the cosy consensus between those on the two Front Benches. The real truth behind the timetable motion is the nonsense of parliamentary choreography, which means that Government Back Benchers will be here dead on the button at 7 o'clock, so that they can deal with a matter that was the subject of a point of order earlier. That is the real truth. The hon. Gentleman knows it; the Minister knows it; and, more important, so do the Whips.
When people read our proceedings and the hon. Gentleman's remarks, they probably think that they are very interesting. The truth is that proceedings have been choreographed so that we arrive at the next business at 7 o'clock, when the City of London (Ward Elections) Bill will be discussed. That is the reason for this charade. The hon. Gentleman and the Minister know that.
Mr. Davies: I agree profoundly with the hon. Gentleman this afternoon, and I have done so for many
370
years; we have stood on the same side of the barrier on the importance of Parliament and the danger of over-mighty and arrogant Governments taking Parliament for granted or abusing their majority to change the procedures of the House so as to make the legislature less effective. When that happens, they do a very bad day's work not merely for democracy and open government, but for good and effective legislation.
The hon. Gentleman and I sing from the same hymn sheet on that subject—we have done so in the past and we will do so again—but it is pretty extraordinary that he should characterise my remarks on the Government, which the Minister did not think particularly friendly, as exemplifying a consensus between myself and the Government on this matter. I am conscious that I am speaking from the Front Bench and that colleagues on the Front Bench will listen to this part of my remarks with particular attention, but I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that there is no truth whatever in the suggestion that the official Opposition wanted a timetable motion on the Lords amendments or that we have colluded on this or any other occasion to impose on Parliament such a timetable motion.
I do not pretend to have a better understanding of parliamentary procedure than the hon. Gentleman—he is a well known and distinguished parliamentarian—but, frankly, I do not believe that even his technical, practical explanation holds water. In no way is it helpful to keep hon. Members here until 7 o'clock, supposing that it had occurred to anyone on either side of the House who thought it desirable to keep hon. Members here until 7 o'clock that introducing a timetable motion would help to do so. I can think of other things that might help in that way, but not a timetable motion on the Lords amendments to the Bill. For once, the hon. Gentleman has been carried away into a conspiracy theory and proceeded to build castles literally in the air—there is not a grain of sand on which that allegation can possibly be built. I hope that he will accept that assurance.
No doubt, my party and I will be accused of many things, but no one who looks at the constitutional record of the two latest Parliaments can ever maintain for one second the allegation that we have been complacent in this abuse of our parliamentary procedure, which is exemplified by this Government in introducing timetable motions even when they are self-evidently utterly unnecessary in the exigencies of getting Government business through the House.
3.57 pm
Mr. Eddie McGrady: I rise not to filibuster, as may have been the intent of the Conservative spokesman; in fact, the record will show that filibustering is not an attribute of my party. The links between the Irish parliamentary party and my own party are very tenuous indeed—perhaps nationality is the only common element. However, I have expressed great frustration in the House on the timetabling of Bills, especially in relation to the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 and the Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill, which we found extremely frustrating.
As the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) has said, it is anticipated that all parties in the House will agree with the Lords amendments, probably without Division. That is the only substantive

371
issue and we were to debate it for four hours, which would have been adequate, especially when compared with the fact that 212 clauses and amendments to the Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill were debated in four hours not so long ago. The hon. Gentleman gave a good illustration of a mini-filibuster to protract this debate, which I do not intend to do; we have already used up half an hour of the time that he deemed so precious.
3.59 pm
Lembit Öpik: Judging by the comments of the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies), it seems that we have consensus on the measure. Although I do not want to put words into the hon. Gentleman's mouth, it seems obvious that he does not believe that we need to debate the Bill until 7 pm. As I understand it, that is why he feels affronted: he feels that there is no need for a provision to curtail the debate at 7 pm because it will be finished before then.
I have often felt uncomfortable about programme motions because they have curtailed debate, although on one occasion I supported a programme motion that was opposed by the Conservatives and I was wrong to do so. As I said in private and on the record, the Ministers in charge of the Bill on that occasion took so long to respond to the points made that we ran out of time, and that has made me wary of supporting programme motions.
Nevertheless, when we consider those two facts—that we oppose programme motions when they curtail debate and that everyone seems to accept that we shall be finished long before 7 pm—it seems reasonable to accept the programme motion. I understand that there may be a point of principle for the Conservatives, but being a principle it is not open to debate.
The question about choreography is interesting. I am sure that Ministers would not be so disrespectful to Members as to waste our time and that of others—including Officers—by stringing out a debate that has no need to continue until 7 pm just for the convenience of the Government. We shall see what happens—history will be the judge.
Mr. Mark Francois: If there were some cosy consensus between the Front Benches, the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) would, on past form, be exactly the man to raise it. However, I do not believe that there is such a consensus. When we debated the Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill—I choose my words carefully, Mr. Speaker, so as to remain in order—there was a great deal of argument and rowing about its programming. The Opposition made robust points at that time so, from our perspective, there is a pattern and it is entirely right that my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) should reiterate those concerns.
Lembit Öpik: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that insight. I, too, am sceptical that there is consensus between the Conservatives and the Government deliberately to string the debate out until 7 pm. I take the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford at his word so I address my comments to the Minister: we do not really need to debate until 7 pm two groups of amendments with which every one agrees, but we shall have to see what happens.
372
I am, however, aware that the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) will want to raise issues about the amendments but I suspect that even she will not need three hours in which to do so—time will tell. I accept that there are inconsistencies and shall be interested to hear her arguments on them. The amendments were controversial only when the Government opposed them. As the Government now agree with them, most of that controversy has gone.
I respectfully point out that the motion could have been avoided had the Government been more flexible on Second Reading, in Committee and on Report. The only result of the Government's pointless intransigence in the face of cross-party support—from the Social Democratic and Labour party, the Conservatives, the Democratic Unionists, the Ulster Unionists and the Liberal Democrats—is the embarrassing fact that there are ministerial speeches on the record pointing out that the very proposals that the Government have now accepted are a bad idea.
Such contradictions could be avoided if Ministers genuinely showed flexibility when such proposals are made. I do not condemn the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—I have much respect for him and we are, after all, about to discuss the amendments—but it is a waste of parliamentary time to be considering Lords amendments that were previously tabled by Members in this place and could thus have been included in the Bill before it was debated by the Lords.
If I may humbly suggest improvements to the Minister, perhaps in future he might be willing genuinely to embrace the mantra of flexibility and of being a listening Government. If he had done so, instead of debating a programme motion at this stage of the Bill's passage, we would not actually be debating the matter at all.
4.5 pm
Mr. John Gummer: I realise that the choreography of the Liberal Democrats makes it impossible for me to convince them to change their view. However, I want to explain that for many of us the timetable motion is a matter of the most severe principle because the ability to trust Parliament is threatened by the Government's insistence that we have such motions at every drop of the hat.
There is no reason to have a timetable motion today. As my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) said, we must ask why it is necessary to have one at all. With all due respect, however, he missed the fundamental reason for it: unless the Government introduce a timetable motion when it is not necessary, it makes it harder for them to introduce one when it is necessary—for the Government's purposes rather than those of Parliament. To get out of the embarrassing situation in which timetable motions are proposed in order to stifle debate, the Government need to make them a regular necessity. If they always happen, the Government do not have to answer that deeply disturbing question about the use of such motions as a mechanism for preventing embarrassing subjects from being raised.
You, Mr. Speaker, have been extremely forthright in allowing debate when the Government have not been forthcoming about providing the time. For example, tomorrow we are to debate something that the

373
Government would have preferred not to discuss. That is part of the problem that we face. The Speaker is in the special position of defending Back Benchers and, indeed, Labour Members when the purposes of Parliament are subverted by a Government who are much more interested in getting their way than in providing the proper forum for democracy.
Although I often disagree with the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay), it is much more common for me to agree in principle and spirit on the nature of Parliament. The Minister is a man of principle. He has tried hard to help those who have difficulties with the Bill so that we have legislation that is acceptable to both sides of the House. However, he does himself no good by going along with the fundamental plot devised by Government Whips. The plot has not been choreographed by the two sides: it is entirely a minuet by Government Whips.
The line is simple: unless we dance this same dance when it is unnecessary, people will ask why we dance it at all when it is necessary. The answer is that we do that in normal circumstances because the purpose of the timetable motion is to avoid difficult questions and awkward speeches, not just by the Opposition but increasingly by Labour Members.
It is crucial for us to oppose this timetable motion above all others. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) should realise that this is an issue par excellence on which the Liberal Democrats, given their history, can express their concerns. It is precisely because the motion does not matter that this is the time to say that the principle is wrong, and it is wrong because it is designed by the Executive to control Parliament in an unacceptable way.
I have the same difficulty as the hon. Member for Thurrock. If our constituents were to peruse the report of the debate, they would wonder what the blazes we are talking about. Why do we have to discuss for 45 minutes something that should not be discussed? Without this debate, we could raise the relevant issues and conclude our public business by 6 o'clock. The motion has nothing to do with today's business. It is to do with a mechanism increasingly used by a Blairite Government who seek to control us lest we say something out of line.
Few members of the governing party are present—if I exclude Front-Bench Members and the PPS, there are three Members on the other side of the House who are recognised for their individuality, and no one else. If more Labour Members were here, I would remind them that the motion is designed not to keep us under control, but to control them. That is true not only on this occasion, but on others too. The motion is designed to ensure that there are not too many Members talking about the idea that we should bomb Saddam Hussein or whether invading Palestine is a useful way of dealing with terrorism. The motion is not to do with the issues to be discussed today.
Lembit Öpik: The right hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point of principle. I shall consult my Front-Bench colleagues; should a vote be called, we may be influenced by his argument.
Mr. Gummer: I am much flattered by the hon. Gentleman. I shall therefore bring my remarks to a close, because my purpose, it seems, has been to some degree achieved.
374
I would like to remind the House that at moments like this, when there are not many Members and very few of the Government's supporters in the Chamber, we need to be most careful and precise about our procedures. I hope that the House will recognise that there is a daily, weekly and monthly need to stand up for the rights of the House, if we are not to fail to defend our constituents on the issues that really matter. My experience of the House over many years is that if one does not stand up on the issues that apparently do not matter, when it comes to those that do, one is in no position to fight. The hon. Gentleman ought to be on our side, given his history, rather than opposing us.
4.12 pm
Mr. Browne: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall respond to the debate. The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) saw through the flimsiness of the argument of his Front-Bench colleague, the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies), when he said that he had used the wrong argument. Unfortunately, the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal, in a very articulate and informed way, also got the wrong end of the stick.
The position of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) on timetabling continues to confuse me. I have been present when he has talked about recorded debates. I have also been present when he has manfully argued for the discipline of timetabling and treated us to some of his experience in business, telling us how important the discipline of timetables has been in that experience. I know that there are hon. Members present who have heard those arguments. The hon. Gentleman castigates me explicitly and by implication for listening and responding to argument. However, that is exactly what he does with his protean utterances on timetabling.
Mr. Crispin Blunt: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, because he and I have both occasionally had the support of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) and his Liberal Democrat colleagues on Northern Ireland issues. Will the Minister inform the House whether he has more confidence in his arguments when he has the support of the Liberal Democrats?
Mr. Browne: The hon. Gentleman invites me to come down on one side or the other. As I have a long-term relationship with the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire, that might place me in an uncomfortable position. I try to recognise when the hon. Gentleman is right and on those occasions I am pleased to have his support. When I think that he is wrong I am pleased to engage in debate with him.
The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford says that we do not need a timetabling motion because there is no issue of controversy. However, the House has not had an opportunity to consider the provisions that were passed in the other place and are before the House today in the sort of detail that will allow the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon), for example, as well as, I am sure, the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues on the Front Bench, to ask the detailed questions that they are entitled to ask in relation to those provisions.
The hon. Gentleman went on to say that there is a timetable motion because I, the Minister who has been responsible for the Bill, seek to curtail debate that will

375
expose the fact that there has been a change of Government policy. He will see from my contribution to the debate, when we come to the substance of it, that I take that issue head on. There has been a change of policy, and I recognise and accept that. I say to him and others that there is no point in debate in this House if one cannot persuade Ministers at some stage to change policy. As I have been prepared to change policy, hon. Members are entitled to point that out to me—and I am sure that it will be pointed out. However, if he does not think that three or four hours is enough time in which to do so, I despair of his ability to make such a point. There are only so many ways in which he can say "U-turn", even if he does not want to use that phrase.
In an intervention, my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) suggested that some form of choreography between the Front-Bench teams has led to the timetable motion, on which he was assured by the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford. If my hon. Friend's reaction was anything to go by, he accepted the hon. Gentleman's assurance that there was no such choreography. So that conspiracy theory was blown out of the water; there was nobody for the Government to conspire with. There can be no conspiracy—unless people are whispering to themselves—although that does not of course stop a Conservative Front Bencher suggesting that that is exactly what the Government are doing.
In having to be consistent with the position that the Conservative Front-Bench team is attempting to take, the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal suggested that there is a conspiracy on only one Front Bench, and that that has led to the timetable motion. That is no explanation for the motion either. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman may say that that is a good argument. It was not a convincing argument, but it was a good one.
The reality is that the timetable motion is a practical attempt to set aside a sufficient amount of time in the House to debate provisions which, albeit accepted in principle by all parties, require some scrutiny and debate. I am sure that questions will be raised that need to be answered.
Mr. Quentin Davies rose—
Mr. Browne: Perhaps one such question is arising now.
Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman seems to be in a state of some confusion. He is saying that, notwithstanding the broad agreement in principle on the Lords amendments, providing opportunities to discuss some of the detail might be necessary. That is a weird basis on which to argue for curtailing discussion. He is concerned that Parliament needs more time to consider the matters, so the last thing the Government should be doing is artificially limiting that time.
Mr. Browne: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I am suggesting that the motion is a practical attempt to set a reasonable period of time in which to discuss matters—informed by debate not only on Second Reading but in Committee and during remaining stages, and in the other place.
Although I restricted my opening remarks to a few sentences, I pointed out that the whole debate in the other place took less time than we are proposing to allow in
376
this House to debate the provisions before us. Given the agreement in principle on them, there ought to be sufficient time to consider the issues. I suggest that the timetable motion allows sufficient time to do so.
The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford has disavowed the generous interpretation of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire, who was not arguing that debate was being curtailed unnecessarily. It appeared to me that he said that there would not be enough time. Time will tell whether that is so.
Lembit Öpik: With the greatest respect to the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies), I was not convinced by his arguments. I was interested in the deeper principle outlined by the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer). In that sense, there is a concern that the habit of always having a programme motion when it does not count makes it harder for us to defend the need for more time when such a motion does count.
Mr. Browne: I am grateful for that observation. I understood the hon. Gentleman's position to be that he was agreeable to programming in principle. He has said that on several occasions, but now it appears that he agrees with programming generally, but not in principle— whatever the difference between generally and in principle may be. Is it that he is generally agreeable in principle to programming? I am not sure.
Until now, my understanding was that the hon. Gentleman, who speaks regularly for the Liberal Democrats when I am at the Dispatch Box, was agreeable in principle to programming. We have to try to convert the principle to which he is agreeable into some form of practical expression. The motion before us is designed to do that in a way that provides sufficient time to debate the provisions that are before the House today. That is the argument, and it is on that basis that I support the motion and ask the House to do so as well.
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 274, Noes 162.

Division No. 207]

[4.20 pm

AYES

Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

Brennan, Kevin

Allen, Graham

Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

Browne, Desmond

Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

Bryant, Chris

Atherton, Ms Candy

Buck, Ms Karen

Atkins, Charlotte

Burden, Richard

Austin, John

Burgon, Colin

Bailey, Adrian

Burnham, Andy

Baird, Vera

Cairns, David

Barnes, Harry

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Barron, Kevin

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Battle, John

Caplin, Ivor

Beard, Nigel

Caton, Martin

Begg, Miss Anne

Cawsey, Ian

Bennett, Andrew

Challen, Colin

Benton, Joe

Chaytor, David

Berry, Roger

Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

Best, Harold

Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

Blackman, Liz

Blears, Ms Hazel

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Borrow, David

Clarke, Rt Hon Charles (Norwich S)

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Bradshaw, Ben

Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

377

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Clwyd, Ann

Humble, Mrs Joan

Coaker, Vernon

Hurst, Alan

Coffey, Ms Ann

Hutton, Rt Hon John

Coleman, Iain

Iddon, Dr Brian

Colman, Tony

Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

Connarty, Michael

Irranca-Davies, Huw

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Cooper, Yvette

Jamieson, David

Corbyn, Jeremy

Jenkins, Brian

Corston, Jean

Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

Cousins, Jim

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

Cox, Tom

Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

Crausby, David

Joyce, Eric

Cruddas, Jon

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

Cummings, John

Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

Kelly, Ruth

Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

Kemp, Fraser

Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Khabra, Piara S

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Kidney, David

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Kilfoyle, Peter

Dawson, Hilton

King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

Dean, Mrs Janet

Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

Dhanda, Parmjit

Ladyman, Dr Stephen

Dobbin, Jim

Lammy, David

Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

Laxton, Bob

Donohoe, Brian H

Lepper, David

Dowd, Jim

Levitt, Tom

Drew, David

Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

Drown, Ms Julia

Linton, Martin

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

Luke, Iain

Edwards, Huw

McAvoy, Thomas

Efford, Clive

McCabe, Stephen

Ellman, Mrs Louise

McCafferty, Chris

Ennis, Jeff

McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

Etherington, Bill

McDonagh, Siobhain

Farrelly, Paul

McDonnell, John

Field, Rt Hon Frank (Birkenhead)

MacDougall, John

Fisher, Mark

McFall, John

Fitzpatrick, Jim

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Flint, Caroline

McIsaac, Shona

Flynn, Paul

McKenna, Rosemary

Follett, Barbara

Mackinlay, Andrew

Foster, Michael (Worcester)

McNulty, Tony

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

MacShane, Denis

Foulkes, George

Mactaggart, Fiona

Francis, Dr Hywel

McWalter, Tony

Galloway, George

Mahmood, Khalid

Gapes, Mike

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Gardiner, Barry

Mann, John

George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Gerrard, Neil

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Gibson, Dr Ian

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Gilroy, Linda

Marshall-Andrews, Robert

Goggins, Paul

Martlew, Eric

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

Grogan, John

Merron, Gillian

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

Moffatt, Laura

Hanson, David

Mole, Chris

Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

Morley, Elliot

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

Mullin, Chris

Hendrick, Mark

Munn, Ms Meg

Hepburn, Stephen

Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

Hewitt, Rt Hon Ms Patricia

Naysmith, Dr Doug

Heyes, David

Norris, Dan

Hill, Keith

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Hinchliffe, David

O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

Hope, Phil

O'Hara, Edward

Hopkins, Kelvin

Olner, Bill

Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

Organ, Diana

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

Howells, Dr Kim

Owen, Albert

Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

Pearson, Ian

378

Perham, Linda

Southworth, Helen

Picking, Anne

Spellar, Rt Hon John

Pickthall, Colin

Squire, Rachel

Pike, Peter

Starkey, Dr Phyllis

Plaskitt, James

Steinberg, Gerry

Pond, Chris

Stewart, David (Inverness E)

Pope, Greg

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

Pound, Stephen

Stoate, Dr Howard

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Prosser, Gwyn

Tami, Mark

Purchase, Ken

Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

Taylor, Ms Dan (Stockton S)

Quinn, Lawrie

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Rapson, Syd

Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

Timms, Stephen

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Tipping, Paddy

Rooney, Terry

Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

Ross, Ernie

Turner, Neil (Wigan)

Roy, Frank

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Tynan, Bill

Ruane, Chris

Vis, Dr Rudi

Ruddock, Joan

Walley, Ms Joan

Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

Ward, Ms Claire

Ryan, Joan

Watson, Tom

Salter, Martin

Watts, David

Sarwar, Mohammad

White, Brian

Savidge, Malcolm

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Sawford, Phil

Wicks, Malcolm

Sedgemore, Brian

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

Shaw, Jonathan

Sheridan, Jim

Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

Shipley, Ms Debra

Winnick, David

Skinner, Dennis

Woodward, Shaun

Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

Wright, David (Telford)

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

Wright, Tony (Cannock)

Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

Wyatt, Derek

Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Smith, John (Glamorgan)

Mr. John Heppell and

Soley, Clive

Mr. Graham Stringer.

NOES

Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

Collins, Tim

Allan, Richard

Conway, Derek

Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

Cotter, Brian

Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

Curry, Rt Hon David

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Bacon, Richard

Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

Baldry, Tony

Djanogly, Jonathan

Barker, Gregory

Dodds, Nigel

Baron, John

Duncan, Alan (Rutland & Melton)

Barrett, John

Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

Bercow, John

Duncan Smith, Rt Hon Iain

Beresford, Sir Paul

Evans, Nigel

Blunt Crispin

Ewing, Annabelle

Boswell, Tim

Fabricant, Michael

Brady, Graham

Fallon, Michael

Browning, Mrs Angela

Field, Mark (Cities of London)

Bruce, Malcolm

Flight, Howard

Burns, Simon

Forth, Rt Hon Eric

Burstow, Paul

Foster, Don (Bath)

Burt, Alistair

Francois, Mark

Butterfill, John

Gale, Roger

Cable, Dr Vincent

Garnier, Edward

Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

Gibb, Nick

Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

Gray, James

Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

Grayling, Chris

Green, Damian (Ashford)

Chope, Christopher

Greenway, John

Clappison, James

Grieve, Dominic

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Gummer, Rt Hon John

Hammond, Philip

379

Hancock, Mike

Robertson, Angus (Moray)

Harvey, Nick

Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

Hayes, John

Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

Heald, Oliver

Roe, Mrs Marion

Hendry, Charles

Rosindell, Andrew

Hermon, Lady

Ruffley, David

Hoban, Mark

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Holmes, Paul

Sanders, Adrian

Horam, John

Sayeed, Jonathan

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Selous, Andrew

Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

Jack, Rt Hon Michael

Shepherd, Richard

Jenkin, Bernard

Simmonds, Mark

Keetch, Paul

Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

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

Soames, Nicholas

Spelman, Mrs Caroline

Key, Robert

Spicer, Sir Michael

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Spink, Bob

Kirkwood, Archy

Spring, Richard

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Lansley, Andrew

Steen, Anthony

Laws, David

Streeter, Gary

Leigh, Edward

Stunell, Andrew

Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

Swire, Hugo

Liddell-Grainger, Ian

Syms, Robert

Lidington, David

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Loughton, Tim

Taylor, John (Solihull)

Luff, Peter

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

McIntosh, Miss Anne

Taylor, Dr Richard (Wyre F)

MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Maclean, Rt Hon David

Thurso, John

McLoughlin, Patrick

Tredinnick, David

Malins, Humfrey

Trend, Michael

Maples, John

Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

Tyrie, Andrew

Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

Viggers, Peter

May, Mrs Theresa

Waterson, Nigel

Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

Watkinson, Angela

Moss, Malcolm

Whittingdale, John

Murrison, Dr Andrew

Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

Oaten, Mark

Wiggin, Bill

Öpik, Lembit

Wilkinson, John

Osborne, George (Tatton)

Willetts, David

Ottaway, Richard

Williams, Roger (Brecon)

Page, Richard

Wilshire, David

Paterson, Owen

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Pickles, Eric

Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

Yeo, Tim

Prisk, Mark

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Randall, John

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Tellers for the Noes:

Rendel, David

Mr. Julian Brazier and

Robathan, Andrew

Mr. Desmond Swayne.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That the following provisions shall apply to the Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 10th July 2001:
Consideration of Lords Amendments
1. Proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Bill shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at Seven o'clock on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
Subsequent stages
2. The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.

Orders of the Day
  Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Bill
  Lords amendments considered.
  Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Bill
    Clause 1

      REGISTRATION: PROVISION OF SIGNATURE AND DATE OF BIRTH
      Lords amendment: No. 1.
      4.37 pm
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Desmond Browne): I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): With this we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 6, 9, 11 and 13 to 16.
      Mr. Browne: During the Bill's passage through both Houses, all the Northern Ireland parties, the official Opposition and the Liberal Democrats pressed hard for the inclusion of national insurance numbers as one of the items of personal information required, alongside the signature and date of birth of each individual, on electoral registration for the purposes of cross-checking and verifying identity.
      Mr. Crispin Blunt: The Minister would not want to omit from the list of those seeking the inclusion of national insurance numbers the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs, whose report of 11 March 1998 led to the Bill—a Committee of which, of course, the Minister was a part in calling for the inclusion of national insurance numbers.
      Mr. Browne: That will teach me to pause for breath. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for pointing out the contribution that I made to the provisions before the House. He will recollect that in my opening remarks I was referring to the Bill's passage through both Houses, and he will realise why that august body, the Select Committee, was not included in the list in my opening paragraph.
      Throughout the Bill's passage through this House I repeatedly explained the difficulties involved in using national insurance numbers for electoral purposes and resisted the amendments tabled by hon. Members. However, as I said on Second Reading, this is not a great issue of principle. I had at the time made a judgment based on the information available to me that the Bill as originally drafted was sufficient to tackle the problem of electoral fraud, and that it struck a workable balance between preventing fraud and not placing unnecessary obstacles in the way of honest voters.
      I have sought to maintain that balance throughout the debates on all the provisions of the Bill. For hon. Members who were not members of the Committee, I say, and I am sure that I will be supported by those who were, that throughout the debates I have tried to listen to any reasonable, practical suggestions in relation to the Bill which were consistent with that balance. Those who know the history of the Bill will be aware that national insurance

      381
      numbers are not the only issue on which I have agreed that alternative suggestions would benefit the legislation. The proposal is not alone in that regard.
      Lady Hermon: I appreciate the Minister's giving way so early in the debate, although as he appears to be in such sparkling good form I am sure that he is delighted to be intervened on. I remind him that on 5 December 2001, at column 320 of the Official Report, in response to a question asked by the hon. Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire), who is not now present, although he was here earlier—
      Mr. Hugo Swire: I am here.
      Lady Hermon: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. That will teach me to hold my breath while I look around the Chamber.
      In reply to a question asked by the hon. Gentleman—I am absolutely delighted to see him in his place—the Minister said that he was opposed to proposals on national insurance numbers because he
      "considered that they were disproportionate, that they made unreasonable demands on voters, and that they were opposed by the chief electoral officer."—[Official Report, 5 December 2001; Vol. 376, c. 320.]
      We know that he now supports the inclusion of national insurance numbers, but will he explain why and how the chief electoral officer has changed his view and no longer opposes their inclusion?
      Mr. Browne: It would be fairer to allow the chief electoral officer to speak for himself on this issue, just as I am speaking for myself in dealing head on with those observations—
      Mr. Quentin Davies: He has done it before.
      Mr. Browne: The hon. Gentleman suggests that I have quoted the chief electoral officer before, but let me explain the position. I am sure that hon. Members will point in the Official Report to the position that I took earlier, which is there for all to see. I took what I thought to be a reasoned position on the basis of particular problems that I identified in earlier debates; the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) quoted my remarks on some of them. I identified some issues as genuine problems that needed to be overcome, but I made it clear to hon. Members that I would listen to and consider what they had to say.
      Of course, I was conscious that all the Northern Ireland political parties, including that which the hon. Member for North Down represents, as well as the official Opposition and the Liberal Democrats and also the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, were as one on the issue in the previous Parliament. As I was mindful of that pressure, it would have been remiss of me—and inconsistent with the approach that I had adopted throughout the Bill's passage—if I had not put the option to a further test to see whether I could find a way in which national insurance numbers could be used for electoral
      382
      purposes that would not be disproportionate or disadvantage legitimate voters. That is the test that I set myself for all the provisions.
      At this stage, it is important to address a point made earlier about the time that it has taken for the current provisions to come before this House and for the legislation to be brought before Parliament.
      Discussion has been going on for decades about addressing electoral fraud in Northern Ireland. Indeed, many provisions have been introduced on voting in Northern Ireland in that time. If one were to hear only this afternoon's debates on the matter, one might think that the issue had arisen only when the Labour Government came to power in 1997, but nothing could be further from the truth. For decades, successive Governments have sought to address the issue either by introducing arrangements brought before the House or through other measures that do not require legislation. The fact that one of the first things that the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee did after the 1997 general election was to reconsider the issue, urged on by Members who represented Northern Ireland constituencies, is a measure of the success that previous Governments have had in interdicting such behaviour.
      4.45 pm
      This has been an intractable problem, but I am happy to say that when the Bill left the other place, official Opposition spokesmen and others suggested that it is the best possible attempt to address the issues that have bedevilled Northern Ireland's electoral affairs for decades. The problem has concentrated the minds of politicians in Opposition and in government for a long time, and it does not lend itself to the quick fix. The Government and Opposition parties are indebted to the Select Committee's work on electoral fraud. We are also indebted to other committees and to hon. Members who are present for the contributions that they have made to the debate. I am sure that that debate will continue.
      All Governments face particular constraints in dealing with electoral matters with the widest possible consultation and the greatest possible care, and that is especially true of a Government with the sort of majority that we enjoy. We should deal with such matters only in a way that secures the greatest possible support among the parts of the electorate that they will affect. I make no apology for the fact that we took a long time in formulating these restrictions, because it was right to consider them with the greatest of care and subject them to the widest possible consultation. The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) is nodding, so I take it that he agrees. The Bill has the degree of support that I am sure that it will enjoy this afternoon only because such care was taken to proceed at a pace that did not offend that principle, which informed everything that I have done as the Minister responsible.
      Mr. Blunt: My hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) was nodding to applaud the dexterity of the Minister's arguments, not necessarily their validity. If the Government had not taken such an inordinately long time over the proposals, we would now have legislation that would enable an identity card scheme to be up and running in time for the Assembly elections. On the basis of the information that we have received,

      383
      it will take 18 months from the passing of the Bill for such a scheme to be put in place. As there is considerably less time than that between now and the Assembly elections, the dilatory manner in which the provisions were dealt with means that that opportunity has been missed.
      Mr. Browne: I normally enjoy the hon. Gentleman's interventions because they take the debate forward, but they do so only if he is properly informed. I do not know where he got 18 months from; perhaps he made it up while he was on his feet. I have a timetable—
      Mr. Swire: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Browne: If the hon. Gentleman will contain himself, I shall first deal with the point made by the hon. Member for Reigate. The estimate to which he referred may have been applicable at one time, but I am satisfied that there is now a timetable for the introduction of identity cards that can meet the deadline that the Government have set themselves—assuming that that change has the acceptance of the Northern Ireland electorate as expressed in consultation with the parties, among others.
      Mr. Swire: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I just want to point out that the figure of 18 months came from the House of Commons Library research paper on the Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Bill, which clearly states in reference to the introduction of identity cards:
      "It was envisaged that the issuing programme would take up to eighteen months to complete."
      Mr. Browne: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I might have an opportunity at some stage, when I am not on my feet addressing the House, to have a look at that paper and to check that the full context of that quotation refers to 18 months from the date that the hon. Member for Reigate said was the starting date, rather than from another date. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will accept my assurance, as the Minister responsible, that I have been privy to a timetable for the introduction that can meet the date for the Assembly elections in Northern Ireland. If the hon. Gentleman will accept that, perhaps we can move on.
      It was particularly important, when seeking to make the changes to the Bill, to determine how we would deal with those individuals who do not have a national insurance number, and how the electoral office would check the authenticity of the national insurance numbers that it received for registration purposes. Allowing for the use of national insurance numbers in the electoral process—as the amendments do—I have placed a high priority on identifying a solution that avoids the placing of a heavy burden on the electorate or on the Department for Work and Pensions, and that avoids difficult data protection issues.
      Lady Hermon: I appreciate the Minister giving way. Although he is unable to explain why the opposition of the chief electoral officer has now been removed, will he confirm, as the inclusion of national insurance numbers—
      384
      which we welcome—will place a huge administrative burden on the electoral office, that there is no opposition within that office to the use of these numbers?
      Mr. Browne: I can speak on the basis of my contacts with the chief electoral officer, who represents the office in its dealings with me as the Minister, and I can assure the hon. Lady that he supports this change. I did not specifically ask him why that should be his position, but I am sure that his position will be the same as mine, in that I identified difficulties, which I am seeking to address in this speech, of which he was aware, and which I now believe can be overcome. The overcoming of those difficulties was not easy, but now that we have done so, I am sure that the chief electoral officer—and his staff, who support him faithfully as always—will do everything in his power to deliver and operate the policy in this legislation.
      Mr. David Wilshire: May I ask the Minister to rack his brains? He has just said that the chief electoral officer told him that he was now happy with the proposals. I assume that he would have said something like, "I am now content because…". Will the Minister think back and try to remember what the chief electoral officer's reasons were for saying that he was now happy with the measure?
      Mr. Browne: I will say to the hon. Gentleman what I said to the hon. Member for North Down, who asked me the same question. For many of the reasons that I put before the Standing Committee, the chief electoral officer—whose advice I value on these matters, as he is the person who has practically to operate the measures—was of the same view as I was when the Bill was previously before the House. Having listened to the arguments put forward by hon. Members, however, and having recognised the breadth of support for the introduction of national insurance numbers as an identity check, I undertook to go away and look again at whether that policy could be delivered in a practical way that did not offend the principles that I had set out. I am now satisfied, for reasons that I am seeking to articulate in this speech, that it can be introduced in a fashion—that set out in the amendments passed in the other place—which does not offend those principles.
      I am not in a position, following my conversations with the chief electoral officer, to give the hon. Gentleman what he seeks. I can say, however, that during that dynamic process, I am sure that the chief electoral officer—who was party to what was going on in the sense that he was aware of what I was seeking to do, and who was in close contact and discussion with my officials—would have been satisfied for the same reasons that I am satisfied that this can be done without causing the offence that I seek to avoid.
      Andrew Mackinlay: What happens if there is a dispute about a national insurance number? I fully support the thrust of the amendments, but I want to be satisfied that, where a dispute arises about ownership of a national insurance number, the applicant for inclusion on the franchise can fast track, or can satisfy the chief electoral officer. Perhaps the Minister saw Saturday's edition of The Daily Telegraph, which ran an article on Andrew Palmer, a constituent of mine whose national

      385
      insurance number is also being used by somebody in one of Her Majesty's prisons. If I catch your eye later, Madam Deputy Speaker, perhaps I might elaborate on the matter, but it is clear that the national insurance number system is not foolproof, as witnessed by the irritating problems experienced by my constituent. If he lived in Northern Ireland and wanted to vote, he might experience problems in relation to his identity.
      Mr. Browne: My hon. Friend makes a timely intervention. Through the experience of one his constituents, he identifies a problem with national insurance numbers that I, too, identified, and which caused me to have second thoughts and to oppose at the outset their use as identifiers in electoral law. However, I am now satisfied—this debate will show whether my appreciation is correct—that all parties in the House understand that the system can be made to work, that it can accommodate possible flaws in the national insurance number system, and that checks can be used to ensure that people are not disadvantaged and denied their vote. That is why the provisions before the House are so detailed and complex; indeed, they are considerably more complex than any amendment that I resisted in Committee, or than any proposal put forward on Second Reading or during the Bill's remaining stages.
      The complexity of the provisions—particularly that relating to the chief electoral officer's power to check with the Department for Work and Pensions that, in a given circumstance, the national insurance number used is the one that ought to be attributed to the person in question—is designed for the very circumstances that my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) identifies, among others. His constituent's experience—I cannot comment on it because it is not part of my ministerial responsibility, but I understand that the matter is in hand—is another good example of why it is important to proceed with some caution. When we think that we have found a simple solution to a problem, such simplicity often brings its own difficulties.
      Mr. Wilshire: The Minister keeps telling us—I am pleased to hear it—that the proposals now have the support of all parties in the House, but does that include the party that has not taken up its seats, the members of which, disgracefully, have been let into this building by his Government? Has he had any discussions with them and does he know their views? They are among the most serious perpetrators of the fraud in question.
      Mr. Browne: If the chief electoral officer can speak for himself, Sinn Fein Members elected to represent their constituents can certainly speak for themselves, although they choose not to in this House. [Interruption.] Their position on the Bill's proposals is no secret. To my knowledge, they have made no specific comments on the provisions relating to national insurance numbers—they may have made such comments to officials—but they did not support the legislation's general thrust when it was put out for consultation. As I have had no specific response from them on that issue, I am unable to help the hon. Gentleman further.
      However, I shall check. If a response does not reach me, which would surprise me, I shall write to the hon.
      386
      Gentleman with that information. I would not hold my breath for support for the provisions from that particular source.
      5 pm
      Mr. Eddie McGrady: Pursuant to the point regarding a disagreement between the registration officer and the person applying for a vote, be it physical or postal, may I draw the Minister's attention to amendment No. 4? It provides that someone's name be removed from the register if
      "the registration officer determines that he is not satisfied with the information relating to that person which was included in that form pursuant to that requirement."
      That suggests that there will be disputes on certain occasions, which is only to be expected in practical terms. If a dispute results in the registration officer refusing to grant registration, will there be a forum for an appeal or an electoral court, which would enable the applicant for registration to pursue his case and perhaps reach a conclusion?
      Mr. Browne: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that issue. As I stand before him, I do not have the specific answer, although my instincts suggest that a provision in other legislation allows a person who has been denied to register an appeal. Relying on my professional experience—as a solicitor, not as a politician—I suspect that in Scotland the application is made to the sheriff court, but I am not sure. I hope to be able to give him the answer to that question before the debate is out, although I think that what he seeks is in other legislation, if not in the Bill.
      Mr. McGrady: I thank the Minister and I understand his position, but will he confirm that the electoral court tradition, which comes into play when a new register is established, will continue and that such a court will be the forum in which disputes are ironed out or concluded?
      Mr. Browne: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I shall write to him on the detail of the provisions, but I assure him that if someone is denied registration for any reason, not just those relevant to the Bill, they will be able to appeal to the courts, rather than an electoral court, to be included. There is a right to apply to the court, and obviously the judge would exercise the function in relation to electoral law. I assure my hon. Friend that people will not be denied the right to register without the right of appeal.
      Had we not addressed the issues identified as problems in relation to including national insurance numbers, the provisions would have had a number of unhelpful and inappropriate consequences. For example, it would not be possible for the small number of people who do not have a national insurance number for national insurance or benefit purposes to be allocated one so that they may register to vote. That had to be accommodated.
      When I met the Information Commissioner, she made it clear that the employment of the national insurance number in the electoral registration process in Northern Ireland must be put on a clear statutory basis in order for it not to breach the requirements of the Data Protection Act 1998. That is another potential consequence of using national insurance numbers, about which I was concerned.

      387
      She also pointed to the need to keep the use of national insurance numbers in that new context under review. The Government intend to do that.
      Mr. Swire: What is the Department's estimate of the number of people in Northern Ireland without a national insurance number?
      Mr. Browne: I do not have any such estimate, but, given the way in which the Bill is drafted, it is not necessary for my Department to make an estimate. In years to come, once these provisions are in force, there will be a database of those who are of voting age, but at the moment there is no such database that one can refer to for the information that the hon. Gentleman seeks.
      Chris Grayling: Surely one of the fundamental ways to make this legislation work will be to know how many national insurance numbers there are now, so that if any attempt is made to use the new system fraudulently we will get a sense of whether something is amiss.
      Mr. Browne: When the hon. Gentleman considers how the system will work in detail, he will appreciate that it is designed to work in the context of other provisions in other parts of the Bill. A database will be built up over the years under the control of the chief electoral officer, which will allow him to check whether anything is amiss as the years go on. These provisions are not intended to cause everyone's national insurance number to be checked with the Department for Work and Pensions.
      Those who understand the construct and the architecture of the Bill will realise that the principal purpose of checking national insurance numbers is to prevent fraud in the exercise of absent voting. The principal way in which the Bill will prevent impersonation will be by photographic identification. Although national insurance numbers will have some merit in relation to all those who register, they will be of most use as a further check on the identity of those people who want to exercise an absent vote.
      It is not of great importance to the working of the system as a whole to know how many national insurance numbers there are in Northern Ireland as a proportion of those who qualify to have a national insurance number. I do not think that that would be a particularly helpful check. Attention will be concentrated on the national insurance numbers of a comparatively small number of people, and that will greatly help the chief electoral officer to check their identity. Everyone could have a national insurance number, but not everyone in Northern Ireland qualifies for an absent vote. The provisions on absent votes in Northern Ireland are different from those that apply in the rest of the United Kingdom.
      Lady Hermon: Will the Minister clarify an issue that has been raised in the amendments from the other place but is not self-explanatory? The new clause in amendment No. 13 would allow the chief electoral officer for Northern Ireland to request from the relevant authority
      "in the case of…an individual recorded as having a national insurance number, any name and former name, date of birth, sex and address as recorded by the relevant authority in respect of the individual in question."
      388
      Why is it relevant for the sex of a voter to be disclosed by the relevant authority?
      Mr. Browne: The hon. Lady asks a question that could be asked about any aspect of these provisions. Why is it relevant to ask the date of birth of a voter? Why is it relevant to ask voters to say whether they are registered at another place? Why is it relevant to ask a voter to apply his or her signature to the forms so that it can be checked? Why is relevant to ask for a voter's national insurance number?
      Lady Hermon rose—
      Mr. Browne: I shall let the hon. Lady intervene again, but perhaps she will allow me to answer her first question, then I shall deal with her supplementary.
      We are seeking to obtain information on voters that allows the chief electoral officer, on a proportionate basis, to be as sure as he can ever be that the person who chooses to exercise an absent vote is the person who is entitled to that absent vote. Part of that process is to allow the chief electoral officer the power to check with the Department for Work and Pensions that the person who seeks to use that national insurance number to register under that name at that address is the person who is entitled to use that national insurance number.
      What are the distinguishing features of an individual other than being able to tie a number to their personal appearance? They are the person's address, sex and date of birth. Those are the distinguishing features that the chief electoral officer is able to check. Some names can be spelled differently, and parents are increasingly imaginative in their adoption of names for their children. Recently in my constituency a child was named after a Spanish Harlem black rap singer. I could not tell whether that name, which was imported from north America, was associated with a man or woman or with a male or female child. Many children's names can be used for males and females—Kerry, for example, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) says from a sedentary position. I am sure that there will be many such names. It is helpful to establish those three or four items of identification—not in a discriminatory way—to check that the particular national insurance number is being used by the right person.
      Lady Hermon: I am impatient by nature, so I apologise for trying to intervene on the Minister earlier. My point was that we are talking about the Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Bill which, for the first time, introduces new identifiers to the electoral register—a signature and a date of birth; obviously, the name of the voter was required by previous legislation. In terms of consistency with the personal identifiers to which new clause 6 refers, it seems extraordinary that, having referred to the signature, national insurance number, date of birth and address, the sex of a person should also suddenly be required from the relevant authority.
      Mr. Browne: I thank the hon. Lady for her contribution. Her contributions have often been helpful, and occasionally in her interventions she has pointed out areas in which changes have needed to be made. I am grateful to her for that, and I treat her contributions seriously. Her intervention requires a response, but that

      389
      response is that the proposal will assist the chief electoral officer to reassure himself that the identity of the person who is using a particular national insurance number accords with the identity of the person whom he is likely to bring in for interview. If the hon. Lady is satisfied that that is the reason—and that there is no discriminatory reason—perhaps I may move on.
      The Information Commissioner, for whose assistance and help I am very grateful, pointed out to me and the Government that there was a need to keep the use of national insurance numbers in this new context under review. I suggested that the Government would do that, for no other reason than that developments in electronic voting may, in future, offer an alternative solution to the problem of electoral fraud in Northern Ireland, which will allow us to reduce some of the provisions in the Bill and make them more manageable. It is in all our interests, and in the interests of the Northern Ireland electorate, that we keep pace with these developments and consider their potential in the Northern Ireland context.
      I explicitly acknowledge that the first group of Lords amendments enabling national insurance numbers to be used in the electoral process in Northern Ireland reflects a change in Government policy, but I hope that hon. Members will welcome the amendments as a positive response to their concerns and requests. Hon. Members will realise from the length of the amendments that there is no quick-fix solution that will allow for the use of national insurance numbers.
      5.15 pm
      Amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 6 will require a person who applies to register in respect of an address in Northern Ireland to give his or her national insurance number or to make a statement that he or she does not have one. That deals with the point about numbers raised by the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling).
      Lady Hermon: An inconsistency has been thrown up by the Lords amendments. The Minister will recall that in Committee we had a lengthy debate about the fact that the chief electoral officer may dispense with a person's signature that will be required on the register of voters if that person is incapacitated or is unable to read. Will the Minister explain how a person who is incapacitated or is unable to read is expected to make the statement that he does not have a national insurance number?
      Mr. Browne: The provisions in the registration process that take account of a person's disability will apply across the board. They are not restricted to the provision of any particular information.
      In response to a point that the hon. Lady raised earlier, I am able to tell her that when people complete the electoral registration form, they will be invited to indicate their sex by using a prefix to their name. They can use Mr., Mrs., Miss or whatever, and that will also assist the chief electoral officer and the Department for Work and Pensions to establish the sex of a person who has had a national insurance number allocated to them. It may be
      390
      possible administratively to check the veracity of a national insurance number without actually seeing the person using it.
      Lady Hermon: I am grateful to the Minister for being so patient. Will he refer me specifically to the provision in the new clause that applies across the board and allows a person, on the basis of incapacity or being unable to read, to dispense with the requirement to make a statement that he or she does not have a national insurance number?
      Mr. Browne: I am not suggesting to the hon. Lady that she will find such a provision in the Bill. My understanding is that people who cannot make such a statement will be able to have a statement made on their behalf. The form accommodates such a situation. The general provision will apply to anything that is asked for by the registration form. The registration process recognises that some people cannot read or write or that some people have a disability that means they cannot fill in the form themselves. Because of that recognition, the registration process contains a provision that allows information to be communicated to the chief electoral officer on behalf of such people; otherwise they would not get on to the electoral register in the first place. I am saying that the provision applies to any information that we seek to obtain, and that includes whether people have a national insurance number.
      Mr. Gregory Campbell: Will the Minister elaborate on what will happen if an inordinately high number of applicants claim that they do not have a national insurance number? What provisions are there to deal with such circumstances?
      Mr. Browne: The hon. Gentleman anticipates circumstances with which the Bill, as amended in the other place, already deals. The chief electoral officer has the power to check with the Department for Work and Pensions whether the information that people give is correct. Obviously if there is a disproportionate response from people suggesting that they do not have a national insurance number—we do not have a figure for those who might do that, but we do not think it will be that many—alarm bells will ring with the chief electoral officer. The necessary checks will therefore be made. If there are clusters of such claims, the chief electoral officer's attention will be drawn to the geographical areas where they occur.
      Mr. Swire: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way once more on the thorny subject of national insurance numbers. Will he confirm whether more national insurance numbers are in circulation than there are people on the electoral roll in the United Kingdom? If that is the case, would not this be an ideal time to revisit—to use his own word—all those who hold national insurance numbers to find out whether they are the right people in the first place?
      Mr. Browne: Thankfully, I do not have ministerial responsibility for revisiting all those who hold national insurance numbers. That would not be an appropriate use of Government money or a priority for us in the circumstances. I am unable to confirm the hon. Gentleman's assertion—I do not know whether he is

      391
      correct—but my ministerial colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions work assiduously to check such information. I do not suggest that they do so weekly, but I understand that computerised trawls are carried out weekly to check that the national insurance numbers in existence relate properly to the people to whom they appear to relate. I understand that the Department for Work and Pensions undertakes significant work on that issue and that the position is improving.
      I do not seek to blame the pre-1997 Government, but the hon. Gentleman will know—he seems to know something of the background—that the Government inherited a complex system of national insurance numbers, not to mention one of some difficulty. A significant number of national insurance numbers were then in circulation that ought not to have been. He will know that this is a UK-wide database and that it has not been easy to address that challenge because of the numbers involved. I am sure he will want to pay tribute to the work that my colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions are doing in that regard, but I am not sure that suggesting at the Dispatch Box that it is time to address everyone who holds a national insurance number would necessarily help. I have significant faith in my colleagues in that Department to say that they will sort out the problems that they inherited, which have built up over decades.
      Lady Hermon rose—
      Mr. Nigel Dodds rose—
      Mr. Browne: I shall give way to the hon. Lady in a moment, but I first give way to the hon. Gentleman, who is the only hon. Member present who has not yet intervened.
      Mr. Dodds: I am grateful to the Minister for his patience in taking so many interventions. I should like to raise the issue of the officials in the Department for Work and Pensions. I note that provision is made in the amendments to authorise the relevant authority to charge fees to the chief electoral officer for Northern Ireland. Clearly, a deal of extra work will be involved. What is the extent of the extra costs that might be involved? Where will the money come from to allow the chief electoral officer to cover those extra costs?
      Mr. Browne: The answer to the second question is, of course, that the money will come from the Government. It will come from the taxpayer, through the Government, to the chief electoral officer. I am sure that no hon. Member will oppose that expenditure if it improves the honesty and accuracy of the democratic process in Northern Ireland. Given that the provision is a natural consequence of proposals that all parties have urged on the Government, I am certain that no one will complain about money having to be spent in this area of public expenditure, but at this stage I am unable to give the hon. Gentleman details about how much the proposal is likely to cost.
      I seek to do two things in relation to planning and logistics for implementing the Bill. One of them is to meet the deadline of the Northern Ireland Assembly elections in 2003. Things will have to progress in parallel because of that, so I cannot wait until all the details are known
      392
      exactly. However, the details are being worked out with the Department for Work and Pensions at present. My officials will be meeting DWP officials in Leeds tomorrow to discuss the issues.
      Estimates will have to be made and I undertake to get in touch with the hon. Gentleman's party—if not the hon. Gentleman himself—about the progress of the implementation of the provisions. There will be further opportunities for him to raise the issues, and I shall be happy to give him up-to-date briefings on not only the implementation of the Bill but also its costs and logistical consequences.
      I was referring to amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 6, which require a person applying to register in respect of an address in Northern Ireland to give his or her national insurance number, or to make a statement that they do not have one.
      I think that the point made by the hon. Member for North Down arose from the fact that the Bill includes a provision to excuse people who cannot read or write from giving a signature. That was necessary because we realise that the Bill would require people to exercise a skill that not everyone has. However, that is not related to the completion of the form. As the hon. Lady knows, most such forms are completed by householders. They can also be completed by canvass. Canvassers from the chief electoral officer go to every house in Northern Ireland, so it is in order for another person to fill in the information for someone who wants to register.
      As well as requiring national insurance numbers, the amendments will require an applicant to make a statement that he or she has been resident in Northern Ireland for the requisite three-month period before the date of their application. That provision reflects existing law in Northern Ireland, which requires the collection of such information. I shall return to that point later, but I should like to make some progress lest the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) suggest that I orchestrated interventions in order to keep the debate going.
      Hon. Members will no doubt recall that I wrote to inform them that we intended to give the chief electoral officer the power by regulation to ask applicants to the register whether they were registered at another address in the UK. When drafting the amendments to allow for the use of national insurance numbers, I decided to include in primary legislation a requirement to declare multiple registration on applications for registration. The amendments thus require anyone applying to the register in respect of an address in Northern Ireland to state any other address in the United Kingdom in respect of which he or she is, or has applied to be, registered. Amendment No. 14, which I will discuss in more detail later, makes it an offence to provide false information pursuant to that requirement.
      Andrew Mackinlay: I am the rotter who accused the Government of orchestrating the timetable in respect of the 7 o'clock vote so I had some hesitation about intervening, but my point is important.
      Although there is special provision for the compilation of the register in Northern Ireland, with the requirement that people have to have been resident for three months, will the Minister confirm that the law that applies throughout the kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland will not be diluted in any way? The fact that a

      393
      person is resident is not covered by statute—unfortunately; it is, in effect, self-defined. I hope that the Minister will not mind me using him as an example. He is a London resident, and will be voting in the London elections because he has declared himself a resident.
      To some extent, that point also applies in Northern Ireland. Will the Minister confirm that the three months applies to occupancy and that people will not have to stay at the address night after night? That would be absurd and a large number of people would be disqualified.
      5.30 pm
      Mr. Browne: It is for the very reason that my hon. Friend is, in his own words, that rotter that I was pleased to give way to him and will give way again. No doubt he realises that our time has been properly occupied by the issues raised and my explanation of the situation. Indeed, nothing has been raised so far that did not merit discussion.
      My hon. Friend wants an assurance that the Bill will not outlaw multiple registrations. The Government have consistently resisted that proposal, which attracted significant support among Opposition parties, for the reason that my hon. Friend brings to our attention. The Government do not intend to restrict those who qualify to vote in Northern Ireland in ways other than those that apply to the rest of the UK or which go beyond restrictions set out in current law, although residency in Northern Ireland is different in that it has one or two other qualifications.
      My hon. Friend rightly recognises that I have exercised the opportunity to be registered as a voter in my constituency in Scotland where I live and in London. That right will also be available to Northern Ireland voters. The Bill will in no way restrict that. However, because of concern about the possible abuse of multiple registration in Northern Ireland, it will help to identify those people who have registered in more than one place. If there is evidence to suggest that that right is being abused, it can be more accurately investigated against a reduced database of people who are registered in more than one place. The requirement to provide that information is reinforced by the fact that it will be an offence to provide false information or not to provide the information requested.
      Mr. Swire: Given that an increasing number of people in Northern Ireland travel to and work in the Republic, and in some cases live there for part of the time, what discussions is the Minister having with the Government of the Republic on such matters?
      Mr. Browne: None. Discussions with that Government are not relevant to what we are trying to achieve. It is of no interest to me as the Minister with responsibility for electoral law in Northern Ireland whether people qualify to vote elsewhere. Indeed, some European Union residents qualify to vote in certain elections in the UK and in parliamentary elections in other parts of Europe. Citizens of the Republic will be no different. Knowing whether anyone is registered to vote there and in Northern Ireland
      394
      is not relevant to what we are trying to achieve. We have our own law, which we have to ensure is observed and properly policed. That is what the Bill helps to do.
      Lady Hermon: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way once again. In another place, Lord Williams of Mostyn referred to the three-month period, which has now been included in the Bill. He said:
      "The applicant will also be required to make a statement that he or she has been resident in Northern Ireland for the requisite three-month period before the date of application."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 25 February 2002; Vol. 631, c. 1254.]
      Will the Minister confirm whether that residential requirement has now been introduced in Northern Ireland? If so, that will have implications for our European Union obligations and our human rights obligations.
      Mr. Browne: I respond to that question in the certain knowledge that my answer will encourage a contribution from the hon. Lady that will illuminate the debate. This is not a new provision. It is already a requirement in order to vote in Northern Ireland and has been for some time. I am sure that before the debate has finished I will have the precise reference for the hon. Lady, although I cannot supply it off the top of my head.
      In order to register to vote in Northern Ireland, a person has to have that three-month residence. That may partly address the question implied by the previous intervention. We seek not to change the law, but merely to codify it. We intend to codify it in a way and for a reason that I shall discuss in a moment—we want to make it accessible. We are not enacting a new provision.
      The question whether the existing provision creates challenges and consequences in relation to compliance with European Union treaties or human rights legislation could be debated at some length. However, perhaps the hon. Lady will allow me to move on. I have been on my feet for more than an hour and it would be helpful if I were to conclude my remarks and give hon. Members the opportunity to make their contributions. At the conclusion of those contributions, I will seek to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, and endeavour to respond to them.
      By including in the Bill the requirements about residence for three months in Northern Ireland and about registration as an elector at a different address, together with the requirements about the national insurance number, signature and date of birth, all the distinctly Northern Ireland features of the registration process can be found in the same place.
      Amendment No. 4 inserts a new subsection (5A) into section 10A of the Representation of the People Act 1983. It adds to the provisions contained in that section regarding the circumstances in which the chief electoral officer is to remove a person's name from the electoral register.
      A person's name will be removed from the register in respect of any address if they return an application for registration in respect of that address without any of the information that they are required to provide by the Bill.
      Therefore, a person's name will be removed if their application does not contain the signature of the person to whom the application relates—subject to the provision in the Bill for those who are unable to append their signature—or is without the date of birth of such person,

      395
      or their national insurance number, or a statement that they do not have one. A person's name will also be removed if they fail to make a statement that they have been resident in Northern Ireland for the requisite three-month period before the date of their application.
      Paragraph (b) provides for the removal of a person's name from the register where the chief electoral officer determines that he is not satisfied with the information provided—for example, because he believes that it is false. All of that is subject to the existing appeal procedure, which allows people to have recourse to the court.
      Lady Hermon rose—
      Mr. Browne: I will give way, hopefully for the last time, to the hon. Lady.
      Lady Hermon: That was said so graciously that it invites me to intervene once again. The Minister should reflect for a moment on what he has just said, which was that the applicant would have to make a statement that they have been resident for the preceding three months. Will he again confirm, because the amended Bill is not clear, that the chief electoral officer can dispense with the requirement that the voter has to make the statement in cases of incapacity or inability to read?
      Mr. Browne: Yes. The three-month residence requirement has been included in legislation since at least 1949. I shall endeavour before this debate is concluded to try to find out the exact piece that introduced it. I understand that the intention behind the requirement is to prevent any distortion of a genuine poll of Northern Ireland opinion by large numbers of people from outside Northern Ireland registering in anticipation of an election.
      Amendments Nos. 3 and 5 are essentially consequential.
      Amendment No. 9 amends section 6(1) of the Representation of the People Act 1985, which specifies requirements where an elector applies for an absent vote at elections for an indefinite period. An application can be granted only if it states the applicant's national insurance number or that the applicant does not have one, and if the chief electoral officer is satisfied that the national insurance number or statement on the application corresponds with the number or statement which the applicant gave on application for registration, which is of course subject to the chief electoral officer's checking and may have been checked by other provisions in the Bill.
      Amendment No. 11 makes a similar amendment to section 7(1) of the 1985 Act in relation to applications for an absent vote at a particular parliamentary' election. So, those two provisions deal with those who have, as it were, standing absent votes, and those who seek to get an absent vote for a particular parliamentary election.
      Amendment No. 13 inserts a new clause and amends schedule 2 to the Representation of the People Act 1983, which deals with provisions that may be in regulations on registration. The amendment provides for the disclosure by the authority responsible for national insurance numbers—currently the Department for Work and Pensions—to the chief electoral officer, following a request by him, of the national insurance number recorded in respect of a specified individual, or of the fact that the specified individual is not recorded as having a national insurance number.
      396
      The chief electoral officer will also be able to cross-check other information with the Department for Work and Pensions, which will be able to disclose any name or former name of an individual, his or her date of birth, sex and address. We have already debated that in some detail in the context of an intervention. Amendment No. 13 also authorises the authority to which the chief electoral officer makes his requests to charge fees to cover the expenses of complying with such requests. Again in response to an intervention, I have expanded on that.
      Amendment No. 14 makes it an offence to provide false information pursuant to any requirement imposed by the amendments to legislation made by the Bill on an application for registration as an elector in Northern Ireland. It will therefore be an offence for a person to provide a false signature, date of birth or national insurance number, or false information on whether he or she has been resident in Northern Ireland for three months prior to registration, or to fail to state any other address in the UK in respect of which he or she is, or intends to be, registered.
      Quite simply, that means that false information given in response to the requirements imposed by the Bill are dealt with in an offence created by the Bill. I am sure that hon. Members will agree that, in the confusing world of electoral legislation, such clarity is to be welcomed. A person found guilty of the offence of providing false information on registration shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both. The scale of penalties occupied us periodically in Committee. I argue that these penalties are proportionate to offences that are determined by primary legislation.
      Mr. Wilshire: While listening to the hon. Gentleman's comments about the penalties that will be imposed, I find myself wondering why he does not pursue the example of driving licences. One cannot only be fined or sent to prison for driving offences, but one can have one's licence taken away. Would it not be appropriate to add to the list of penalties a disqualification from voting for a decent length of time, as the person will clearly have fraudulently tried to get himself on the register?
      5.45 pm
      Mr. Browne: The hon. Gentleman gives an example of a disproportionate penalty. The whole purpose of the Bill is to ensure that people vote, but vote appropriately—that they do not steal the votes of others, or pretend to be other people, whether real or invented, to exercise a vote. Principally, the Bill is designed to prevent personation or vote stealing. Nothing in it is designed to prevent people from exercising their legitimate right to vote. Since the franchise in the UK was extended, Governments have consistently been careful to restrict the type of penalty that the hon. Gentleman presses on me—that is, disqualification from voting—to comparatively few people. I welcome the fact that those restrictions are reconsidered periodically: we seek a universal franchise.
      I should have thought that a potential term of imprisonment for up to six months, or fine not exceeding level 5, which I think is some thousands of pounds—
      Mr. Swire: £5,000.
      Mr. Browne: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that helpful information. I regard £5,000 as a proportionate

      397
      penalty for such offences. If he checks the Committee Hansard, the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) will see that that is the level of penalty for offences against electoral law that was urged on me on more than one occasion by the Opposition in Committee, and during remaining stages in the House of Commons.
      Amendment No. 15 amends the long title to include a reference to national insurance numbers as one of the pieces of information that must be supplied to the chief electoral officer for Northern Ireland by a person seeking registration. Amendment No. 16 amends the long title to include a reference to the fact that a person will be required to supply, on application to the register, information relating to their period of residence in Northern Ireland and addresses in respect of which they are or have applied to be registered. Those amendments are necessary to ensure that the provisions are within the scope of the Bill. The three-month period of residence is not a new provision.
      I hope that the House will accept the amendments as a positive response to the arguments and concerns articulated by hon. Members of both Houses. I thank all the hon. Members who have taken part in the debates at various stages of the Bill's passage. I know that they are all as keen as I am to ensure that we tackle successfully the problem of electoral fraud in Northern Ireland. They are all entitled to claim some credit for the provisions that the Government have now presented to the House, as well as for other parts of the Bill that have been produced in response to their contributions. I hope that hon. Members will not challenge each other about entitlement to claim the credit for the provisions: they urged them on me as a collective, so I suggest that they take collective credit.
      The Bill will tackle electoral fraud in Northern Ireland successfully by countering electoral abuse directly and at every stage of the electoral process. I do not believe that the measures to prevent electoral fraud put unnecessary obstacles in the path of genuine voters, but the Government will require the assistance of all Opposition parties to help the electorate of Northern Ireland to understand the provisions and to make them work properly, so that obstacles are not inadvertently placed in the way of genuine voters. Because they will make the exercise of democracy more true in Northern Ireland, I trust that the provisions will be acceptable to the people there.
      The Bill is the result of extensive consultation and it responds to calls from within Northern Ireland itself and from parties across the political spectrum. That consultation has continued during the Bill's passage through both Houses. We have examined all the issues raised with an open mind and given careful consideration to whether suggested amendments would assist our efforts to combat fraud and improve the electoral system in Northern Ireland. Particularly on the issues of the use of national insurance numbers in the electoral process and a requirement to declare multiple registration, we have been able to deliver appropriate changes to the Bill during its passage through the Lords. I hope that where issues and concerns have been raised we have been able to offer reassurance that they are being addressed, albeit not necessarily by legislation.
      Mr. Blunt: For the convenience of the House, I will not take as long as the Minister which, of course, would be impossible because he took up more than half the time for debate; we congratulate him on his marathon effort.
      Mr. Stephen Pound: Get on with it.
      Mr. Blunt: As a member of the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs, the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that we have just witnessed the Minister lengthily turning full circle. The Minister has not performed a U-turn; he has spent four years describing a circle, finally arriving this evening at the position he initially took when signing off and supporting the Select Committee report of 11 March 1998. It is pertinent to examine the Minister's role in that Committee. He was sceptical when questioning Mr. Pat Bradley, the chief electoral officer. I shall give the House a flavour of the Minister's contributions to provide a perspective on where he stood in the first place.
      On page nine of Mr. Bradley's evidence on 5 November 1997, the Minister said:
      "Good afternoon, Mr. Bradley. My questions are designed to see if you can assist us in quantifying the extent of the problem in the generality and, if you can, in relation to the different types of electoral abuse that you identify in your memorandum. Have you made any attempt to quantify the extent of this problem in the generality of your extensive experience of electoral practice in Northern Ireland?"
      Passing over Mr. Bradley's response for the sake of time, suffice it to say that it did not satisfy the Minister, who said:
      "With respect, Mr. Bradley, you are not answering my question. What I am interested in finding out from you is have you either yourself—since you seem to do a lot of this yourself—or your staff actually counted the instances where you have a question mark about what is going on or where there is evidence to suggest there is electoral malpractice?"
      Mr. Bradley said:
      "If you refer back to my report—"
      The Minister interrupted:
      "I will refer to your report because it is from your report that I see an absence of statistics. On page 1 of your report, paragraph 2.3, headed "Multiple registration", the second sentence says: 'There have been allegations of deliberately false multiple registrations in some constituencies as part of a planned electoral abuse campaign.' Presumably, Mr Bradley, if those allegations were made to your office you should know how many of them there were. Do you have the information to say how many such allegations were made?"
      Mr. Bradley replied:
      "Unfortunately, I have heard many allegations but no specific facts were given to me."
      The Minister said:
      "I am sorry, Mr. Bradley, I am not trying to be difficult here. I just want to know if you have the information that would allow this Committee to get at numbers. Do you actually count the number of such allegations and could you give this Committee information about the numbers of those allegations by reference to constituencies?"
      Mr. Bradley was unable to satisfy the Minister.
      Mr. Browne: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House the point?
      Mr. Blunt: I am making a point about the Minister's attitude to the legislation and his proper scepticism about

      399
      allegations of electoral abuse in Northern Ireland when a member of the Select Committee. Having sat through the taking of evidence, he agreed a report, a central requirement of which was to tidy up the register to ensure that it was clean and that the issue of absent vote fraud was addressed. We have had to go through agonising proceedings, both in Committee and on Third Reading, and it is only now that Government amendments have been introduced in the House of Lords to put into effect what the Minister as a Back-Bench Member signed up to more than four years ago; finally, we are going to get satisfactory legislation on to the statute book. The Minister took a considerable time to put the case for the amendments; perhaps he thought it would be less painful to take up half our debate with his circumlocution than have us point out that case to him.
      Lady Hermon: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman giving way. It did not go unnoticed that I delayed the Minister considerably this afternoon, but I was genuinely concerned that the Lords amendments did not tie in with the Bill or appear to be compatible with the measure which we debated both in the House and in the Committee on which the hon. Gentleman served. Does he accept that during those four years data protection legislation has been a severe impediment to the disclosure of information on, for example, national insurance numbers?
      Mr. Blunt: I certainly would not criticise the hon. Lady for intervening on the Minister, who chose to accept her interventions. She is in no way responsible for the length of his speech. As for the detail of the data protection legislation, the position has not changed during the four years in which the Government have been considering the measure. The Government faced the same problem when they received the report as they do now when proposing their solution.
      Mr. Swire: Does my hon. Friend agree that the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) was probably closer to the truth in an article in The Daily Telegraph last year entitled "Sinn Fein is accused of massive vote fraud". He said:
      "There is no doubt Sinn Fein is involved in electoral fraud on a massive scale."
      He went on to say that Sinn Fein
      "have been working on it for years and Government have not been treating the issue seriously."
      Mr. Blunt: I agree. That criticism has been made consistently, particularly by the Opposition, since Second Reading on 10 July last year. The one criticism that could be made of the Government is their lack of speed in introducing legislation. I hope that the Minister accepts that argument.
      Mr. Browne: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that before 1997 it did not occur to the previous Government that such provisions could have helped?
      Mr. Blunt: The Government are responding to a Select Committee report published on 11 March 1998; that Committee was formed under the Labour Government, in a Parliament when the Minister first served as an MP, as did I. The Government are to be commended for introducing legislation in response to a Select Committee
      400
      report to deal with a particular problem in Northern Ireland. However, the Minister cannot get away with suggesting that no attempt was made to deal with electoral fraud during the previous 18 years; he knows that a significant number of pieces of legislation attempted to address different areas of electoral fraud. The battle will not be fought and won with the Bill; it may well be that further problems arise if people who wish to defraud the system can find a way round the legislation that we pass. It will then be up to us, either in this Parliament or in future Parliaments, to attempt to address that electoral fraud; the situation is not static.
      I should like to draw the attention of the House to two issues in light of the Select Committee report. In introducing the Lords amendments, the Minister suggested that the use of national insurance numbers was mainly to address absent votes. I disagree; we need to go back to first principles. I agree with paragraph 23 of the Select Committee report, to which he signed up, which states:
      "An accurate Register is vital. Without a trustworthy Register, there can be no secure confidence in the electoral system. At present, it is not absolutely clear how reliable the Register is. We do not share the confidence of the Interim Review Report that 'while there may be some scope for some minor adjustments in the current system for the registration of electors in Northern Ireland, in actual terms the accuracy of the Register is not seriously in question.'
      On the contrary, in our view the evidence indicates that there may be a serious level of multiple registration, at least in some parts of Northern Ireland."
      That is why the inclusion of national insurance numbers and multiple registration were at the centre of what the Opposition were seeking to achieve if the proposed legislation were to be satisfactory to take on electoral fraud in the most effective way. It would be churlish of us not to welcome the fact that in another place our objectives have been achieved.
      6 pm
      The Minister has attempted to present to the House that facing the Government was the agonising question of appraisal of the use of national insurance numbers. A nice and simple solution, as it appeared, has been discovered to have flaws that the Minister and the Government have gradually been able to address. The fact that NI numbers were not fool-proof was known by the Committee when it wrote the report in 1998. Paragraph 56 reads:
      "No single piece of information is going to provide an absolute guarantee against fraud, but the harder it becomes to falsify proof of identity the more the balance of effort and gain turns away from favouring vote cheats. Useful identifiers which might be included in applications to register as a voter are the date of birth … and the voter's national insurance number. Neither of these pieces of information is completely secure, particularly against organised vote theft, but their use would deter opportunistic fraud."
      It is—[Interruption.] The Minister says from a sedentary position that that is a different point. It is not. It is vital that the register is as clean and reliable as it can be. If there are two numeric identifiers—for example, date of birth and the national insurance number—to be set against the name of a registered voter, there would be a geometrically increased reliability provided by the computer checking that could be made of the register.
      Mr. Browne: With respect, the hon. Gentleman is making a different point. There is no argument that using

      401
      different pieces of information about individuals improves the prospect of being able to identify them accurately. Equally, there is no question that the limitations imposed by the state of the national insurance database posed problems. The question is how those problems can be addressed in a way that allows that database to be used as one of the identifiers. That is the point that I was making. If the hon. Gentleman did not understand it then, perhaps he might understand it now.
      Mr. Blunt: The Minister is splitting hairs. He made it clear in his introductory remarks that there appeared to be a nice and simple solution and that it seemed that there were no problems with it. He failed to say that there was awareness of the problems in 1998. National insurance numbers are not entirely fool-proof but, in conjunction with date of birth, they provide an opportunity to cross-reference and cross-check data against the elector. The Bill will give the chief electoral officer the opportunity to ensure that the register will be as robust as it reasonably can be in current circumstances.
      Perhaps the Minister's claims disguise the reality. Parliament owes a debt to my noble Friend Lord Glentoran, who leads for the Conservative party in another place, and to the Minister's noble Friend, Lord Williams of Mostyn, for the way in which they considered the Bill. I believe that there was joint determination that the other Departments that hold national insurance numbers should not be allowed to throw bureaucratic hurdles in the way of the proper objective to make the register as robust as possible, and that absent vote fraud should be made as difficult as possible.
      I recognise Lord Williams's efforts and the contribution that presumably the Minister will have made within the Department. He failed to succeed during earlier consideration in this place but we know that at the last gasp, perhaps with there being the opportunity of having the measure imposed upon the Government in another place, it has been possible to convince others in the government machine outside the Northern Ireland Office of the necessity of giving access to national insurance numbers so that they might be checked.
      It is rather a pity that the bureaucratic battle was not won rather earlier. If that had been achieved, it would not be necessary for this debate to take place, given the Minister's rather inelegant rotation of position. Better late than never. The Opposition thoroughly welcome the amendments.
      As for multiple registration, the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds) should he cautioned on accepting the Minister's undertaking that he will be in touch, and if not with him, with a member of his party. The Minister gave a similar undertaking about consultation in Committee on multiple registration. He was gracious enough to accept that the consultation was not entirely flawless when we came to Report. [Interruption.] The Minister is grumbling in his place. I remind the House that he promised to consult all the parties involved in multiple registration. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) and I heard nothing from him about that consultation. He was gracious enough to apologise to me at an earlier stage of our proceedings—I am grateful that he is nodding in agreement.
      402
      In Committee, we discussed whether multiple registration should be included in primary legislation. I introduced new clause 8 in Committee, which would have included the provision in the Bill. There would have been a requirement for multiple registrations to be recorded. The Minister said in Committee that there were attempts to outlaw multiple registration. That was the position in the amendments set out in the name of the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson). However, they were not supported by the official Opposition. That might have been the implication behind the introduction of the proposed legislation that we are considering. It was in response to the assurances that we would achieve the objectives that we sought that I withdrew new clause 8 in Committee.
      I was delighted that we would achieve the objective by regulation. That would have been satisfactory to an extent, but we would have much preferred the provision to appear in the Bill. However, the requirement has been introduced in another place to register multiple addresses in the Bill. That is enormously to be welcomed.
      We have achieved all but limited aspects of the substantive amendments tabled in Committee. One of them was a timetable to ensure that photographic identification would be in place for the Assembly elections in 2003. I understand from the Minister when he introduced the amendments that it is still the Government's intention to have that system up and running for the elections. In Committee I wanted to place that as a duty on the Government by having it written into the Bill, to ensure that there was no element of discretion. A little more than a year away from the Assembly elections, the Minister is telling the House that it is still his intention to have the system in place. If that is achieved, it will be a source of satisfaction.
      The Bill, as amended by the House of Lords, significantly advances the battle against electoral fraud in Northern Ireland. The Lords amendments are essential to make the Bill as robust as possible and have hugely added to its strength. Her Majesty's Opposition therefore welcome them and will, of course, support them.
      Mr. McGrady: In view of the time, I shall be brief. We welcome the Bill's progress. Electoral fraud in Northern Ireland is an endemic problem. As I said on Second Reading, it is not just a casual or an individual event; it is a concerted, planned campaign in a paramilitary style, carried out by virtually paramilitary organisations.
      I repeat that electoral fraud has changed some of the representation of the people to the House, and it could change the direction of politics in Northern Ireland as a whole. That is why the true voice of democracy is so important in Northern Ireland, more so than anywhere else, particularly in these times of change, transition and sensitivity. However long it has taken, we warmly welcome the fact that the Bill will shortly become law.
      It bothers me not how the conversion took place—whether it was divine intervention, the road to Damascus, or the eloquence, persuasiveness and logic of members of the Committee that changed the Government's mind. I suspect that the Minister was an ardent adherent of his earlier comments and attitudes to the Select Committee, but was implementing orders to say that the introduction of national insurance numbers as a means of identification was far too complex. I do not think that he ever believed that. I certainly did not believe what he was saying, and I suspect that he did not believe it, either.

      403
      We welcome the compulsory registration of multiple registration, where someone is registered elsewhere. That is vital in the context of Northern Ireland. There is also the problem of multiple occupation. In the electoral register of Northern Ireland, there are instances of 10, 12 or 14 people being registered from a two-bedroom flat. That is an interesting concept in terms of human dynamics and it has an adverse impact on election results.
      In my brief intervention, I asked about amendment No. 4 to section 5A, concerning the discretion of the registration officer and how the applicant for registration would be assisted if he disputed the registration officer's findings. I referred to electoral courts, but that is much too lofty an authority. What I meant was the hearings of the registration officer, which usually take place in December or January. That should be where the refused applicant is given an opportunity to rebut a decision. After all, it will sometimes be a subjective decision by the registration officer. That should be the setting for an appeal to take place, without prejudice to the person's legal right to a much more formal process in a court of law.
      I was interested in the rather short answer that the Minister gave the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds) about funding, logistics and personnel. I am deeply concerned about those matters, but the Minister touched on them only briefly. He may be able to elaborate in his winding-up speech, if time permits. If the new provisions are to be fully and properly implemented, it is essential that there should be a greater number of personnel, both in the registration offices and particularly in the polling stations on the day of the poll.
      It is equally important that personnel be of the calibre and character to understand their duties and to be determined to enforce them. We can legislate all we like, and there can he rules and regulations regarding polling stations, but if the personnel in the polling stations are not confident of back-up in implementing them, all our work will come to naught. I am anxious that, by direction, rule or regulation, personnel should be properly briefed.
      6.15 pm
      I endorse the comments of the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) about the Minister's assurance this evening that the non-photographic identification of a voter at a polling station would be withdrawn by 1 May 2003. That is an ambitious programme for the Minister at this rather late stage of the process. I am somewhat comforted by his assurance, however. Perhaps he can indicate in his winding-up speech or in writing whether he has any further thoughts concerning the matters about which he was going to communicate with members of the Select Committee regarding driving licences—the photographic part only being available as a means of identification, quite satisfactorily—and regarding what progress has been made in respect of the photo-identity of the elderly citizen through the Translink photographic transport pass. As the process is entirely voluntary, those would help to determine how many people do not have any means of photo-identity and would greatly reduce the number who need to be serviced.
      I know that many other hon. Members, especially from Northern Ireland, want to speak, and I would like to hear from them. I must tell the Minister, however, that we are disappointed—in some respects severely disappointed—by the shortfalls in the Bill and the Lords amendments.
      404
      One of the most difficult aspects of voting in Northern Ireland is intimidation on the day at the polling station. We had sought by statute or by regulation the creation of a cordon sanitaire around a polling station, so that political party activists could not act in an intimidatory fashion towards the voter. That has not been taken on board.
      I am also deeply disappointed that responsibility for preventing fraud at the polling station still resides primarily with the voluntary party official known as the polling clerk, with all the legal responsibilities and liabilities that he may incur. It is probably the only instance in which a policeman can observe a crime being committed without having the power to intervene to prevent it. Again, that did not come within the compass of the Bill.
      Finally, it may be a hoary old chestnut to many in the House, but much of the tension, impersonation and wrongdoing in elections in Northern Ireland could have been ameliorated considerably if the Government had had the courage to introduce that form of election which pertains in every other election in Northern Ireland except elections to the House. I refer to proportional representation. Proportional representation in Northern Ireland applies to European elections, local government elections and Assembly elections. The only elections to which it does not apply are those to the House.
      I know the arguments that are used, but I find them rather light arguments, and sometimes spurious. The brutal fact is that by its nature, proportional representation would take much of the sectarian bigotry, hatred and attitudes out of the campaign and would reflect the real wishes of the electorate in Northern Ireland much better than the first-past-the-post system. That system means that if a candidate gets half a dozen votes more than their opponent as a result of fraud or personation, they can win the day. In practical terms, that could not happen under proportional representation.
      None the less, I do not want to look a gift-horse in the mouth. On behalf of my party and constituents, I welcome very much this valiant attempt to correct the imperfections—to put it politely—of our electoral system, and to seek in practical terms to prevent fraud and thereby do away with a lot of the intimidation that the current system engenders.
      Lembit Öpik: In a debate lasting two hours and 23 minutes, I note that the Minister took one hour and 13 minutes to make his speech and respond to the other points that were made. In other words, just over half the time was devoted to the Minister's retraction of the position that he has so assiduously argued at every stage of the Bill's passage until today.
      It is understandable that the Minister wanted to take some time to explain how this 11th-hour enlightenment came upon him, although the points that he made were pretty clear to hon. Members in all parts of the House—except those whipped by the Government. I welcome his honesty in implying acceptance that the Government may have been wrong to show such a degree of inflexibility at earlier stages. Apropos of our debate on the programme motion, if time is squeezed towards the end of this debate because of the length of his speech, it will be another instance in which one is made more cautious about such motions. Fortunately, the Government did the right thing

      405
      today, not least in the eyes of the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt), but I am a bit cautious about programme motions, so we will see how the time goes for this group of amendments and the remaining one.
      Lady Hermon: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I want to make two points. First, in fairness to the Minister, I took up a lot of his time with serious interventions. Secondly, last December, with regard to national insurance numbers, the Minister said:
      "I am still in reflective mode".—[Official Report, 5 December 2001; Vol. 376, c. 320.]
      The points made in Committee preoccupied him. I know that it took an awful long time to get him out of reflective mode, but he came out of it positively.
      Lembit Öpik: I agree on both points. I am not condemning the Minister for the time that he took: it is a sign of strength, not weakness, to be willing to respond to interventions across the Floor of the House. It is to his credit that he did not waffle or waste our time with his responses. Furthermore, the hon. Lady's interventions were based on sound understanding of the issues and added value to the debate. I was suggesting only that the Minister and the Government are responsible for working out how much time is required, but I am not even condemning the Minister on that point: if we finish comfortably by 7 o'clock, no damage will have been done. I seek only to put down a marker, as what happens now will guide our future behaviour. However, we have had the debate on the programme motion, Madam Deputy Speaker, so I wish to turn to more substantive points about the amendments.
      In view of the debate, the Minister's comments and the proceedings of Standing Committee D on 16 October 2001, all sides now finally agree that the proposal on national insurance numbers is sensible. That position has been firmly held throughout by all parties except the one in government; indeed, it seems that the Minister himself took the same view in his earlier incarnation as a Back Bencher. To the credit of the Government, they have now come round to a commonsense position that is agreed in all other parts of the House. The amendment is welcome, but it has come at the 11th hour. I seek the Minister's explicit reassurance on when he expects all the mechanics that are required to implement it to be in place. Evidently, next year's elections have a fixed date and we want the arrangements to be in place by that time.
      As a wistful footnote to the remarks of the hon. Member for Reigate, I point out the changes could have been introduced earlier. In fairness to the Minister, he made the same point. We did not have to wait until 1997 or 1998 to consider the matter, but I accept that the Conservative Government made various efforts to try to close the loopholes that allowed electoral fraud to occur on the massive scale on which it has previously occurred in the Province.
      Of course, we will not get certainty even with the introduction of the provisions on national insurance numbers. If people try hard enough, they will find a way through. We are playing a probabilities game, but if the amendment tightens up electoral fraud substantially and reduces it measurably in the Province—I shall return to that wider issue—it will be worth while.
      406
      It seems ironic that the process has required the upper House to talk sense into the Government. I want to make a couple of points about that process, as in some ways the most important lesson for the future is the degree of flexibility that the Government need to ensure that they do not again miss a trick on an issue such as the inclusion of national insurance numbers. I wonder what would have happened if they had been able to whip their vote in the upper House to maintain the Bill in unamended form. I am not saying that the Minister would necessarily have ignored the amendment, but circumstantially speaking, I am aware of the extreme measures that he took to justify the absence of any proposal for change on 16 October 2001.
      The hon. Member for Reigate cited the comments made by the Minister in 1998. I suspect that one could argue, perhaps slightly tenuously, that the Data Protection Act 1998 made matters very different, but those changes occurred before October last year, when the Minister was scratching around to try to give the impression that what was being proposed could not be achieved. One of the examples that he gave to show why it would be unreasonable to include the national insurance number related to a childless French woman who was married to a Northern Ireland resident, did not work or claim benefits, but would be entitled to vote. Technically, such people may exist, but I can only conclude from the Minister's volte face that he now accepts that what happens in respect of such a small number of people will be acceptable collateral damage in order to close the loophole. I understand from his comments today—I refer mainly to those made in response to the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon)—that such individuals would not be barred from voting by the arrangements that he outlined.
      Mr. Browne: Can the hon. Gentleman work out the probability of somebody whose roots are in the Baltic states being educated in Northern Ireland and representing a Welsh constituency?
      Lembit Öpik: As an aside, let me say that when I first applied for selection to represent Montgomeryshire, the Welsh Liberal Democrats held a sweepstake on who would be chosen. The odds against me were regarded as so large that they had to refund some money, because I had not been included on the list. So I accept that stranger things have happened. Perhaps I should also briefly cite the occasion when, somewhat erroneously, somebody said in a moment of rage that there were more Estonians than Etonians in the Cabinet. As the first Estonian to speak on the Floor of the House, I can claim credit for having bucked the statistics.
      The Minister tried hard to justify why it would be unacceptable to introduce national insurance numbers as a kind of insurance policy against electoral fraud. All the details are there for hon. Members and the public to see in the record of the Standing Committee on 16 October, so I need not labour the point.
      6.30 pm
      I suggest that the benefit of being willing to listen to and accept such points at an earlier stage cannot be overstated. Two elements slowed down the process; we could have got here much faster. First, the Minister was apparently under an obligation not to give way on this point in the face of

      407
      insuperable, unarguable evidence from all sides that it was a desirable change that would make a considerable difference to the amount of electoral fraud in Northern Ireland. He might have saved us time if he had taken a more circumspect approach, instead of committing himself as he did, thereafter—understandably—not being able to reverse that position until the Bill went to the upper House. Of course, this time the situation has been recovered and we are able to do the right thing now. However, on previous occasions—I shall not give a long list—the Government have been able to push legislation through, to its detriment.
      My second point concerns consultation. The hon. Member for Reigate rightly cited an occasion on which neither he nor I had been consulted. The Minister gracefully apologised for that at the time, and has showed some contriteness today.
      Mr. Blunt: Contrition.
      Lembit Öpik: I thank the hon. Gentleman for the grammar lesson.
      Consultation is absolutely vital in dealing with technically complicated matters relating to the Province. The Government have done well in consulting on many pieces of Northern Irish legislation—for example, the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000—but this time I felt that Ministers were not necessarily listening to an appropriate degree.
      Today's debate may hold lessons for the United Kingdom as a whole as regards electoral fraud. If there is a massive increase in the use of postal votes, we may want to assess what is working in the Province before considering implementing such changes on the mainland. Of course, that must be balanced by civil liberties, cost-benefit considerations and so forth. I put that down as a marker for future debates if it turns out that electoral fraud is prompted or stimulated by changes that we make to the electoral process.
      Mr. Browne indicated assent.
      Lembit Öpik: I see that the Minister has some sympathy with that point.
      It is to the Government's credit that they have finally listened, although it has taken a long time for us to get here. I am confident that these changes will make a difference to the opportunity for organised electoral fraud to take place in the Province, although realistically it may still be possible. As the Minister said, we have conquered the summit of the debate together, but if the Government had listened to us a little more we might have found a rather faster route.
      Mr. Harry Barnes: I am grateful to the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) for telling us about the seriousness of this matter. Electoral fraud in Northern Ireland is a massive issue, and we should all be concerned about getting it right. Regardless of whether the Bill gets it absolutely right, it represents a considerable advance.
      On using national insurance numbers for electoral registration, I feel a bit like Zebedee in "The Magic Roundabout". At one time I stood in one position, then I jumped to the opposite position, and now I am minded to jump back again—unless something dramatic happens in the next 20 minutes or so.
      408
      I, with my hon. Friend the Minister, was a member of the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs that produced the report. Although the Conservative spokesman pointed out that our report said that we should be under no illusion that the national insurance system was perfect, and difficulties were bound to be involved, I and other members of the Committee felt that it offered a unique and precise, if not perfect, set of identifiers, which, despite the qualifications detailed in the report, represented a good idea that could be propounded. I willingly took that position, at which point I was clearest about the issue.
      When we listened to what my hon. Friend the Minister said in Standing Committee, it began to emerge that the matter was not as straightforward and clear as we had thought in the Select Committee, and to some extent those doubts remain. The balance may have moved back in the other direction, but the earlier remarks by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) revealed areas of difficulty. The Minister's argument about the complexity and sophistication of the measures in the amendments, and the fact that other legislation potentially offers a court avenue, seems to tip the argument in favour of the measure that we initially suggested. Nevertheless, I am not as solidly and fully convinced of that as I was when the Select Committee produced the report, because genuine doubts have been sown. I discussed them in Standing Committee, and they are still there.
      We will not tackle the problem of electoral registration in Northern Ireland until we tackle it for the whole of the United Kingdom. We must do that by developing a method that is as watertight as we can achieve under a new technology—that is, by using identity cards in the process of electoral registration. We have not yet reached that stage. We cannot do it in this provision for Northern Ireland, so we are making the best guess that we can in the circumstances by finally accepting that national insurance numbers, in addition to the other measures in the Bill, will order matters as well as possible—although nothing is absolutely certain, and there may be difficulties in the courts.
      Another major issue is multiple registration. I remain committed to the view that that should not take place. The only concept worthy of picking up from the poll tax is that there could be registration at one sole or main place of residence. Rolling registers should enable us to develop to a position whereby a person is mainly resident in one area, in which they exercise their franchise. Again, that cannot simply be added to this provision for Northern Ireland. Indeed, Northern Ireland raises problems as regards extending registration of a single nature throughout the rest of Britain, because it has a three-month registration period. That is probably necessary so that areas are not manipulated and flooded by people deliberately moving in from the Republic of Ireland to distort a particular electoral result. As long as there is a three-month waiting period in Northern Ireland, and we are trying to fix a system with Britain, it will not be possible to have single registration provisions. We shall have to crack that problem in future.
      The rolling electoral register has exacerbated the problem because as soon as people move elsewhere in the United Kingdom, they can register in the place that should

      409
      be their sole or main place of registration. If they move from Britain to Northern Ireland, they will have to wait three months before registering there. That will hold matters up. It will not be easy simply to move registration from one area to another.
      Although I have some principled proposals that, I believe, would improve electoral registration for the whole United Kingdom and be especially beneficial in Northern Ireland, where there are considerable problems, the measure is welcome. I believe that we have got it about right.
      Lady Hermon: I shall keep my remarks brief because I have intervened several times. I am conscious that other hon. Members, and not only those with Northern Ireland constituencies, want to contribute.
      The Bill is infinitely better than the version that first saw the light of day. Including national insurance numbers as well as signatures and dates of birth will reduce the opportunities for electoral fraud in Northern Ireland. That must be welcomed. I pay tribute to those in the Northern Ireland Office and those who drafted the amendments on such a technical aspect of law. They have done an excellent job.
      When I entered the Chamber this afternoon, I had two main reservations. First, hon. Members know that the original Bill made a specific dispensation for those who are incapacitated or unable to read. They are not required to provide a signature. The amendments require national insurance numbers or a statement that a person does not have one, and a statement about residence. It was unclear whether the voter had to make those statements. The Bill and the amendments do not provide a dispensation equivalent to that for providing a signature.
      My anxiety deepened when I read the debate in the other place on 25 February 2002. Lord Williams of Mostyn made matters clear. He said:
      "Amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 6 will require a person applying to be registered in respect of a Northern Ireland address to give a national insurance number, or to make a statement that he does not have such a number. The applicant will also be required to make a statement that he or she has been resident in Northern Ireland for the requisite three-month period before the date of application, and to state any other address".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 25 February 2002; Vol. 631, c. 1254.]
      Suffice it to say that I was worried about the lack of an exemption for people who are incapacitated or unable to read and had to make a statement about residence or their national insurance numbers. The Minister's comments were designed to be useful and helpful, and he clarified the matter. He said that the statement does not necessarily have to be made by the elector. The amendments do not make that clear, and I greatly appreciate the Minister's clarification.
      That leaves the three-month residence requirement. The Minister provided some insight and said that the requirement has existed since 1949. If he has been able to find the relevant legislation, it is doubtless an old Stormont measure.
      Mr. Barnes: The provision is contained in Representation of the People Acts that are passed by Parliament, not Stormont.
      6.45 pm
      Lady Hermon: I appreciate that intervention. It is helpful to know that: it is not Stormont, but United Kingdom legislation. That makes matters more interesting because 1949 pre-dates our obligations under the European convention on human rights and the 1957 EEC treaty. I want to consider both measures because the Minister should tackle both if possible.
      The first protocol and article 3 of the convention on human rights have been incorporated into the Human Rights Act 1998, but would have been part of our legislation since we ratified the convention in 1953. Article 3 obliges the high contracting parties, including the United Kingdom,
      "to undertake to hold free elections at reasonable intervals by secret ballot, under conditions which will ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature."
      It does not state: "the opinion of the people resident for three months in the choice of the legislature."
      My anxiety is underlined by the fact that under the 1957 EEC treaty, article 48 guarantees the free movement of workers from one member state to another. I am sure that the Minister knows that the High Court ruled in the landmark case of Van Duyn v. the Home Office several years ago that article 48, especially the second and third paragraphs, were directly effective in the United Kingdom. They give workers from member states, including the Republic of Ireland, the right to move freely from one member state to another.
      After the treaty, the important Council regulation 1612 was introduced in 1968. It guarantees to workers who move from one member state to another the same social and tax advantages as the workers of the host member state. Given that the three-month residence requirement has existed since 1949, the Minister must deal with its compatibility with our obligations under the European convention on human rights and especially EU legislation.
      Will the Minister explain the reason for the two definitions of the Representation of the People Act 1983? Clause 1 states:
      "The Representation of the People Act 1983 … (in this Act referred to as 'the 1983 Act')".
      Clause 7 repeats that by stating:
      "In this Act, 'the 1983 Act' means the Representation of the People Act 1983".
      That is superfluous. A definition of the principal Act would have been better; it is not defined at all. I rest my case, and look forward to the Minister's replies.
      Mr. Wilshire: Unlike the Liberal Democrat spokesman, who spoke as a contributor from the minor parties, I have no complaints about the Minister's opening speech. He was helpful, patient and did his best to answer a range of important and genuine queries that hon. Members from all parties raised.
      Lembit Öpik: I went to some lengths to stress that I did not condemn the Minister for the length of his speech; I was making a point about the programme motion.
      Mr. Wilshire: It did not sound like that at the time; it sounded like a criticism, which prods me to say that I am not criticising. However, the spokesman for the minor parties is right that the debate tells us much about the

      411
      stupidity of the programme motion. After a sensible debate in which the Minister, quite rightly, took up a lot of time, we are about to run out of time on the first group of amendments. Two of my hon. Friends still want to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, which means that there will not be the slightest chance of the Minister being able to respond fully and properly to the additional points being made, let alone to start any sort of a debate on the second group of amendments, unless people can now be persuaded to shut up. I am sure that that is what the Government would like, so that we cannot demonstrate the futility of yet another programme motion curtailing debate in the House and curtailing our opportunities to press the Minister to explain the Government's priorities.
      That said, it would be wrong of me to say other than that I, like everyone else, welcome a change of heart when it is on offer. Heaven only knows, it is rare enough for any Government, let alone this one, to change their mind. We ought all, therefore, to put on record that we appreciate that. Exactly what has led the Minister to this is private grief on which I do not wish to intrude. I just want to thank him.
      I want to say one or two things about the Minister's comments at the beginning of the debate. Those comments are relevant, because we had an exchange of views about why the chief electoral officer had changed his mind. I accept that the Minister does not know those reasons; he was very honest about that, for which I am grateful. We ought to know the reasons, however, because if we are to make a fair, rational judgment about these matters, we need to know what the chief electoral officer has now concluded. I hope that he has not simply changed his mind because the Government told him to. That would never be a justification.
      Mr. Browne indicated dissent.
      Mr. Wilshire: The Minister shakes his head, and I am glad, because that suggests that that is not what happened. If the Minister is certain that the chief electorial officer has not changed his mind because of Government pressure, he must have some reason for that certainty—he must know what the reason was. If the Minister rules out one reason, he must have some evidence on which to shake his head and say no. I urge him to go back to the chief electoral officer after this debate to ask him the reason, and to write to my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) with the answer—or place a copy of the letter or statement in the Library—so that we can see it.
      Mr. Browne indicated dissent.
      Mr. Wilshire: The Minister is again shaking his head. If he would like to intervene to say why he is not prepared to do that, the House would be grateful. The Minister does not want to tell us why he is not prepared to get the answer to a question. That is typical of a Government who do not like to answer questions if it does not suit their purpose. That is entirely wrong.
      Another comment that the Minister made, but did not pursue as much as I would have liked, was that all the parties in the House supported his change of heart. That is good as far as it goes, but he then went on to say that he was unable to tell us what Sinn Fein-IRA thought about
      412
      the proposal, although he had a general sense that they were not much in favour of it when it was originally published. It is crucial that the House should know what the agents of terror think about our attempts to improve democracy in Northern Ireland. Not only are they prepared to ignore the wishes of their constituents in refusing to take their seats here, but if they are against this attempt to clamp down on fraud, we are entitled to assume that they welcome fraud. That would certainly seem to be the case. It is, therefore, remiss of the Minister not to have made any effort to discover what Sinn Fein-IRA really think, because we need to know.
      Mr. Swire: Is my hon. Friend aware of what Baroness Park said recently in the other place? She quoted the following statement from Sinn Fein:
      "Sinn Fein believes that there is a compelling and logical argument to ensure that the electorate has the maximum freedom to exercise their vote as freely as possible."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 8 January 2002; Vol. 630, c. 463.]
      What does my hon. Friend deduce from that?
      Mr. Wilshire: I deduce that I am glad someone has taken the trouble to think about this, and to say something about it, unlike the Minister, who clearly has not made any such effort.
      Mr. Browne: I am reluctant to take up any more time in this debate, but I think that the hon. Gentleman is inadvertently misrepresenting my position. Sinn Fein was, of course, consulted on these matters, as were all parties. The quotation that the hon. Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) referred to in the other place came from the early paragraphs of its response to the consultation process, which is available for anybody to read. In answer to the hon. Gentleman's other point, I merely pointed out that I had not had a response from Sinn Fein on the point that he raised. I did not say that I did not seek a response, but that I had not had one.
      Mr. Wilshire: If I misrepresented the Minister, of course I apologise, and I am grateful that he has explained his position for the benefit of the House.
      The Minister said earlier that it was right for the Government to take the necessary time to get the legislation into the form that it now takes. Of course it is necessary to take a degree of time, but on this occasion, the most enormous amount of time seems to have been taken. Suspicious people such as I cannot help but wonder what caused that. Could it possibly be that one of the things going through the Government's mind was that the last thing they wanted was to upset Sinn Fein-IRA ahead of a general election? After all, the Government have been busily giving in on one-sided deals throughout their term of office, and perhaps they did not want to minimise Sinn Fein's opportunity to win more seats.
      I am of an equally suspicious mind when it comes to this Government's dealing with terrorists, and it may well be that, by taking the time that they say was necessary, they will have allowed Sinn Fein-IRA to win more votes in the Assembly election than they would have done if we had clamped down on fraud ahead of it. If that is not the case, I am sure that the Minister will put the matter right.
      Many issues remain to be explored in this debate; I have a list of them. They are important to the people of this country, who need to know the answers. Yet here we

      413
      are again, three minutes from a guillotine, without any real opportunity to debate what needs debating, and two of my colleagues still want to contribute. I will protest again, therefore, that I am being silenced by the Government. I am not being allowed to debate what needs to be debated. The Government are escaping from being held to account by the House by hiding behind programme motions and guillotines. That said, other hon. Members wish to speak.
      Mr. Gregory Campbell: I want to draw the attention of the House to the fact that, in the original Select Committee consideration of the inclusion of national insurance numbers, it was my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) who proposed that they should be included. A significant number of people over the past 30 years have engaged in electoral malpractice in Northern Ireland, and it is no coincidence that thousands of absent-vote applications have mounted up in the constituencies where Sinn Fein either has a Member of Parliament or is endeavouring to win the seat.
      My party welcomes the Bill. It is not perfect, but it will be a substantial improvement if it is implemented in time. I hope that the Minister will take note that a court case may well end up in the House of Lords that might not permit the Assembly elections to be in May 2003; they might be earlier. That being the case, I hope that he will ensure that the legislation will be proceeded with as quickly as possible, to prevent further malpractice. There are those in Northern Ireland, principally Sinn Fein-IRA, who have mastered the art of the abuse of the electoral system to the tune of many thousands of votes. They have done that in election after election, and will no doubt do so again unless this Bill is implemented as speedily as possible. We therefore welcome the Bill, even if it costs the £750,000 that it appears from the notes that it will cost. We welcome it none the less.
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      It being Seven o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to Orders [28 June and this day], put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the Business to be concluded at that hour.
      Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

  City of London (Ward Elections) Bill
  As amended, further considered.
  7.3 pm
  John McDonnell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. If the hon. Gentleman will indulge me, perhaps I might make a point of order myself, which I hope may be of assistance to the House. It may be for the convenience of right hon. and hon. Members if I remind them that, just before proceedings were adjourned on the last occasion, the promoters' new clause 1 was read a second time. The amendments to the new group were grouped with it, so they cannot be further debated at this stage, but I am prepared to allow a Division on amendment (a), which stands in the name of Mr. John McDonnell, if he wishes to press it to a vote.
  After the questions on new clause 1 have been disposed of, including the Question that the clause be added to the Bill, we will come to the debate headed by new clause 3, on the European convention on human rights. The promoters' other amendments in the group headed by new clause 1, which I call to be moved, will be moved formally as and when we reach them in going through the amendment paper. Unless the hon. Gentleman's point of order relates to the matters immediately before the House—the business remaining from the previous time that the House sat—I would prefer to take it after we have decided on those matters.
  John McDonnell: My point of order relates to this evening's business of the House and this evening's process.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With the indulgence of the House, I shall therefore take that point of order after I have disposed of those other matters, which follow on from the previous time that the House sat. That is the logical way in which to proceed. Do you wish to press amendment (a) to a vote, Mr. McDonnell?
  John McDonnell: Yes.

  City of London (Ward Elections) Bill
    New Clause 1

      EXCLUSION OF CROWN PROPERTY
      Amendment proposed: (a) to new clause 1.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 50, Noes 357.

      Division No. 208]

      [7.2 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Allan, Richard

      Cousins, Jim

      Barnes, Harry

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Barrett, John

      Davidson, Ian

      Berry, Roger

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Best, Harold

      Efford, Clive

      Borrow, David

      Etherington, Bill

      Burgon, Colin

      Flynn, Paul

      Cable, Dr Vincent

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Chaytor, David

      Gerrard, Neil

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Hancock, Mike

      415

      Hinchliffe, David

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Hood, Jimmy

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Salter, Martin

      Hurst, Alan

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Skinner, Dennis

      Illsley, Eric

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Stunell, Andrew

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      McDonnell, John

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Wareing, Robert N

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Martlew, Eric

      Mullin, Chris

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Organ, Diana

      Andrew Mackinlay and

      Pike, Peter

      Mr. Andrew Dismore.

      NOES

      Ainger, Nick

      Clwyd, Ann

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Coaker, Vernon

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Allen, Graham

      Collins, Tim

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Colman, Tony

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Conway, Derek

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Cooper, Yvette

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Corston, Jean

      Bacon, Richard

      Cotter, Brian

      Bailey, Adrian

      Cox, Tom

      Baldry, Tony

      Cran, James

      Barker, Gregory

      Crausby, David

      Baron, John

      Cruddas, Jon

      Battle, John

      Cummings, John

      Bayley, Hugh

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Beard, Nigel

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Benn, Hilary

      Curry, Rt Hon David

      Bercow, John

      Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Blackman, Liz

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Denham, Rt Hon John

      Blizzard, Bob

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Blunt, Crispin

      Djanogly, Jonathan

      Boswell, Tim

      Dodds, Nigel

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

      Dowd, Jim

      Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Duncan, Alan (Rutland & Melton)

      Brady, Graham

      Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

      Brazier, Julian

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Ennis, Jeff

      Browne, Desmond

      Fabricant, Michael

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Fallon, Michael

      Bruce, Malcolm

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Bryant, Chris

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      Burnham, Andy

      Flight, Howard

      Burns, Simon

      Hint, Caroline

      Burt, Alistair

      Follett, Barbara

      Butterfill, John

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Cairns, David

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Foulkes, George

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Fox, Dr Liam

      Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

      Francis, Dr Hywel

      Caplin, Ivor

      Francois, Mark

      Challen, Colin

      Gale, Roger

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Galloway, George

      Gapes, Mike

      Chidgey, David

      Gardiner, Barry

      Chope, Christopher

      Garnier, Edward

      Clappison, James

      George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Gilroy, Linda

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Goggins, Paul

      Clarke, Rt Hon Charles (Norwich S)

      Gray, James

      Grayling, Chris

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Green, Damian (Ashford)

      416

      Greenway, John

      Luff, Peter

      Grieve, Dominic

      Luke, Iain

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      McCabe, Stephen

      Hammond, Philip

      McCafferty, Chris

      Hanson, David

      McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

      Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

      MacDougall, John

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      McFall, John

      Harvey, Nick

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Hayes, John

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Heald, Oliver

      McIsaac, Shona

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

      Hendrick, Mark

      McKenna, Rosemary

      Hendry, Charles

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Heppell, John

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Hermon, Lady

      McNulty, Tony

      Hewitt, Rt Hon Ms Patricia

      MacShane, Denis

      Hill, Keith

      Mahmood, Khalid

      Hoban, Mark

      Malins, Humfrey

      Hoey, Kate

      Mallaber, Judy

      Holmes, Paul

      Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

      Hope, Phil

      Mann, John

      Horam, John

      Maples, John

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Mates, Michael

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

      Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Mercer, Patrick

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Merron, Gillian

      Hunter, Andrew

      Miller, Andrew

      Hutton, Rt Hon John

      Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

      Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

      Moffatt, Laura

      Irranca-Davies, Huw

      Mole, Chris

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Jamieson, David

      Moore, Michael

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Moran, Margaret

      Jenkins, Brian

      Morley, Elliot

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Morris, Rt Hon Estelle

      Moss, Malcolm

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Murrison, Dr Andrew

      Jowell, Rt Hon Tessa

      Norman, Archie

      Joyce, Eric

      Norris, Dan

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Oaten, Mark

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Kelly, Ruth

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Kemp, Fraser

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

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

      Öpik, Lembit

      Osborne, George (Tatton)

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

      Key, Robert

      Ottaway, Richard

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Page, Richard

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Paterson, Owen

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Pearson, Ian

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Picking, Anne

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Pickles, Eric

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Pickthall, Colin

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Plaskitt, James

      Lamb, Norman

      Pond, Chris

      Lammy, David

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Lansley, Andrew

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Prisk, Mark

      Laws, David

      Pugh, Dr John

      Laxton, Bob

      Purchase, Ken

      Leigh, Edward

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Leslie, Christopher

      Randall, John

      Levitt, Tom

      Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Rendel, David

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Robathan, Andrew

      Lidington, David

      Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

      Linton, Martin

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Lloyd, Tony

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

      Loughton, Tim

      Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

      Lucas, Ian

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      417

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Syms, Robert

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Tami, Mark

      Rooney, Terry

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Rosindell, Andrew

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Ross, Ernie

      Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

      Roy, Frank

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Ruane, Chris

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Ruddock, Joan

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Ruffley, David

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Thurso, John

      Ryan, Joan

      Timms, Stephen

      Sanders, Adrian

      Tipping, Paddy

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Tredinnick, David

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Trickett, Jon

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Sheerman, Barry

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      Tynan, Bill

      Sheridan, Jim

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Shipley, Ms Debra Simmonds, Mark

      Walter, Robert

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

      Waterson, Nigel

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      Watkinson, Angela

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Watson, Tom

      Watts David

      Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

      White Brian

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Whittingdale, John

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Wicks, Malcolm

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

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      Soley, Clive

      Wiggin, Bill

      Southworth, Helen

      Wilkinson, John

      Spellar, Rt Hon John

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Williams, Roger (Brecon)

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Willis, Phil

      Spink, Bob

      Wilshire, David

      Spring, Richard

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Squire, Rachel

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Woodward, Shaun

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Woolas, Phil

      Steen, Anthony

      Worthington, Tony

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Wray, James

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Yeo, Tim

      Streeter, Gary

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Stringer, Graham

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Swayne, Desmond

      Mr. James Arbuthnot and

      Swire, Hugo

      Mr. Mark Field.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 341, Noes 44.

      Division No. 209]

      [7.15 pm

      AYES

      Ainger, Nick

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Benn, Hilary

      Allen, Graham

      Bercow, John

      Amess, David

      Blackman, Liz

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Blizzard, Bob

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Blunt, Crispin

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Boswell, Tim

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Bacon, Richard

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

      Bailey, Adrian

      Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

      Baldry, Tony

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Baron, John

      Brady, Graham

      Battle, John

      Brazier, Julian

      Bayley, Hugh

      Brennan, Kevin

      Beard, Nigel

      Brooke. Mrs Annette L

      418

      Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

      Goggins, Paul

      Gray, James

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Grayling, Chris

      Bruce, Malcolm

      Green, Damian (Ashford)

      Bryant, Chris

      Greenway, John

      Burnham, Andy

      Grieve, Dominic

      Burns, Simon

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Burt, Alistair

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Butterfill, John

      Hammond, Philip

      Cairns, David

      Hanson, David

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

      Hayes, John

      Caplin, Ivor

      Heald, Oliver

      Challen, Colin

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Hendrick, Mark

      Hendry, Charles

      Chidgey, David

      Heppell, John

      Chope, Christopher

      Hermon, Lady

      Clappison, James

      Hill, Keith

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Hoban, Mark

      Holmes, Paul

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Hope, Phil

      Clarke, Rt Hon Charles (Norwich S)

      Horam, John

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Coaker, Vernon

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

      Collins, Tim

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Colman, Tony

      Hunter, Andrew

      Conway, Derek

      Hutton, Rt Hon John

      Cooper, Yvette

      Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Irranca-Davies, Huw

      Corston, Jean

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Cotter, Brian

      Jamieson, David

      Cox, Tom

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Cran, James

      Jenkins, Brian

      Crausby, David

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Cruddas, Jon

      Cummings, John

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Jowell, Rt Hon Tessa

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Joyce, Eric

      Curry, Rt Hon David

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Kelly, Ruth

      Denham, Rt Hon John

      Kemp, Fraser

      Dhanda, Parmjit

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

      Djanogly, Jonathan

      Dodds, Nigel

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Key, Robert

      Dowd, Jim

      Khabra, Piara S

      Duncan, Alan (Rutland & Melton)

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Ennis, Jeff

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Fabricant, Michael

      Lamb, Norman

      Fallon, Michael

      Lammy, David

      Field, Mark (Cities of London)

      Lansley, Andrew

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      Laws, David

      Flight, Howard

      Laxton, Bob

      Flint, Caroline

      Leigh, Edward

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Leslie, Christopher

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Levitt, Tom

      Foulkes, George

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Francis, Dr Hywel

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Francois, Mark

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Gale, Roger

      Lidington, David

      Gapes, Mike

      Linton, Martin

      Gardiner, Barry

      Lloyd, Tony

      Garnier, Edward

      Loughton, Tim

      George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

      Lucas, Ian

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Luff, Peter

      Gilroy, Linda

      Luke, Iain

      419

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      McCabe, Stephen

      Rooney, Terry

      McCafferty, Chris

      Rosindell, Andrew

      McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

      Ross, Ernie

      MacDougall, John

      Roy, Frank

      McFall, John

      Ruane, Chris

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Ruffley, David

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Ryan, Joan

      McIsaac, Shona

      Sanders, Adrian

      MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      McKenna, Rosemary

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Sheerman, Barry

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      McNulty, Tony

      Sheridan, Jim

      MacShane, Denis

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Mahmood, Khalid

      Simmonds, Mark

      Malins, Humfrey

      Simon, Siôn

      Mallaber, Judy

      Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

      Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      Mann, John

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Maples, John

      Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Mates, Michael

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

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

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Soley, Clive

      Mercer, Patrick

      Southworth, Helen

      Merron, Gillian

      Spellar, Rt Hon John

      Miller, Andrew

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Moffatt, Laura

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Mole, Chris

      Spink, Bob

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Spring, Richard

      Moore, Michael

      Squire, Rachel

      Moran, Margaret

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Morley, Elliot

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Morris, Rt Hon Estelle

      Steen, Anthony

      Moss, Malcolm

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Streeter, Gary

      Murrison, Dr Andrew

      Stringer, Graham

      Norman, Archie

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Norris, Dan

      Swayne, Desmond

      Oaten, Mark

      Swire, Hugo

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Syms, Robert

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Tami, Mark

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Öpik, Lembit

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Osborne, George (Tatton)

      Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Ottaway, Richard

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Page, Richard

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Paterson, Owen

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Pearson, Ian

      Thurso, John

      Picking, Anne

      Timms, Stephen

      Pickles, Eric

      Tipping, Paddy

      Pickthall, Colin

      Tredinnick, David

      Pike, Peter

      Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      Plaskitt, James

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Pond, Chris

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Walter, Robert

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Prisk, Mark

      Waterson, Nigel

      Pugh, Dr John

      Watkinson, Angela

      Purchase, Ken

      Watson, Tom

      Purnell, James

      Watts, David

      Quinn, Lawrie

      White, Brian

      Randall, John

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

      Whittingdale, John

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Rendel, David

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      Robathan, Andrew

      Wiggin, Bill

      Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Williams, Roger (Brecon)

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

      Willis, Phil

      Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

      Wilshire, David

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      420

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Woodward, Shaun

      Woolas, Phil

      Wray, James

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Mr. James Arbuthnot and

      Yeo, Tim

      Mr. Andrew Mitchell.

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Allan, Richard

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Barnes, Harry

      McDonnell, John

      Best, Harold

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Brennan, Kevin

      Marris, Rob

      Burgon, Colin

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Cable, Dr Vincent

      Martlew, Eric

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Clwyd, Ann

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Salter, Martin

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Sawford, Phil

      Davidson, Ian

      Skinner, Dennis

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Flynn, Paul

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Stunell, Andrew

      Galloway, George

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Gerrard, Neil

      Trickett, Jon

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Hancock, Mike

      Wareing, Robert N

      Hinchliffe, David

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Illsley, Eric

      Mr. Andrew Dismore and

      Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Andrew Mackinlay.

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
      John McDonnell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. On today's agenda, a motion from the Prime Minister has been allowed that the City of London (Ward Elections) Bill may proceed to any hour. I thought that, except in the severest need, the House had decided against all-night sittings as part of its modernisation programme. It is also clear from the agenda that we are not even able to debate the Prime Minister's proposal to force the Bill through tonight.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker, will you confirm that, or investigate whether the motion has been placed on the agenda at the direct request of the City corporation, because I have evidence to prove that it has? On repeated occasions we have been informed that this is a private Bill and not a Government Bill, yet the Prime Minister's name is now associated with it. What status does the Bill have? Has the Prime Minister made any declarations of interest in relation to the Bill?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker, will you confirm that I have raised my concerns with the Speaker about the procedures associated with the Bill, including the fact that I have been offered inducements to drop my opposition to it? Can you also confirm the last occasion on which this procedure was used? I believe that it was 1987. Will you reconsider the procedure for private Bills, to prevent this abuse of the House by the Prime Minister? The Prime Minister is taking away one of the last few mechanisms by which a Back Bencher can exert influence on a promoter of a Bill—that is, to delay the legislation to ensure that amendments are considered seriously.
      Even if we were to go through the night, none of us is willing to put at risk tomorrow's business, which is a debate on the middle east and one of the most important

      421
      issues facing the world today. I give you notice, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I advise Labour Members to withdraw from the debate, because I believe that the process has been corrupted and tainted by the Prime Minister's intervention. A number of Bills have been allowed through the House—this one in particular—when votes have been sold to business friends who have donated to both parties. It is a corruption of the worst kind to debase Parliament in that way.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sure that the hon. Member realises that the Chair cannot possibly comment on certain matters. The reasons why a business motion appears on the Order Paper cannot be questioned by the Chair: it is there, and that is the fact we are dealing with. It is certainly not without precedent for a business motion to be employed in the course of private legislation.
      As for the House considering its methods of dealing with private business, it is always open to the House to take an initiative to examine procedures, just as is happening over public business on the initiative of the Modernisation Committee. I do not think that I can substantially add to what the hon. Gentleman has said.
      John McDonnell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I press you on the point that we investigate the communications that have taken place between the City corporation and the Prime Minister on this matter, in relation to what representations have been made with the effect that he has placed this motion on the agenda tonight, any financial links with the corporation of London, any businesses that will gain votes as a result of this legislation, if it goes through, and any links with both the main political parties as a result?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: The nature of the hon. Gentleman's complaint is such that, if he has evidence to substantiate it or believes that the matter needs to be investigated, it would be more a matter for the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. I repeat to the hon. Gentleman that the Chair cannot question why a particular motion is on the Order Paper. The Chair must deal with the business that it finds on the Order Paper for the day.
      John McDonnell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can I therefore have a response in due course to my point that the Bill should now become a Government Bill because the motion is in the name of the Prime Minister? In a series of debates in the House, we have been informed that this is a private Bill that has no association with the Government and no Minister in charge, yet the Prime Minister has put his name to the motion to secure the Bill tonight. Can we have a response from the Prime Minister today, if he can be brought to the House, to explain his motivation for putting his name to the motion; or can we consider the procedure whereby we no longer define as private business that with which Ministers are closely associated?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: The status of the Bill is unchanged by the appearance on the Order Paper of that business motion. There have been occasions in the past
      422
      when a private Bill has ceased its passage and has reappeared as a Government Bill, but that does not apply in this case.
      John McDonnell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can we therefore clarify and investigate the relationship between the City corporation and No. 10, particularly in respect of communications with regard to this Bill and related matters, such as the funding of the dome by the City corporation or the substantial investment by the City corporation in terms of the wining and dining of successive Ministers and of Opposition spokesmen and Back Benchers? Can we investigate that relationship to establish whether the Bill has been tainted by unfair inducements?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Whether we can we do so is a matter that the hon. Gentleman must be advised to pursue with the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards.
      Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is a new experience for me and perhaps for many other hon. Members who may have been here as long as I have—five years. This is obviously a Bill that now has Government backing. Would it not have been in order, when it became clear that the Government backed what is essentially a private Bill, for the Speaker to advise the Government to come clean at an early stage and make it Government business, which would have saved the House and many hon. Members like me a great deal of time spent debating the Bill in this Chamber, in the belief that it was genuinely a private Bill, and in debating fundamental issues of democracy?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Speaker has no such role in proceedings of this kind. It is not without precedent that a business motion has been put on the Order Paper to deal with private legislation.
      Mr. Robert N. Wareing: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In view of the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) has made several allegations of inducements having been made, if that were true—I hesitate to say that any hon. Member is dishonourable, but nevertheless the suspicion exists that if there have been inducements, hon. Members may be influenced—would it not be right, until investigations have taken place, for us to adjourn on this Bill?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will maintain his hesitation before making such a suggestion about right hon. and hon. Members. There is now a clear procedure, as we have a Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, as to where any hon. Member who has cause to believe that anything improper has taken place should direct such a complaint.
      John McDonnell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I repeat the point that I made earlier. I shall withdraw from this debate because I have been offered inducements. I believe that the process has been corrupted as a result of the Prime Minister's intervention today to ensure that this Bill goes through. It is meant to he private business, not Government business, but the

      423
      Prime Minister has personally intervened to undermine any prospect of the Back Bencher exerting influence, when it should be the Back Bencher's right to exert influence on private business. This process is tainted and corrupted.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: There is nothing that I can add to the hon. Gentleman's statement.
      Andrew Mackinlay: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I want to place on record my sincere view that this is a very bad day for Parliament. It makes a charade of our law-making process and it is disgraceful that the Government machine and the Minister can sit here and railroad through legislation that, in an ordinary, free debating environment, would not get on the statute book. This Bill extends the property franchise, which, almost without fail, Labour Members have opposed on other occasions when they have been on the hustings seeking election to this place.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: That was not a point of order; it was a statement.
      Mr. Mike Hancock: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can you advise me and right hon. and hon. Members who are present whether there is a procedure that we can adopt that would stop this debate proceeding tonight and allow some of the serious allegations that have been made to be properly investigated? Failure to do that will taint whatever happens at the outcome of this debate. Does a procedure exist that will allow us to stop what we are doing at this moment and return to it when the issues that have been raised have been properly investigated by the relevant authorities?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I do not believe that what has been said amounts to a good cause for discontinuing proceedings on this Bill this evening.
      Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think I heard you say at one point that there were precedents for the way in which this procedure was being dealt with tonight. That is true because it was used several times in the course of the 18 years that the Tories were in power. What saddens me is that, previously, when private business was extended during the night, including the Eastbourne Harbour Bill and all the rest, it was not about property rights or democracy. There were also several imported coal harbour Bills, which we managed to hold up for several years. Although they were important and were debated through the night, the truth is that they were not of the same dimension as this Bill, which we have debated not just tonight but for three years since it was first introduced.
      This Bill is about people's voting rights and about extending power to corporations. It is close to the hearts of those of us who have fought for democratic rights over the years. There should therefore be no comparison with those ports Bills—which we opposed throughout the night—as bad as they were, and with the Eastbourne Harbour Bill, which was a disgrace, and for which Mrs. Thatcher stayed up all night and kept the Tories here as well. I can go through the gamut of things that occurred
      424
      at that time, but this Bill is about the rights of people to vote or not to vote, which is a disgrace. This Bill should have remained a private Bill and should not have had extended to it the powers of the Government. That is why this is an extremely sad day.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: The House will have heard what the hon. Gentleman says. We must now proceed.

    Clause 2
      INTERPRETATION
      Amendments made: Nos. 1 to 8.—[Sir George Young.]
    Clause 3
      QUALIFICATION OF VOTERS AT WARD ELECTIONS
      Amendment made: No. 149 and Nos. 10 to 12.—[Sir. George Young.]
    Clause 4
      ALLOCATION OF APPOINTMENTS
      Amendments made: Nos. 13 and 15.—[Sir George Young.]
    Clause 5
      REQUIREMENTS AS TO CONNECTION OF PERSONS APPOINTED WITH THE CITY
      Amendments made: Nos. 16 and 17.—[Sir George Young.]
    Clause 6
      EXCLUSION OF CROWN PROPERTY
      Amendment made: No. 19.—[Sir George Young.]
    Clause 8
      WARD LISTS: QUALIFYING BODIES
      Amendments made: Nos. 20 to 22.—[Sir George Young.]
    Schedule 1
      RIGHTS TO APPOINT VOTERS
      Amendment made: No. 25.—[Sir George Young.]
    Schedule 3

      REPEALS
      Amendments made: Nos. 27, 29 and 30.—[Sir George Young.]
      Order for Third Reading read.
      7.44 pm
      Sir George Young: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      It is often said that the House does not discharge its task of scrutinising legislation adequately. However, this Bill has been debated for more than 25 hours and over a period of three and a half years. In the course of those debates, it could be said that more or less every

      425
      permutation and combination of circumstances that might disclose grounds for objection to the Bill have been articulated. I do not propose to detain the House by trawling through the issues, but I want to touch on one or two that have been raised from time to time.
      The fact that the City wards that are primarily resident in nature will remain so has been stated many times. The point has been made, however, by Labour Members that the increased business element will alter the nature of the common council even though the residents' role in terms of their voting strength will be preserved. The proposals in the Bill have been promoted in the light of a falling entitlement of business to participate as businesses have been incorporated. The proposals are designed to restore the equilibrium, not to change it.
      The promoters have made substantive changes to the Bill. The replacement of the entitlement to appoint on the basis of rateable values by one based on work force size is particularly noteworthy. Although the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) does not care to acknowledge it, the move is consistent with views that he has expressed. The City of London Labour party has been more straightforward in its response. In reacting to the change, its chairman, whom the hon. Gentleman chose not to quote, described the proposals in a press release as "radical".
      One issue that preoccupied the promoters in developing the Bill was the possibility of an electoral qualification for City electors that could be conferred directly on people working in City businesses rather than having a nomination system. A commuter vote of 300,000 or more would, however, completely swamp the existing resident vote and would be unacceptable, not least to residents. I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) may wish to say a word or two about the interests of residents.
      Any selection of the type of commuter given the vote to bring down the electorate from 300,000 to preserve a reasonable relationship with the existing resident vote would be arbitrary and highly discriminatory. It certainly would not be representative of the composition of work forces, a specific requirement of the present Bill.
      I wish to thank all those on both sides of the House who have supported the Bill during its three-and-a-half-year passage through the House. I hope that the end of that process is in sight. I will not detain the House further. I commend the Bill to the House.
      7.47 pm
      Mr. Mark Field: Like my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young), I shall not detain the House for long. However, it is only fair that I say a few words.
      As promised last November when the Bill was discussed in the House, I have carried out an extensive survey of City of London residents and asked for the views of most of them about issues relating to law and order and to drugs. It is interesting that more than two thirds of the respondents were entirely silent on City of London corporation affairs. Their priorities were obviously elsewhere, and I am sorry that it has been such a tortuous effort over the past four years to get the Bill
      426
      through. Many respondents wrote positively about the corporation and it is only right that I should point that out. Some residents, of course, had concerns about what they perceived to be the anti-democratic elements of the election process, but they were only a small minority.
      I want to take this opportunity to remind the House and, particularly, the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who unfortunately is not in his seat, that in the four main wards, councillors are elected by a resident majority. If the residents in the wards around the Barbican and Golden lane considered themselves under threat from the reforms that have been proposed, their concerns would have been felt by the sitting members of the common council who represent those residential wards.
      We might also reflect on the fact that four of the 27 sitting members in the corporation of the City of London and representing those residential wards are, in fact, non-resident business people themselves. Eight residents represent business wards. That hardly discloses the concerns between the interests of residential and business voters on the common council that have been emphasised in the criticisms that have been made in the past. The relentless pursuit of objections to the Bill does not reflect a groundswell of opinion of the City residents whom I represent in this place.
      Those objections certainly do not represent the views of business. Those who have criticised the Bill tonight and over the past four years have objected to the continued existence of the City as a separate administrative area. In that connection, it is worth repeating the comments that the chairman of the City of London Labour party made on the record before the Select Committee in 1999. He said:
      "The majority of these citizens who reside in the City do not want the City of London abolished. They do not want it attached to another constituency. I think it is fairly clear that they do not want that."
      For the benefit of hon. Members, I should also like to say something about progress on the other reforms that the City is pursuing alongside those anticipated by the Bill. Mindful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, of your earlier comments to the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington, I will seek to remain in order by being extremely brief.
      The promoter has undertaken considerable work in the review of its ward boundaries. A review panel was established, comprising the recorder and the common serjeant—the two most senior judges at the Old Bailey—and the City's town clerk following advice from the local government boundary commission. Following public notices and a public consultation exercise, the review of the internal boundaries of the first two wards—Aldersgate and Cripplegate—is now almost complete.
      A summary of the final recommendations was published as recently as March this year and sent to all voters, resident and non-resident, who would be affected by the changes. A more detailed report was also sent to all members of the common council and all those who had made representations to the town clerk at previous stages of the review. The final recommendations are currently out to consultation, and it is anticipated that they and any further representations will be submitted to the court of common council before the summer.
      In addition, a City residents' liaison unit has been established as part of the package to reinforce the existing liaison arrangements between corporation departments

      427
      and the City's residents. Other measures coupled with that include the introduction of regular consultation meetings, attended by the town clerk and other senior members and officers, and guaranteed resident representation on the corporation's non-ward committees. For example, four seats on the policy and resources committee are now reserved for such resident members.
      A further undertaking given by the promoter was that the number of members of the City corporation would be reduced to 100 by the time the new arrangements came into operation. I can report that the number of members has been already been reduced by 18 to 112, and that process continues.
      As a result, the Bill represents the right way forward for the City of London and the resident population is entirely happy. It seems ironic that some of the great largesse of the City corporation often goes to the areas such as Hampstead heath, Highgate woods and Queen's park. Enormous sums are spent on those most wonderful open spaces in central London, and the City corporation puts an enormous amount of time and money into its London gateway with the east of London representation. I do not wish to detain the House any further, other than to say that I hope that hon. Members will join me in voting for the Bill on Third Reading.
      7.52 pm
      The Minister for Local Government (Mr. Nick Raynsford): I, too, do not intend to detain the House, but it is right that there should be a brief comment from the Government before the completion of Third Reading.
      The Bill has been considered in great detail for some three and a half years, as the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young), who is its sponsor, has clearly said. There have been protracted discussions in Committee and debates in the Chamber on several occasions. All the points of principle that relate to the Bill have been exhaustively considered, and the House has certainly done justice to its scrutiny function.
      The Bill represents a measure of reform to the constitutional arrangements in the City. The Government have welcomed the fact that the City has promoted legislation to face up to the need to put its governance on a more modern footing. We believe that the Bill represents a step in the right direction and that it will make the governance of the City more modern and more in touch with life in the City today. However, the City is doing, and must do, other things to take forward its reform agenda, some of which were mentioned by the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field). I hope that the City will wish to pursue that reform agenda.
      The City corporation is a unique institution. That reflects the fact that it covers a business district with a relatively small number of residents, so it is not possible for the City to copy the electoral system that applies elsewhere in London and the country. The principle of business representation is uniquely appropriate to the City, but it must be reformed.
      The current system allows only sole traders and partners of City-based businesses to vote. The incorporated companies that play an increasing part in the life of the City have no equivalent right. Other anomalies, such as the possibility to vote twice under current arrangements, will be ended by the Bill. If the Bill were
      428
      not to proceed, those undesirable practices would be perpetuated. Quite simply, the choice is between reforming the City corporation and maintaining the status quo. In that context, the Government have no doubt whatever that it is right to support reform by supporting the Bill.
      The remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) in his numerous points of order at the beginning of these debates are deeply regrettable. He made a series of wholly unfounded and false allegations, imputing motives to the Prime Minister and the Government for which there is no basis whatever and which I unequivocally rebut. The Government's concern is simply to assist the passage of a private Bill, which represents a modest measure of reform that most sensible people recognise as a step in the right direction. The Bill will not necessarily provide a long-term solution because of the further measures to which I have referred, but it is a step in the right direction and it is right that the House should agree to its Third Reading tonight.
      Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 278, Noes 30.

      Division No. 210]

      [7.56 pm

      AYES

      Ainger, Nick

      Chaytor, David

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Chope, Christopher

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Clappison, James

      Amess, David

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Clarke, Rt Hon Charles

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      (Norwich S)

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Coaker, Vernon

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Collins, Tim

      Bacon, Richard

      Colman, Tony

      Bailey, Adrian

      Conway, Derek

      Baldry, Tony

      Cooper, Yvette

      Baron, John

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Battle, John

      Cotter, Brian

      Beard, Nigel

      Cox, Tom

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Cran, James

      Bellingham, Henry

      Crausby, David

      Benn, Hilary

      Cruddas, Jon

      Bercow, John

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Blackman, Liz

      Curry, Rt Hon David

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

      Blizzard, Bob

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Blunt, Crispin

      Denham, Rt Hon John

      Boswell, Tim

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

      Djanogly, Jonathan

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Dodds, Nigel

      Brady, Graham

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Dowd, Jim

      (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

      Duncan, Alan (Rutland & Melton)

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

      Bryant, Chris

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Burnham, Andy

      Ennis, Jeff

      Burns, Simon

      Fabricant, Michael

      Butterfill, John

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      Cairns, David

      Flight, Howard

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Flint, Caroline

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Campbell, Gregory (E Londy)

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Caplin, Ivor

      Foulkes, George

      Challen, Colin

      Fox, Dr Liam

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Francis, Dr Hywel

      Francois, Mark

      429

      Gapes, Mike

      Loughton, Tim

      Gardiner, Barry

      Luff, Peter

      Garnier, Edward

      Luke, Iain

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Gilroy, Linda

      McCabe, Stephen

      Goggins, Paul

      McCafferty, Chris

      Gray, James

      McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

      Grayling, Chris

      MacDougall, John

      Greenway, John

      McFall, John

      Grieve, Dominic

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Hammond, Philip

      McIsaac, Shona

      Hanson, David

      MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      McKenna, Rosemary

      Harvey, Nick

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Hayes, John

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Heald, Oliver

      McNulty, Tony

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      MacShane, Denis

      Hendrick, Mark

      Mahmood, Khalid

      Hendry, Charles

      Mallaber, Judy

      Heppell, John

      Mann, John

      Hermon, Lady

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Hill, Keith

      Mates, Michael

      Hoban, Mark

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Hope, Phil

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Horam, John

      Mercer, Patrick

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Merron, Gillian

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Miller, Andrew

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

      Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

      Moffatt, Laura

      Hunter, Andrew

      Mole, Chris

      Hutton, Rt Hon John

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

      Moore, Michael

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Moran, Margaret

      Jamieson, David

      Morley, Elliot

      Jenkins, Brian

      Moss, Malcolm

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Jowell, Rt Hon Tessa

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Joyce, Eric

      Murrison, Dr Andrew

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Norris, Dan

      Kemp, Fraser

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Key, Robert

      Öpik, Lembit

      Khabra, Piara S

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Page, Richard

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Paterson, Owen

      Knight, Rt Hon Greg (E Yorkshire)

      Pearson, Ian

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Picking, Anne

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Pickles, Eric

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Plaskitt, James

      Lamb, Norman

      Pond, Chris

      Lammy, David

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Lansley, Andrew

      Prisk, Mark

      Laxton, Bob

      Purchase, Ken

      Leslie, Christopher

      Purnell, James

      Levitt, Tom

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Rammell, Bill

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Lidington, David

      Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

      Linton, Martin

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      430

      Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

      Tami, Mark

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Rooney, Terry

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Rosindell, Andrew

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Ross, Ernie

      Timms, Stephen

      Roy, Frank

      Touhig, Don

      Ruane, Chris

      Tredinnick, David

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      Ryan, Joan

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Sanders, Adrian

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Walter, Robert

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Sheridan, Jim

      Waterson, Nigel

      Simmonds, Mark

      Watkinson, Angela

      Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

      Watson, Tom

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Watts, David

      Smith Geraldine (Morecambe)

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Whittingdale, John

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Southworth, Helen

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      Spellar, Rt Hon John

      Wiggin, Bill

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Willis Phil

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Wilshire, David

      Spink, Bob

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Spring, Richard

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Woolas, Phil

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Wray, James

      Steen, Anthony

      Wright David (Telford)

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Wyatt, Derek

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Yeo, Tim

      Stringer, Graham

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Swayne, Desmond

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Swire, Hugo

      Mr. James Arbuthnot and

      Syms, Robert

      Mr. George Osborne.

      NOES

      Barnes, Harry

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Marris, Rob

      Burgon, Colin

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Cable, Dr Vincent

      Martlew, Eric

      Cawsey, Ian

      Pike, Peter

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Cummings, John

      Pugh, Dr John

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Flynn, Paul

      Skinner, Dennis

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Hancock, Mike

      Stunell, Andrew

      Hinchliffe, David

      Wareing, Robert N

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Illsley, Eric

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Mr. Andrew Dismore and

      McWalter, Tony

      John Cryer.

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Bill read the Third time, and passed.

  Malton Hospital
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Dan Norris.]
  8.7 pm
  Mr. John Greenway: It is both a pleasure and a relief to speak to the Adjournment at such an early hour. Whenever I am lucky in the ballot for the 30-minute Adjournment debate, the House either sits throughout the night or the main business collapses. Until the moment arrives no one is ever sure which alternative will prevail.
  The first Adjournment debate that I initiated in this Chamber was on the Nestle takeover of the Rowntree factory. Everyone expected that the main business would end at midnight but, as you may recall, Mr. Deputy Speaker—like me, you were a Back Bencher at the time—there were 43 Divisions on the Firearms (Amendment) Bill and the Adjournment began at 5.30 in the morning.
  I rather feared that I would have to keep the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Salford (Ms Blears), up all night—or rather that some of her colleagues would have been here all night and she would have had to wait around for a long time. I was going to suggest that the wait for my Adjournment debate was not dissimilar to the wait that some patients experience for their operation. However, in the event, I feel as though I have been given my operation ahead of my appointment with the consultant.
  The issue that I want to raise is important none the less. I am sure that the Minister will have been briefed and will understand why it is so important. Our community hospitals are held in great affection by our constituents; Malton hospital is no exception.
  Two or three years ago, I visited our former colleague, Sir Giles Shaw, at the hospital. Sadly, he died about 18 months ago after a stroke. I shall never forget my visit to Sir Giles; it was a happy occasion. He said, "John, this is a great place. You are lucky to have it and I know that you will do everything you can to fight for it while you are the Member of Parliament". I did not think that circumstances would require us to have a debate of this nature at that time, but I am galvanised by the words of Sir Giles.
  Malton is one of three community hospitals within the Scarborough and North East Yorkshire Health Care NHS trust. That creates a difficulty. Scarborough is a small district hospital. Although the population of the area that it covers is not high, the geographical area that it covers is huge and it has to look after three community hospitals. Malton hospital is effectively run by the general practitioners at the Derwent practice in Malton, who work as clinical assistants. I have formed a good relationship with them over many years, especially as various developments have taken place at the hospital.
  One recent development prompted me to request the debate, although as I have more time than expected I will take the opportunity to raise one or two other issues as well. Trust managers decided in mid March to cease all general anaesthetic operations at Malton with effect from 1 April. That caused shock and alarm in the local community. The letter sent by the trust to the senior partner at the Derwent practice said that a shortage of consultant anaesthetists meant that it could no longer provide back-up cover for GA operations at Malton hospital.
  432
  On 22 February, however, the trust sent out a staff bulletin in which it suggested that the difficulty with continuing GA operations at Malton and the two other community hospitals at Whitby and Bridlington was based on concern about clinical governance. So the issue at that time was whether it was safe to continue GA operations at community hospitals. That caused confusion and we remain confused about what lies behind the decision.
  I have made it clear to the trust that we are prepared to accept that the reason for the decision is the shortage of consultant anaesthetists, and I want the Minister to use all her good offices to ensure that the vacancies are filled as quickly as possible. In a written answer from one of her colleagues last week, I was told that more than 1,000 extra anaesthetic specialists—I am not sure that they will all be consultants—are being trained and made available to the NHS. However, it seems that they do not want to live in Scarborough or the Malton area, which is a pity given the quality of life there. Although I accept that their long-term clinical career might be more challenging at another hospital, our area would be a good place for those at the lower end of the learning curve. The shortage needs to be addressed. The local community will test the Government's commitment to the health service and their argument that things are improving by how quickly those posts are filled.
  The serious question in the minds of patients and medical staff is that although GA operations are suspended at Malton, they continue at Whitby and Bridlington community hospitals. That is partly because patients have nowhere else to go—Scarborough does not have the capacity to provide the theatre time required. Given that there is a lingering suspicion that it might not be safe to perform GA operations at community hospitals—the clinical governance issue—I suspect that some patients will wonder why they are being sent from Malton to Whitby or Bridlington where the same circumstances apply.
  Will the Minister confirm that the withdrawal of GA operations is only a suspension of the facility at Malton? That is important. I am sure from your long experience as a Member of Parliament, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you appreciate that if the services provided at a local hospital are changed there should at least be a public consultation involving discussions with GPs, patients and the community health council locally. There has been none of that.
  In my early days as a Member of Parliament, the accident and emergency centre at Malton was downgraded to a minor injuries unit—again, largely for reasons of clinical governance and staffing. There was such alarm and concern that some of my political opponents even suggested that the hospital was about to close, although nothing was further from the truth. I must stress that people are not worried that Malton will close; their concern relates to the services that it will provide. When the accident and emergency centre was downgraded, a public meeting at the local hall in Malton was attended by about 1,000 people. I am sure that there will be a similar interest if and when we consult on this latest development.

  433
  I want to concentrate on the future. Not only were GA operations unexpectedly withdrawn on 1 April, but the hospital became part of the Scarborough, Ryedale and Whitby primary care trust. A number of community hospitals in other parts of the country experienced a similar change. That development is working well in general. It enables the community hospital to concentrate on diagnostic issues and makes the best use of the facility, so freeing up time that can be spent on more serious matters at district hospitals.
  The Minister must expect the chief executive of the PCT, the trust members and doctors to have their own agenda for the future. It was certainly not in their plans that GA operations would be withdrawn on the very day that they took over responsibility for the hospital. Even given the background of the clinical governance issue, they must have expected three to five years in which to plan a withdrawal or contraction of GA operations at Malton.
  The PCT, the doctors and patients are worried that no alternative was agreed in advance. Some 640 patients were treated under general anaesthetic at Malton hospital in the past year. In my 15 years in the House I have worked well with the managers at the Scarborough hospital trust and have a great deal of time for them. Although they will do their best, a strain will nevertheless be placed on alternative facilities. People will have to travel long distances for relatively minor operations that cannot be performed under local anaesthetic, which is the case with many procedures.
  Some of the operations are not urgent; they concern what the medical profession calls "lumps and bumps", such as minor problems with varicose veins. However, many gynaecological operations are carried out and, on a more difficult point, a number of women have terminations under general anaesthetic at Malton hospital. Clearly, they cannot wait for treatment but have to be seen and dealt with promptly, whatever the rights and wrongs of the situation.
  There is, therefore, concern that Scarborough hospital and the trust can cope with the situation. It is accepted that there is a lack of anaesthetist cover, but up to now the telephone back-up cover has worked extremely well. I am told that it is unlikely to continue because of the shortage of consultant anaesthetists, but I stress to the Minister that while the back-up cover clearly is important, it is the GPs, as clinical assistants, who are doing the work. I understand that it is proposed that one of the doctors who provides the anaesthetic service should also do sessions at Scarborough to ensure that he is thoroughly up to date with all the clinical procedures and can work well with the consultant anaesthetists based there.
  I seek clarification on another issue. Although consultant anaesthetists do not come to Malton for GA-based operations that are done routinely in the mid-week, half-day sessions, they have been coming to Malton on Sundays for the waiting list initiative. It will stick in people's throats if they discover that routine operations have been withdrawn, but consultants are coming to the hospital for GA sessions on a Sunday and opening theatres that are normally closed simply to do operations under the waiting list initiative. I am sure that the Minister will understand my concern about that.
  434
  I mentioned that the primary care trust has its own plans. It is important that we have public consultation about a strategic plan for Malton hospital for the next five years. If there is to be a controlled withdrawal of some of the services at peripheral sites that we have been used to, in tandem with the restructuring of service provision, the public must go along with the plans. For example, as I said, there may be more diagnostic services at Malton, and some surgery may be restricted as the day surgery unit at Scarborough hospital is built up. The public must be reassured that they will receive treatment in a timely fashion and that all the changes are intended to improve not only financial efficiency but the quality and standard of treatment. People understand what is happening, but they must be taken along with the process.
  As I have indicated, people will find it difficult to understand why it is not good enough to do GA-based operations at one peripheral unit at Malton, but those operations may continue at Whitby and Bridlington. I find it deeply unsatisfactory that individual clinicians are making what are effectively strategic decisions that have profound and wide-ranging implications for patient care.
  So far as the PCT is concerned, I would like to think that as the health service develops, we could have more flexibility within service provision and about who is responsible for employing whom. Someone stopped me in the street at the weekend, knowing that I had secured this debate, and said, "I gather that the primary care trust now runs the hospital. Why can't it employ its own anaesthetists?" That is a very good question. It highlights the fact that NHS structures are too rigid, and we need to bring down some of the barriers. I sincerely believe that community hospitals have an exciting future, but flexible thinking and attitudes are necessary if they are to realise their full potential.
  I draw the Minister's attention to another aspect of Malton hospital's future. The two main wards are what are known, in the medical world, as Nightingale wards. I understand that when the Nightingale ward modernisation programme, if that is the correct title, was first mooted, the impression was given—although I cannot say whether this is accurate—that the wards would be modernised. Sadly, however, that has not yet occurred. I believe that the first application was not successful, but the Scarborough trust is trying again. The sum involved is £1.3 million. It would significantly reassure the people of the Malton area if the Minister announced today when she thinks that money will be provided.
  From the title of the debate as on the Order Paper, "The Future of Malton Hospital", someone who did not understand the issues might have thought that the hospital was to close, but that is not on the agenda. We have been over that matter in the past few years, and we persuaded Ministers in the previous Conservative Government, in particular my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Freeman, that community hospitals had a vibrant future. However, it is harder to convince the public of that when decisions are made out of expediency because of shortages of clinical staff. I believe that Malton hospital can have a great future, but that can be achieved only if managers and clinicians in the Scarborough trust and the primary care trust work together.
  We know that the Scarborough trust has problems. Its budget is constantly overspent. The recent report on the trust did not make totally favourable reading, as the Minister knows.

  435
  I end with a plea—let us not sacrifice the work that Malton is doing, and that it can do in the future, to resolve the problems of the Scarborough trust.
  8.28 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Hazel Blears): Like the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), I have the unexpected pleasure of speaking in this debate early in the evening. Hon. Members on both sides of the House talk more sense at a reasonable time of day.
  I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. He is, rightly, eager to ensure that the highest possible standards of health care services are available to his constituents. I know that he has taken a keen interest in the services that Malton hospital provides. He has tabled parliamentary questions about it and written to my ministerial colleagues, and he has been assiduous in following up these issues. I reassure him that the Government are committed to providing high quality services for everybody, no matter where they live.
  We want to provide services that are as close to people's homes as possible but that are also safe and viable. Striking the right balance between local access and high quality has always created tension in the NHS; it is a problem that we continue to wrestle with, and its impact on local services is the subject of many Adjournment debates. Getting that balance right is not without its difficulties. It is fair to say that, if possible, most of us want services almost on our doorsteps, yet we also want them to be safe and of the highest possible standard. Trying to explain to the public and patients the difficulty of striking that balance is one of the challenges that faces us all. The hon. Gentleman clearly set out the background. He raised a number of specific queries and I shall certainly try to respond to them during my speech.
  The NHS plan, which was published in July 2000, set out an ambitious vision of a service designed around the needs of patients. That new approach is aimed at trying to ensure that we achieve high quality national standards, that the services are fast and convenient, and that we use modern methods to provide care where and when it is needed. To deliver that, I genuinely believe that we needed a fundamental shift in power and resources to the front line. That is why we have, in just the past couple of weeks, established 302 primary care trusts which cover all parts of England and are in the driving seat in the provision of health services locally.
  From 1 April, ownership of Malton hospital transferred to the newly established Scarborough, Whitby and Ryedale primary care trust. That locally based organisation will be able to ensure that Malton hospital continues to have a strong future, serving the needs of its rural population. I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has emphasised the fact that we see a strong and vibrant future for Malton hospital. We are certainly not in the business of seeing services reduced or the hospital being in any danger. I have no doubt that things at the hospital will change, but it certainly has a very useful future in providing health services to local people.
  The provision of comprehensive and accessible services is right at the heart of the NHS. We want to try to apply those principles to local services, and to try to strike a balance between convenience and the requirement to ensure safety and quality. Achieving that balance in the case of Malton hospital has led to the need to change the provision of anaesthetic services there.
  436
  The Scarborough and North East Yorkshire Health Care NHS trust's department of anaesthesia provides a full range of anaesthetic services at Scarborough hospital, which is the main district general hospital in the area. For many years, it has provided anaesthesia for day-case and overnight-stay patients in community hospitals in Bridlington, Whitby and Malton—all of which are approximately 20 miles from the main hospital.
  Much of the anaesthetic service at the community hospitals has been provided by GPs, who work alone as clinical assistants under distant consultant provision from Scarborough. The consultant anaesthetists at Scarborough hospital have become increasingly worried that, owing to the shortage of staff, they are unable even to provide that remote supervision of all the peripheral sites. The trust is trying to provide the highest quality services possible across the whole area for which it is responsible. The decision to withdraw general anaesthetic surgery at Malton was taken because Malton has the lowest level of such activity of all three sites. So the decision is very practical and designed to affect the least number of patients.
  The problem in question is really the lack of qualified staff, which is endemic in the health service. The main problem now facing the health service is not necessarily the provision of extra money. People throughout the country will say that they see the resources coming through. The NHS is growing faster than any other health service in Europe, and has undergone the longest sustained period of growth that we have ever known. However, one constraint is the capacity for trained and qualified staff across a range of specialties. Increasing the work force is thus a top priority for us.
  We have said that, by 2004, there will be 7,500 more consultants, 2,000 more GPs, 20,000 extra nurses, 6,500 extra therapists and 1,000 more medical school places on top of the extra 1,100 already announced. That is a huge programme of growth. In 1996, there were 2,629 consultant anaesthetists. Five years later, there were 3,549—an extra 900—but that is simply not enough. We estimate that, over the next nine or 10 years, we will need another 2,540 consultant anaesthetists, but as we expect 1,850 extra, it is looking as if there will be a shortfall. We therefore need a massive recruitment campaign.
  I know that the trust in Scarborough has been very active in trying to recruit extra staff. Mrs. Collinson of the trust has said:
  "This is a lovely part of the country to live and work and we have good educational and health services, and moderately priced housing."
  She is keen to try to attract people to the area. Indeed, I believe that representatives of the trust are going to a careers fair in Berlin fairly shortly to see whether they can recruit some consultants. There is a great deal of activity.
  The trust currently has an establishment for 10 consultant anaesthetists. One post has been vacant for just over a year, another became vacant on 1 April, a third will become vacant in June, and a retirement is anticipated in late summer. Against an establishment of seven middle-grade doctors, the trust currently has only three substantive appointments and four fairly long-standing vacancies. So the situation is very serious, as the hon. Member for Ryedale has said. The shortage of anaesthetists means that even remote supervision from the Scarborough site, with occasional visits to the community hospitals, is currently unachievable.

  437
  The hon. Gentleman specifically asked me whether, if we are successful in recruiting the extra anaesthetists, it would be possible for general anaesthetic surgery to recommence at Malton hospital. Discussions have been taking place with the GP anaesthetists who currently carry out the service, and two issues have arisen. The trust is very keen that GP anaesthetists should retain their skills, so that it will not be impossible to resume the service simply because of the passage of time. It is therefore making arrangements for GPs to go to Scarborough to keep their clinical practice up to date, which is important.
  The trust is also mindful of the guidance of the royal colleges. The move is to provide GA services in an environment which includes on-site intensive care and back-up services. I would not at this point rule out the resumption of GA services at Malton, but the trust must be mindful of royal college guidance as well as the need for accessibility and for local convenience for the hon. Gentleman's constituents. I have no doubt that discussions will continue, but I want to ensure that they are not pre-empted by the loss of skills among clinicians who are currently carrying out the work. It is therefore important that we keep their skills up to date.
  The PCT, like the hospital trust, is disappointed that staff shortages have precipitated the withdrawal of general anaesthetic surgery at Malton hospital, but supports the operational decision in the interests of patient safety. No long-term plan has been agreed between the PCT and the acute trust. Short-term difficulties have precipitated the change in service provision.
  Any strategic decision and associated significant service changes would be subject to public consultation and—if the legislation before the House has been enacted—local authority scrutiny too. I give the hon. Gentleman that undertaking because, like him. I feel that local people must have trust and confidence in their local services. Involving them in full discussion of the available options is the right way to proceed. Local accountability is key in such circumstances, and it is all too easy for local communities to lose confidence in local services if they are not involved in discussions.
  Where significant change is proposed and a consultation process takes place, that process will in future be led either by the local PCT, or by a group of PCTs if the issue crosses several boundaries. At the end of the consultation process, the PCT must take into account all the comments it has received. If, as we hope there will be, there is local agreement, the change can go ahead, but if local agreement is not achieved, the matter can be referred to Ministers either by the community health council, if that is still the proper body, or by the local authority overview and scrutiny committee, after implementation of the provisions of the NHS Reform and Health Care Professions Bill.
  If the matter is referred to Ministers, we will take account of all the available evidence. We hope to have the independent reconfiguration panel up and running soon. The panel will be able to provide independent advice to Ministers, and help us to create a more coherent framework for future service changes. In that way, local people will be able to feel that the process is fair, transparent and based on established criteria.
  438
  The introduction of the new PCTs will enable local communities to commission appropriate services for local people. The hon. Member for Ryedale is right to mention flexibility and new ways of working. The decision to devolve resources and power to front-line local organisations will result in greater diversity in the ways in which services are delivered to local people. Local communities are often innovative and imaginative because they are aware of local needs, so giving them freedom to establish a wider range of ways in which to deliver care is a good step forward.
  I assure the hon. Gentleman that the new PCT is committed to ensuring that Malton hospital has a vibrant future in which it continues to serve local people, and that the development of appropriate services continues. The PCT has advised me that there are no plans to withdraw further services from Malton hospital.
  The hon. Gentleman is aware of the current work, initiated by the PCT, on the longer-term future of Malton and Whitby hospitals. As he said, that work includes a bid to modernise the Nightingale wards at Malton hospital. The proposal is to extend the existing Fitzwilliam ward, provide the correct match of single bedrooms and two and four-bedded bays, together with the appropriate support facilities, and ensure segregation of the sexes, thus enhancing dignity and proper patient care. The bid is being assessed against the national criteria, and I promise the hon. Gentleman that the results of the bidding process will be announced very soon; but I must ask him to he patient a little longer. I am informed that the announcement is imminent.
  It is important that hon. Members have the opportunity to debate important proposals that affect local people. Representing local communities' interests and concerns is one of the most important jobs that we as Members of Parliament do, so the hon. Gentleman was right to secure this Adjournment debate.
  I understand that all the patients who will be affected by the decision to suspend general anaesthetics have been contacted by the trust and supported by representatives in ensuring that their future needs are met. It is important that that be done while recruitment activities for anaesthetic services in the trust continue apace. I hope that those efforts are successful.
  I assure the hon. Gentleman that general anaesthetic procedures that continue at the other hospitals do so safely. Local people may feel that procedures at Bridlington and Whitby are no longer safe, but I am told that there is a consultant anaesthetist on site at Bridlington for approximately 75 per cent. of the general anaesthetic lists, and that at Whitby the trust's medical director has agreed to take responsibility for the continuation of GP anaesthetists' lists there for a further 12 months, while certain measures are taken. There is adequate consultant cover for the other two hospitals; unfortunately, it has not been possible to retain that at Malton.
  I am delighted that the hon. Member for Ryedale has been able to raise such important issues. I hope that he will receive a response to the Nightingale wards bid very soon. In the meantime, I hope that he will feel able to assure his constituents that they will continue to have access to safe, high quality services at the local acute trust.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at eighteen minutes to Nine o'clock.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the Child Support Agency's achievement against performance targets in the last five years. [45013]

  Mr. Darling
  Over the years 1997 to 2001 taken together, the Child Support Agency has met the majority of its targets. It is on course to meet all of its targets this year.

  Final Salary Pension Schemes
  Mr. Pollard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to encourage companies to retain existing final salaries pension schemes and to make them available to new employees; and if he will make a statement. [45027]

  Mr. McCartney
  We welcome the fact that many employers continue to provide occupational pensions on a voluntary basis to their employees. Final salary and money purchase schemes can both provide good incomes in retirement as long as sufficient contributions are made. When deciding what type of scheme to offer, an employer must take into account the costs of doing so and the long-term impact on their business. The Government want to create an environment in which employers can continue to provide occupational pension schemes. We want to remove unnecessary burdens on schemes. As part of this we have announced the replacement of the Minimum Funding Requirement. We have already introduced interim changes to the MFR designed to enable it to operate more effectively. We have commissioned Alan Pickering to report in summer 2002 on ways to simplify the overall burden of regulation on schemes and will he publishing proposals later this year.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on his plans to reform the housing benefit system. [45030]

  Malcolm Wicks
  We have a comprehensive long-term strategy for reforming housing benefit and dealing with the legacy of neglect we have inherited.

  Work is already well under way to radically improve HB administration and bear down on fraud. Many of the key measures set out in our response to consultation on the Housing Green Paper have already been implemented. For example, we have launched comprehensive new performance standards, reformed the extended payments scheme to provide better work incentives, reformed the single room rent, and are making housing benefit easier to administer.
  694W
  These form a firm foundation on which we can build more fundamental reform in the longer term.

  New Deal
  Dr. Pugh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what percentage of new deal leavers have entered sustained unsubsidised jobs. [45031]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Up to January 2002, 56 per cent. of young people leaving the new deal for known destinations entered sustained, unsubsidised jobs. In addition, research shows that an equivalent proportion of those leaving for unknown destinations also move into work.

  Linda Gilroy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the New Deal for Lone Parents. [45045]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The New Deal for Lone Parents is a long-term investment, making a real difference to the lives of lone parents and their children. Over 300,000 lone parents have benefited from the help and support offered through the new deal, and over 130,000 of these have found work.

  Stakeholder Pensions
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many of the Government's target group have taken out stakeholder pensions. [45032]

  Mr. McCartney
  Comprehensive information is not yet available (and will not be until the end of the current tax year). However, early figures from the Association of British Insurers (ABI), based on a limited sample of information from pension providers, show that in cases where earnings of purchasers are known to providers, then the majority of them have earnings of between £10,000 and £30,000 a year. ABI figures also show that 320,000 employers have designated a stakeholder pension scheme for their workforces as at the end of February 2002; representing a compliance rate of over 85 per cent., and over 750,000 people have bought a stakeholder pension.

  Pensioner Poverty
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the number of pensioners living in poverty in(a) 1997 and (b) at the latest date for which figures are available. [45033]

  Mr. McCartney
  Poverty and social exclusion are complex concepts, affecting many aspects of people's lives; including their living standards, health, housing and quality of environment. The third "Opportunity for all" report sets out the Governments strategy for tackling poverty and social exclusion and presents the latest information on the indicators used to monitor progress against this strategy.

  The Government's first priority was to address the immediate problem of pensioner poverty today. That is why we introduced the Minimum Income Guarantee (MIG) in April 1999 to provide money for the poorest pensioners as quickly as possible. 2,200 pensioners in the Cotswold constituency are receiving the MIG and over 2 million pensioners nationally benefit from the MIG.
  695W
  This Government has also introduced measures to ensure that all pensioners share in rising prosperity. From this April the basic state pension has risen by £3 a week for single pensioners and £4.80 for couples above inflation increases last year.

  This is in addition to the introduction of winter fuel payments, currently £200, made to over 11 million pensioners and free TV licences for the over 75s which benefit some 3 million pensioners.

  From 2003 the pension credit will reward those who have worked hard and saved hard.

  We are also committed to tackling the longer term issues by helping people build up good second pensions. To this end we have introduced stakeholder pensions and improved the state earnings related pension scheme through the introduction of the state second pension. This will boost the additional state pension entitlement of £14 million low and moderate earners. Additionally, for the first time 2 million carers and 2 million people whose working lives are disrupted by long-term illness or disability will also be able to build up entitlement to the state second pension.

  Basic Pension
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to restore the link between the basic pension and earnings. [45035]

  Mr. McCartney
  Restoring the earnings link does nothing to help poorer pensioners. We will be spending an extra £6 billion a year in real terms on pensioners as a result of policies introduced since 1997. This includes £2.5 billion more on the poorest third of pensioners. This is three times more than an earnings link since 1998 would have given them.

  Increases in the basic state pension over the last two years have given single pensioners £2.10 a week more than an earnings link would have given them and £3.35 more for couples.

  Older People
  Tony Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what steps he is taking to develop his Department's strategy to help older people. [45036]

  Mr. McCartney
  The Government is committed to improving the position of older people in our society. This is an issue that is relevant not only to my Department but also to others across Government.

  The Government's strategy is co-ordinated by a Cabinet sub-committee of Ministers from several Departments, chaired by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. The strategy consists of five main strands: encouraging and enabling active aging, promoting age diversity, tackling pensioner poverty for today's and future pensioners, maintaining and supporting independence in later life and working in partnership with older people to provide better services focused on the needs of individuals.

  We will publish a report later this year that will show how the Government's strategy is helping to ensure that later life is a time of opportunity for older people.

  Jobcentre Plus
  Jeff Ennis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people are receiving services from Jobcentre Plus. [45037]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the progress made in implementing the Jobcentre Plus programme. [45050]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Jobcentre Plus was launched as a national organisation on 1 April, replacing the former Employment Service and the working age functions of the Benefits Agency, and providing services to around 5 million people. The agency's business plan for 2002–03, a copy of which is available in the Library, sets out the organisation's aims and priorities for its first 12 months, including opening around a further 225 fully integrated offices by April 2003.

  Unemployment Statistics
  Richard Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of the number of people of working age who are neither working nor registered as seeking work or as benefit claimants. [45038]

  Malcolm Wicks
  About 4.1 million people of working age are not working, registered for work or claiming benefits themselves.

  People With Disabilities
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what progress has been made in helping people with disabilities to get and keep employment. [45039]

  Maria Eagle
  We have introduced a wide range of measures to help people with disabilities secure work where they are ready and able to do so.

  We have improved the permitted work rules in incapacity benefit to make it easier for people to make the first moves into work. Over 8,200 people have already been helped into work through the new deal for disabled people pilots. Building on that success we now have a national network of job brokers from the public, private and voluntary sectors who work closely with employers, voluntary groups and health services to help people with health conditions and disabilities move into work. Later this year we are also introducing the job retention and rehabilitation pilots to test the effectiveness of making co-ordinated, earlier health and/or employment interventions to help people who become sick or disabled to stay in work.

  Disability employment advisers continue to provide specialist support to disabled jobseekers, and disabled employees and their employers. Disability employment advisers can draw on the expertise of occupational psychologists to help disabled people find and retain work.

  The roll-out of integrated Jobcentre Plus offices will provide disabled people with work-focused meetings with a personal adviser to ensure they are aware of all the help and opportunities available to them.
  697W
  We established the Disability Rights Commission to help disabled people secure their rights under the Disability Discrimination Act, and to provide information and advice to employers and service providers.

  Pension Credit
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will estimate how many pensioners will not receive their entitlement to pension credit in this financial year. [45042]

  Mr. McCartney
  Over 5 million pensioners will be eligible for pension credit when it is introduced in October 2003. Those receiving pension credit stand to gain £400 a year on average.

  Benefit Fraud
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many cases of fraud there were in 2000–01 in income support. [45043]

  Malcolm Wicks
  It is not possible to state the exact number. We estimate, extrapolating from the results of the Area Benefit Reviews, that there were 204,000 cases of fraud in income support in 2000–01.

  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what his targets are for the reduction of benefit fraud. [45025]

  Malcolm Wicks
  We have a target to reduce losses from fraud and error in income support and jobseeker's allowance by 25 per cent. by 2004 and by 50 per cent. by 2006. We have already achieved an 18 per cent. reduction.

  From this month we are beginning to use new powers in the Fraud Act 2001 that make it easier to catch fraudsters and give greater punishments to those who persistently abuse the system.

  Also from this month, all local authorities are now operating within the new incentive scheme, focusing on the full range of anti-fraud measures as well as customer error; 77 per cent. of local authorities have now signed up to participate in our verification framework that stops fraud from getting into the system in the first place. So far, net savings from the verification framework are estimated at about £100 million.

  We have introduced the Housing Benefit review to provide a continuous measure of fraud and error in Housing Benefit. This will enable us to gauge the success of the range of initiatives we have put in place to tackle Housing Benefit fraud.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how much benefit fraud cost his Department in each of the last five years; and how many people have been prosecuted for benefit fraud in the last year; and what range of penalties have been imposed. [47450]

  Malcolm Wicks
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: Our latest estimate is that £2 billion is lost each year through benefit fraud in the system. Latest results show that in the 2 years to March 2001 we have reduced the level of fraud and error in income support and jobseeker's allowance by 18 per cent. In 2000–01 we imposed 26,958 sanctions, 11,403 of which involved prosecutions and 15,555 of which were cautions or other penalties.
  698W
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how much money was paid in error owing to benefit fraud in Weston-Super-Mare in each of the last five years. [47761]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Information on the level of benefit fraud at constituency level is not available.

  Deprived Areas (Unemployment)
  Ms Dari Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to help people back into work in areas of acute social deprivation. [45044]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Our policies, built on a foundation of a strong and stable economy, are helping people into work in all parts of the country. The New Deals have already helped well over 600,000 people into jobs.

  We have introduced Action Teams for Jobs to tackle joblessness in the most employment deprived areas in the country. They are performing well, and by the end of February had helped over 23,700 people into work. Since October 2001 we have increased the number of action teams from 40 to 63. At the same time, we expanded the Stockton action team to cover six new wards, all in my hon. Friend's constituency. This expanded team has already helped over 100 people into work.

  Employment Zones are helping long-term unemployed people in deprived areas into work. By the end of December, the 15 zones had helped over 20,800 people into work. We are in the process of extending the existing zones' contracts until March 2004, and are currently fully evaluating zone performance before deciding how to take the initiative further.

  This month we have established Jobcentre Plus which will deliver a single, integrated service to benefit claimants of working age right across the country. Jobcentre Plus will provide a responsive, work-focused service, helping people to find jobs and the support to which they are entitled.

  Disabled People (Poverty)
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what his Department is doing to tackle poverty among disabled people. [45046]

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what steps his Department is taking to tackle poverty among disabled people. [45040]

  Maria Eagle
  We are committed to the principle of work for those who can and security for those who are unable to work. We are promoting the rights of disabled people, making work pay and helping more disabled people to get and keep jobs.

  This month we have established Jobcentre Plus which will deliver a single, integrated, work-focused service to people of working age claiming benefits. Those making new or repeat claims to incapacity benefit in integrated Jobcentre Plus offices are required to attend a work-focused meeting. These meetings provide disabled people with the opportunity to discuss with their personal adviser the help, benefits and opportunities available to them, including the opportunity to participate in the New Deal programmes.
  699W
  A disabled person working a minimum of 35 hours a week who claims the disabled person's tax credit is now guaranteed an income of at least £172 a week. By the end of October 2001 disabled person's tax credit was boosting the incomes of over 32,000 working people. From this month we have abolished the earnings limits in the independent living funds——both for these severely disabled people and their partners. At the same time we have extended help to people with savings of up to £18,500 by increasing capital limits in the funds.

  We are also providing security for those who cannot work. The disability income guarantee helps around 130,000 of the poorest severely disabled people under 60 and some 34,000 families with severely disabled children. We have extended the higher rate mobility component of disability living allowance to severely disabled three and three-year-olds benefiting an estimated 6,000 severely disabled children every year. And from this month we have raised the disabled child premium in the income-related benefits to £35.50 a week giving an additional £5 on top of normal uprating. This will benefit around 80,000 children in the neediest families.

  Action Teams for Jobs
  Paul Goggins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the work of action teams for jobs. [45047]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Action Teams for Jobs are helping the most disadvantaged jobless people in the most employment deprived areas into work. They are performing well, developing innovative and individually tailored solutions to the problems people face when looking for work.

  By the end of February, Action Teams had helped over 23,700 jobless people into work. In the first six months of the new South Manchester Action Team, which covers my hon. Friend's constituency, the team has engaged with 304 people and already helped 51 of these move into work.

  Pensions
  Dr. Palmer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what steps he plans to take to increase public awareness of the state second pension; and if he will make a statement. [45048]

  Mr. McCartney
  The state second pension reformed the state earnings-related pension scheme (SERPS) on 6 April 2002. It will boost the additional state pension entitlement of 14 million low and moderate earners. Additionally, for the first time two million carers and two million people whose working lives are disrupted by long-term illness or disability will also benefit as a result of the reforms in that they will be able to build up entitlement to the state second pension.

  Most people will benefit automatically from the state second pension without having to do anything new or different. Our publicity activity therefore focuses on the group who may not automatically start building up state second pension and may need to take appropriate action. We aim to encourage carers to check their circumstances now, We have produced a new leaflet and started a programme of activity to inform relevant groups, which includes press advertising. In addition, we included a
  700W
  message in the child benefit uprating letter, are revising existing leaflets, and we are sending copies of the new leaflet to advisers.

  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the additional cost of the basic state pension would be in(a) 2010, (b) 2020, (c) 2030, (d) 2040 and (e) 2050 if the inflation rate were (i) 2 per cent. and (ii) 1.5 per cent. in one year out of every two, and (A) 2.5 per cent. or more in the other years and (B) 2.5 per cent. each year. [41195]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Additional cost to basic state pension if in one year out of every two the inflation rate were:

  (i) 2 per cent.

  (ii) 1.5 per cent.

  £ billion

  2 per cent. inflation

  1.5 per cent. inflation

  2010

  0.4

  0.8

  2020

  1.5

  3.05

  2030

  3.2

  6.55

  2040

  5

  10.5

  2050

  6.55

  13.85

  Note:

  1. Figures are gross cost for GB rounded to the nearest £50 million.

  The basic state pension is to be uprated by the greater of 2.5 per cent. or RPI, and so (A) and (B) would not affect expenditure in real terms.

  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people he expects to contract back into SERPS/the state second pension over the next 10 years from(a) personal pension schemes and (b) final salary occupational pension schemes. [44684]

  Maria Eagle
  No such estimate has been made. The decision to contract out of SERPS/state second pension is a matter of personal choice.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has for the future of the basic state pension. [45910]

  Mr. McCartney
  The Government believe that the basic retirement pension should remain the essential foundation of income in retirement.

  We increased rates last April by £5 a week for single people and £8 a week for couples and from April 2002 there will be further increases of £3 a week for single people and £4.80 for couples. In future, the state pension will rise by at least 2.5 per cent, or the September rate of RPI, whichever is the higher.

  Poverty Initiatives (Westminster)
  Mr. Mark Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many area-based city of Westminster poverty initiatives are administered by his Department. [45049]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The Department believes that employment is the best way out of poverty and our Welfare to Work initiatives are helping people move into work in all parts of the country. The new deals have already helped over 600,000 people into jobs, including over 700 in the hon. Member's constituency.
  701W
  We do recognise that there are some geographical areas that lag significantly behind the national average in terms of work outcomes. The departmental neighbourhood renewal strategy aims to improve the aggregate employment rate for the 30 local authorities with the poorest initial labour market position. The City of Westminster is not one of these 30 areas and so we are not currently administering any area-based poverty initiatives in this area. However, these constituents still have access to our range of national welfare to work initiatives available through Jobcentre Plus.

  Winter Fuel Payment
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to extend the winter heating allowance to people with disabilities. [45015]

  Maria Eagle
  We are mindful of the needs of people with disabilities, that is why the Government have taken steps to provide help towards the extra costs that people with disabilities may have, through Disability Living Allowance and the disability premiums in income-related benefits. This could include heating costs. Most people over 60, including many who are disabled, are entitled to winter fuel payments.

  Age Discrimination
  Richard Younger-Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to introduce legislative proposals to tackle age discrimination. [45028]

  Mr. McCartney
  Ageist employment practices are bad for employers, older workers and society. The cost of the fall in employment of the over 50s is estimated to be in the range of £16 billion to £31 billion per year in lost gross domestic product. The Department for Work and Pensions is promoting the business case for non-ageist employment practices to all employers and individuals across Great Britain through our Age Positive campaign.

  The introduction of the employment-related age discrimination legislation, and the consultations on its development, are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. It is proposed that age discrimination legislation will be introduced in 2006.

  Pension-sharing
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will estimate the number of people who have benefited from his Department's legislation on pension-sharing after divorce; and what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of this legislation. [32622]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  I have been asked to reply.

  My Department has been monitoring pension sharing orders made by the courts. Our records show that 367 such orders have been made since December 2000. My Department is currently evaluating the effectiveness of this legislation as it applies to divorce proceedings. I hope to be able to announce the results of this in the autumn.

  Refurbishment
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, pursuant to his answer of 30 January 2002,Official Report, column 420W, what the cost of refurbishing each ministerial private office was in each year since May 1997. [37896]

  Mr. McCartney
  Since May 1997 no refurbishment work has been carried out in ministerial private office outside of the routine programme of maintenance, repair and renewal.

  Travel to Work Costs
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions for what reasons high travel to work costs as a ground of variation have been abolished; and what factors underlay setting the judgment rate at 8 per cent. [44432]

  Malcolm Wicks
  We believe that support for children must come first. None the less we recognise that there are many calls on the finances of non-resident parents. The standard percentage rates for child support maintenance in the new scheme reflect those other demands. Any attempt to reflect the specific costs of each person would lead to the reintroduction of an overly complex scheme.

  The judgment rate is the statutory interest rate. It is set in England and Wales by the Lord Chancellor and in Scotland by the Lord President of the Court of Session.

  Advertising
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the pensions awareness advertising campaign. [46461]

  Mr. McCartney
  The Government are committed to ensuring people are properly informed in order to make decisions about saving for their retirement and the "Pensions Education" publicity campaign is a major part of this strategy. Results so far are encouraging——since the campaign started in January 2001 it has provoked more than 1.1 million responses and almost 1.4 million information guides have been sent out. Changing attitudes towards planning for retirement will inevitably take time.

  Overseas Pensioners
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of Spanish presidency proposals for an EU wide pension fund solvency test; what impact he estimates such a test would have on UK final salary pension schemes; and if he will make a statement. [48554]

  Mr. McCartney
  The issue of EU level solvency requirements for pension funds is being considered as part of the proposed directive on occupational pension schemes. Any impact on UK schemes would depend on the details of the requirements. We are working to ensure that the final version of the directive is consistent with UK pension arrangements.

  Vocational Rehabilitation
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Daventry on 10 December 2001,Official Report, column 617W, if he can now publish the findings of his literature and good practice reviews on vocational rehabilitation; and what progress has been made in developing conjunction with the Department of Health and national strategy for vocational rehabilitation. [48295]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The report "Employment Programmes for Disabled People: Lessons from Research Evaluations" was published on 30 January 2002 as Report No. 90 in the departmental in-house report series. A copy is available in the Library.

  Ministers from this Department and the Department of Health intend to meet in the near future to discuss possible arrangements for joint working on vocational rehabilitation.

  Table 1: Cash terms

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Budgets (£ million)

  CCG Budget

  97.0

  98.0

  98.0

  100.0

  103.0

  108.0

  Loans Budget

  370.0

  402.7

  436.7

  494.0

  516.6

  518.0

  Contingency Reserve

  0.5

  0.5

  0.5

  2.0

  1.0

  1.0

  In-year allocation to loans budget (£ million)

  0

  2.2

  21.2

  30.6

  31.1

  n/a

  Outturn (£)

  CCG expenditure

  96,499,000

  97,774,000

  98,139,000

  99,978,000

  n/a

  n/a

  Loans expenditure

  366,225,000

  404,364,000

  457,784,000

  501,150,000

  n/a

  n/a

  Table 2: Real terms (at 2001–02 prices)

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Budgets (£ million)

  CCG Budget

  106.6

  104.7

  102.3

  102.5

  103.0

  Loans Budget

  406.5

  430.4

  455.9

  506.4

  516.6

  Contingency Reserve

  0.5

  0.5

  0.5

  2.1

  1.0

  In-year allocation to loans budget (£ million)

  0

  2.4

  22.1

  31.4

  31.4

  Outturn (£)

  CCG expenditure

  106,010,000

  104,489,000

  102,443,000

  102.443,000

  n/a

  Loans expenditure

  402,320,000

  432,134,000

  477,859,000

  513.679,000

  n/a

  Notes:

  1. Figures for budgets and in-year allocations are rounded to the nearest £100,000

  2. n/a means figures are not yet available

  Source:

  Annual Reports by the Secretary of State on the Social Fund 1997–98 to 2000–01 Social Fund Accounts 1997–98 to 2000–01

  Recruitment
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many Benefit Office employees recruited within the last 12 months have been over 55. [48706]

  Mr. McCartney
  The Department of Work and Pensions was formed in June 2001 from the former Department of Social Security (DSS) and parts of the Department for Education and Employment. The vast majority of Benefit paying employees were employed by the DSS, therefore the data supplied below has been taken from their legacy systems.

  Post Office Card Account
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to delay the introduction of the post office card account. [47423]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The implementation of the card account is a matter for the Post Office. They hope to have accounts available from 2003 and have recently signed contracts with DWP, IR and NISSA to make these accounts available from this date.

  Community Care
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what has been the(a) budget and (b) outturn of (i) the community care grant budget and (ii) the loans budget, in (1) cash and (2) real terms in each year since 1997. [48642]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The available information is in the tables:

  There have been 277 people over the age of 55 recruited into benefit paying offices between 1 April 2001 and 31 March 2002.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions whether those entitled to disability living allowance lower rate mobility component, but not the care component, who are also in receipt of disability premium in income support, will lose the latter entitlement if no longer eligible for the lower rate mobility component; and
  705W
  how many people are in receipt of the disability premium in income support solely as a result of entitlement to lower rate mobility component of DLA. [48640]

  Malcolm Wicks
  People receiving disability living allowance qualify for the disability premium within income support regardless of whether they receive the higher, middle or lower rate of either the care or mobility component, as any of these elements allows entitlement to the disability premium.

  Information on the number of people in receipt of the disability premium in income support solely as a result of being entitled to the lower rate mobility component of disability living allowance is not available.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many applications for Social Fund loans have been(a) refused, (b) fully awarded and (c) partially awarded yearly since 1997. [48644]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The available information is in the tables.

  Social fund

  Thousands

  Year

  Total number of awards

  Partial awards included in previous column

  Refusals

  Budgeting loans

  1997–98

  916

  319

  494

  1998–99

  935

  315

  442

  1999–2000

  1,017

  533

  647

  2000–01

  1,145

  661

  531

  Crisis loans

  1997–98

  803

  628

  230

  1998–99

  866

  690

  247

  1999–2000

  939

  746

  336

  2000–01

  930

  746

  342

  Notes:

  1. The figures are rounded to the nearest thousand.

  2. The figures do not include awards on review.

  3. Comparison of the award figures should only be used as a guide as the award figures and partial award figures are taken from different tables in the Social Fund Policy, Budget and Management Information System and are counted different stages during the claim process.

  4. Following the introduction of the new Budgeting Loan scheme in April 1999 there has been an increase in the number of partial awards as individual applicants are limited to a maximum available amount.

  Source:

  Annual Reports by the Secretary of State on the Social Fund 1997–98 to 2000–01.

  Social Fund Policy, Budget and Management Information System.

DEFENCE

  Underspends
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the(a) capital and (b) revenue underspend in his Department is expected to be in the financial year 2001–02. [47795]
  706W
  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: The Ministry of Defence's estimated outturn figures for 2001–02 will be published in the Budget report on 17 April 2002.

  Training Estates Division
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what overseas facilities are run by the British Army's Training Estates Division; and in which countries the facilities are located; [47617]

  (2) which military and security forces have received training within the British Army's Training Estates Division overseas facilities since 2 May 1997; which countries were involved; what types of training were provided; and how many personnel were trained; [47616]

  (3) what human rights criteria are used to assess which military and security personnel are eligible to receive training within the British Army's Training Estates Division overseas facilities. [47618]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Army Estates's Division is responsible for managing UK training areas only. Part of the Army's Land Warfare Centre (LWC) (formerly Training Support Command (Land)) has responsibility for the conduct of some overseas training. The LWC conducts training at four overseas facilities. These are in Germany, Canada, Belize and Kenya. In addition, the Field Army maintains a facility in Brunei, though this is not part of the LWC training estate. I should point out that the arrangements under which we use these facilities are different in every country and we are not responsible for the "running" of all the facilities in question.

  Since 1997 large numbers of British units have trained at these facilities but details are not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Foreign military personnel on attachment to British units and foreign observers have also participated in British exercises, but once again, details are not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  The LWC does offer jungle warfare training to members of foreign forces at its facilities in Belize. Since 1997 a total of 18 students have participated in this training, 12 from the Netherlands and six from the Ukraine.

  In terms of formed foreign units that use the overseas facilities, certain NATO countries are permitted to conduct training at the facilities that the LWC operate in Germany under arrangements contained within the NATO Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA). This agreement in itself authorises the UK to manage facilities which are owned by the German Federal Government. In summary, the countries whose forces are permitted to train at these UK managed facilities are Belgium, Canada, France, the Netherlands, the USA and of course Germany itself. Since 1997, the formed foreign units that have trained here are Bundeswehr Units (31 Airborne Brigade, 313 Infantry Parachute Battalion, 272 Airborne Attack Defence Battalion, Seven Armoured Recognisance Battalion, 270 Airborne Supplies Company); German Specialist Units (GSG and SEK (German Civil Police Special Operations)); Belgian Units (two (BE) Commando Battalion, Regiment Beveijing——five Linie, Regiment De Chasseurs Ardennais and one BE Parachute); Dutch Units (108 Company (Special Forces) and HQ 11 Air

  707W
  Mobile Brigade); United States Units (75th Rangers) and multinational formations conducting Allied Rapid Reaction Corps training.

  Because of the different arrangements that prevail, if forces from foreign nations wish to use the facilities that LWC use in Canada, Belize and Kenya, that would be matter for agreement between that country and the respective host nation. This would also apply if a country other than those specified in the SOFA wished to train on the British managed facilities in Germany.

  The Ministry of Defence continues to play a role in fostering human rights through the Defence Diplomacy Mission which aims to dispel hostility, build and maintain trust and assist in the development of democratically accountable armed forces thereby making a significant contribution to conflict prevention. A key contribution to the fulfilment of this mission is provided by military training. Details of the Defence Diplomacy Mission including its objectives and scope is published in the MOD Policy Paper No 1; Defence Diplomacy (2001) a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  Imber
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many uniformed staff were on duty in the village of Imber on Sunday on 31 March; for what purpose; and what equipment they used. [48625]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: On 31 March, four uniformed Land Wardens were on duty in Imber in order to ensure the safety of members of the general public. All the Land Wardens drive quarter tonne Land Rovers with radio communication equipment.

  Medical Discharges
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many persons have been discharged from the(a) Royal Navy, (b) Army and (c) Royal Air Force for medical reasons in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [46667]

  Dr. Moonie
  There have been 10,067 medical discharges from the Naval Services (Royal Navy and Royal Marines), the Army and the Royal Air Force between 1 January 1996 and 31 December 2001. These are broken down by service and year in the table.

  Year

  Army

  Navy

  RAF

  Total

  1996

  1,189

  339

  200

  1,728

  1997

  1,067

  354

  223

  1,644

  1998

  1,060

  448

  155

  1,663

  1999

  1,099

  456

  189

  1,744

  2000

  1,023

  484

  201

  1,708

  2001

  973

  413

  194

  1,580

  Total

  6,411

  2,494

  1,162

  10,067

  Further information on medical discharges can be found in the National Statistics publication entitled "Medical Discharges in the Armed Forces 2001" which was published on 27 March 2002. This publication can be found on the world wide web at http://www.dasa.mod.uk/medstats/discharge/ns——initframe.htm.

  United Nations Missions
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many UK service personnel have been deployed working on UN missions in each of the last five years; what the missions are; how many personnel have been involved in each mission; what the cost has been to the MOD; and if he will make a statement. [46674]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Ministry of Defence does not hold information centrally in the form requested and this could he provided only at disproportionate cost. I can, however, provide details of involvement by service personnel in current UN missions, these details being a snapshot only, as numbers vary during the course of a year. The details, including estimated costs for financial year 2001–02, are set out in the table. Costs for UN missions are reimbursed to the MOD from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, who in turn are allocated funds from the Global Conflict Prevention Fund.

  £ million

  Mission

  Country

  Number of UK personnel

  Cost

  UNOMIG

  Georgia

  7

  0.5

  UNAMSIL

  Sierra Leone

  22

  2

  MONUC

  D. R. Congo

  6

  0.6

  UNIFICYP

  Cyprus

  112

  15.9

  UNIKOM

  Kuwait

  226

  1

  UNTAET

  East Timor

  3382

  0.4

  1 UNIFICYP headquarters

  2 British headquarters

  3 Roulement regiment

  Deployments
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what personnel in(a) Royal Navy, (b) Army and (c) RAF have been involved in deployments to the Falkland Islands in the last five years; how many of those deployments have been for six months; what the total cost has been to the MOD for the Falkland Islands garrison in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement; [46666]

  (2) what (a) Royal Navy, (b) Army and (c) RAF personnel have been involved in deployments to (0 Gibraltar, (ii) Cyprus, (iii) Bosnia and (iv) Kosovo in the last five years; how many of those deployments have been for six months; what the cost has been to the MOD; and if he will make a statement. [46665]

  Mr. Ingram
  Information regarding the number of deployments undertaken by UK regular forces is not available in the format requested.

  As regards lengths of tours, tours in Bosnia, Kosovo and the Falkland Islands are considered as operational deployments. In the main, Royal Air Force operational deployments are four months in duration, whereas Army and Navy operational deployments are usually for six months. There are exceptions, however, such as those posts identified as continuity posts that require a deployment of 12 months duration. For service personnel posted to Cyprus and Gibraltar, which are garrison deployments, a tour length of 24 months is the norm.
  709W
  The costs for operational deployments are recorded differently from those for garrison deployments. For costing purposes, the Falkland Islands are treated as a garrison.

  The additional expenditure incurred by the Ministry of Defence in Bosnia and Kosovo, beyond normal defence activity, over the last five years is shown in the following table.

  £ million

  Financial year

  Bosnia

  Kosovo

  1996–97

  247

  ——

  1997–98

  196

  ——

  1998–99

  147

  14

  1999–2000

  108

  325

  2000–01

  120

  220

  The costs incurred by the Commanders British Forces Cyprus, Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands over the same period are as follows:

  £ million

  Financial year

  Cyprus

  Gibraltar

  Falklands garrison

  1996–97

  170

  63

  81

  1997–98

  165

  61

  76

  1998–99

  170

  52

  72

  1999–2000

  159

  54

  71

  2000–01

  160

  60

  64

  Senior Armed Forces
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 25 March 2002,Official Report, column 552W, on senior armed forces, how many officers there are of the rank of General and equivalent or above for each service; what steps the Ministry of Defence takes to ensure that its objective of reflecting the diversity of British society is monitored and implemented; and if he will make a statement on how the Government plan to ensure that senior officers are drawn from the whole range of society. [48701]

  Mr. Ingram
  There are 12 officers of the rank of full General or equivalent and above currently appointed in the armed forces (Naval Service five; Army four; RAF three). The armed forces are committed to creating an organisational culture that welcomes diversity in which all have equal opportunity and encouragement to realise their full potential, regardless of race, ethnic origin, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or social/educational background. Promotion in the armed forces is based on merit.

  Saville Inquiry
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information he has received on instances of information on the identities of British soldiers or former soldiers who may be called upon to testify to the Saville Inquiry falling into unauthorised hands; and if he will make a statement. [47059]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 11 April 2002]: I understand that the names of 76 soldiers (some of whom are deceased) have been disclosed in advertently by the Bloody Sunday Inquiry, mainly in historical documents
  710W
  passed by the inquiry to the interested parties. Two names have been disclosed inadvertently by the team of lawyers representing the majority of soldiers. The name of one soldier has been compromised as a result of a security breach in the Treasury Solicitor's Department; this is the subject of a continuing investigation.

  Many soldiers' names have become publicly associated with Bloody Sunday. Senior officers were not granted anonymity in 1972, while other soldiers have made statements or given interviews in which they name themselves or colleagues.

  The soldiers whose names have been compromised have been, or will be, provided with security advice and additional protective measures where appropriate.

  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has recently reviewed the security arrangements for the handling of information relating to British soldiers and former soldiers by Treasury Counsel and others concerned with the Saville Inquiry; and if he will make a statement. [47125]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 11 April 2002]: Security arrangements in Government Departments, and for those acting on their behalf, are reviewed regularly.

  The Bloody Sunday Inquiry is independent of government and its security arrangements are a matter for the inquiry itself. My understanding is that in safeguarding sensitive or personal information the inquiry aims to follows normal public sector procedures and standards.

  Strategic Defence Review
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what establishment strength of the Army was set under the Strategic Defence Review. [49746]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Strategic Defence Review did not set a figure for the size of the Army. A decision was made, however, to increase the Army's manpower requirement by some 3,300 posts to reflect the inclusion of a sixth deployable brigade and a second line of communication. It remains our intention to man the Army to achieve this, although the overall manpower requirement is dynamic and subject to continuing review in light of evolving doctrine, new technology and equipment and possible changes to the operating environment.

  Nimrod
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what savings in terms of equipment acquisition will be made from the decision to purchase 18 Nimrod MRA4s. [49764]

  Dr. Moonie
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 28 February 2002,Official Report, columns 1452–53W, to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer), on the basis of current assumptions, savings in support costs are likely to be some £360 million over the in-service life of the aircraft. The savings in procurement costs arising from the current contract have yet to be finally negotiated with BAE Systems and its principal suppliers, and is a commercial in confidence matter between the relevant parties.

  711W
  However, as my announcement made clear, we are working closely with BAE Systems to maximise the benefits brought about by this decision.

  Unexploded Ordnance (Kenya)
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what dates talks(a) have been and (b) will be held between his Department and the lawyers representing Kenyan tribespeople who have been injured as a result of unexploded British Army ordnance. [48934]

  Mr. Ingram
  Meetings between the Ministry of Defence and the lawyers representing Kenyan tribespeople were held on 28 November 2001, 11 January and 8 April 2002. One further meeting has been planned for end of June before mediation talks are held over the period 17 to 19 July 2002.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the policy of the Government are on liability for death and injury caused by unexploded ordnance left behind after British military exercises in Kenya; and if he will make a statement. [49795]

  Mr. Ingram
  When compensation claims are submitted, they are considered on the basis of whether or not the Ministry of Defence has a legal liability to pay compensation. Where there is a legal liability to pay compensation we do so.

  Performance Targets
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what performance targets have been set for the Defence Vetting Agency for the financial year 2002–03. [49905]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Defence Vetting Agency is the largest government organisation carrying out national security checks on people to allow them to be employed in jobs involving access to sensitive information or assets. These jobs range throughout the Ministry of Defence and armed services, a number of other Government Departments, and defence contractor companies. This year will see the Agency emerge from a challenging modernisation and rationalisation programme that started soon after it was created in 1997. The completion of the programme will create a much more responsive, integrated organisation, able to exploit the capabilities of modern information technology to the benefit of its customers. The chief executive has been set the following key targets.

  Quality

  Key Target 1:
  To achieve, through external validation, at least a 95 per cent. success rating with specially selected cases, and zero serious errors that could have been identified at the time of vetting.

  Key Target 2:
  To address the diversity imbalance in the agency and achieve by 2002:
  Women (at Band D): 12 per cent.
  Women (Field Force): 10 per cent.
  Ethnic Minorities (Field Force): 1.8 per cent.
  Disabled (at Band D and Field Force): 1.5 per cent.
  712W
  Timeliness

  Key Target 3:
  To achieve agreed completion times for priority requests for security clearances:
  40 per cent. of counter terrorist and security checks completed within 10 days, and 90 per cent. of developed vetting completed within 30 days.

  Key Target 4:
  To achieve agreed completion times for routine requests for security clearances:
  60 per cent. of counter terrorist and security checks completed within 30 days,
  40 per cent. of developed vetting completed within 100 days and 90 per cent. within 182 days.

  Key Target 5:
  To achieve average completion times of 30 days for counter terrorist checks and for security checks, and 100 days for developed vetting.

  Efficiency

  Key Target 6:
  To reduce the 2001–02 unit cost of output by 2 per cent.

  I will arrange for advance copies of the Corporate Plan to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what performance targets have been set for the Naval Manning Agency for the financial year 2002–03. [49906]

  Mr. Ingram
  The key targets that have been set for the chief executive of the Naval Manning Agency for the financial year 2002–03 are as listed. The targets build upon progress made by the agency since it formed on 1 July 1996.

  Key Target 1. Deployment:
  The percentage of filled officer billets to be: 94 per cent. or greater.
  The percentage of filled rating billets to be: 90 per cent. or greater.
  The percentage of filled other rank billets to be: 90 per cent or greater.

  Key Target 2. Manpower Planning:
  The variation of strength to requirement to be: Better than -4 per cent.

  Key Target 3. Career Management:
  The percentage of officers receiving the required notice of change to be: 60 per cent. or greater.
  The percentage of ratings receiving the required notice of change to be: 98 per cent. or greater.
  The number of occurrences where minimum time ashore criteria are met to be: 99 per cent. or greater.

  Key Target 4. NMA Corporate Efficiency:
  To achieve strict control of NMA manpower overheads to within plus or minus 2 per cent. of the baseline established for manpower overheads as at 1 April 2002.
  To carry out two benchmarking exercises.
  To achieve a customer confidence score of 63.

  Key Target 5. Financial:
  To operate the NMA within 0 to -1 per cent. of its 2001–02 net cash allocation for operating activities.
  Production of annual accrual accounts to be completed by July 2003.

  Harrier GR7
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the Royal Air Force's total inventory of Harrier GR7s is; and how many are operationally available. [43632]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 15 March 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 15 March 2002, Official Report, column 552W.

  Departmental Contracts
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to the answer of 21 March 2002,Official Report, column 450W to the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Harry Cohen), when he will place a letter in the Library detailing his Department's contracts for which Israeli companies are bidding as (a) prime contractors and (b) teaming partners; and in the case of the latter, with which companies they are teamed. [49793]

  Dr. Moonie
  I replied to the hon. Member today.

  Navy Vessels
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects HMS Albion to be fully operational; what refit would be necessary to keep HMS Fearless in operation for one more year; how much it would cost; whether he has considered recommissioning HMS Intrepid; whether he foresees any need for CPD capability in the next 12 months; and what contingency plans he has in place. [46971]

  Mr. Ingram
  On current plans, HMS Albion will be available for operational tasking early in 2003, and she is expected to be fully operational by mid 2003. HMS Fearless would have needed to undergo and assisted maintenance period at an estimated cost of about £1.5 million to allow her to continue in service for a year beyond her decommissioning date. The assisted maintenance period represented the minimum package of 714W
  work required to keep HMS Fearless in service. Given the age of the vessel, the possibility of additional unplanned repair during this period could not be ruled out. The cost of re-commissioning HMS Intrepid, the sister ship of HMS Fearless, which last put to sea in 1994, would greatly exceed the cost of HMS Fearless's foregone assisted maintenance period. It would not therefore make financial sense to re-commission HMS Intrepid.

  The requirement for a docking and heavy lift capability needs to be considered in the prevailing operational context at any particular time. Our assessment is that until HMS Albion enters service, the circumstances in which it is most likely that the UK wold be involved in an operation requiring a dedicated amphibious assault capability would be where we were acting as part of a coalition force. In such a scenario, depending on the requirements of the operation, a docking and heavy lift capability could be provided from within the forces of our coalition partners to enhance the UK's specialist amphibious capabilities of HMS Ocean and the five landing ships logistic. HMS Ocean is available for amphibious force tasking until October this year when she is due, on current plans, to commence a docking period before she again becomes available for tasking early in 2003. However until HMS Albion enters service, the amphibious assault capability will, if operational imperatives dictate, be filled in part by other platforms.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to the answer of 11 March 2002,Official Report, column 326W, on strategic lift transport ships, what the date is for the keel lay of HMS 'Beach Head'; and when she is to be delivered. [47391]

  Dr. Moonie
  I assume that the question refers to the answer that appeared on 6 March 2002,Official Report, columns 325–26W. I refer the hon. Member to my pursuant answer of 10 April 2002, Official Report, column 32W. The delivery date is 30 April 2003. Beachy Head will be a commercial ship with the designation motor vessel (my) not HMS.

PRIVY COUNCIL

  Congestion Charging
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the President of the Council what representations he has received on the exemption of hon. Members from the proposed congestion charge for vehicles entering central London. [48799]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  I am aware that this is a matter of some concern for Members, but I have received no direct representations.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Terrorism
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the policy of the Government is on an amnesty for those convicted of terrorist offences. [44402]

  Dr. John Reid
  At the talks at Weston Park last summer, both the Irish and UK Governments recognised that there is an issue to be addressed, with the completion of the early release scheme, about supporters of organisations now on ceasefire against whom there are outstanding prosecutions, and in some cases extradition proceedings, for offences committed before 10 April 1998. Such people would, if convicted, stand to benefit from the early release scheme. The Governments accept that it would be a natural development of the scheme for such prosecutions not to be pursued. Consideration continues of the best way to discharge this commitment.

  Murder Inquiries
  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to his answer of 16 November 2001,Official Report, column 938W, if he will name the judge who has been appointed to investigate the cases of Chief Superintendent Breen, Superintendent Buchanan, Lord Justice and Lady Gibson and Billy Wright; and if he will make a statement. [35229]

  Dr. John Reid
  The Government stand by the commitment made at Weston Park to appoint a judge of international standing to investigate allegations of collusion in the cases of the murders of Chief Superintendent Breen and Superintendent Buchanan, Pat Finucane, Lord Justice and Lady Gibson, Robert Hamill, Rosemary Nelson and Billy Wright. It is intended that the investigation of each individual case will begin no later than April 2002 unless this is clearly prejudicial to a forthcoming prosecution at that time. The British and Irish Governments will make an announcement as soon as an appointment is made.

  Scheduled Offences
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people convicted of scheduled offences committed before 10 April 1998 are in prison in Northern Ireland. [44325]

  Dr. John Reid
  There are 11 such prisoners.
  716W
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland of those people who remain in prison for scheduled offences committed before 10 April 1998 how many belong to(a) Republican groups and (b) Loyalist groups. [44330]

  Dr. John Reid
  In total there are 11 such prisoners. Information is held for management purposes in relation to the perceived affiliation of prisoners: nine are or were at one time perceived to be associated with Loyalist groups and two with Republican groups.

  Released Prisoners
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many prisoners have been released from prison in Northern Ireland under the terms of the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act; and of those how many belong to(a) Republican groups and (b) Loyalist groups. [44329]

  Dr. John Reid
  As at 15 March 2002, 445 individuals had been released from prison under the terms of the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act. Information is held, for management purposes, in relation to the perceived paramilitary association of prisoners. 240 individuals were perceived to be associated with Republican groups, 193 were perceived to be associated with Loyalist groups and 12 had no perceived association.

  Television Sets
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) integrated digital and (b) analogue television sets have been bought by his Department in each of the last 24 months; and if he will publish the guidance given to officials making decisions on television purchases. [33234]

  Dr. John Reid
  My Department does not hold centrally or separately the number of television sets purchased. Officials, when purchasing television sets follow general guidance and procedures for all procurement.

  Flexible Working
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many and what proportion of the staff of his Department are(a) job sharing, (b) term working and (c) engaged in another form of flexible working. [42417]

  Dr. John Reid
  Information is not held in the format requested.

  The number of people job sharing in the Department is 25, and there are a further 10 in the Northern Ireland Prison Service. This is 2 per cent. of the staff in post.

  The number of people engaged in part-time working in the Department is 116, and there are a further 27 in the Northern Ireland Prison Service. This is 8 per cent. of the staff in post.

  Manpower
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many staff have been employed by his Department in each of the last 10 years. [42464]
  717W
  Dr. John Reid
  Full time equivalent staff numbers in the Northern Ireland Office, for the last 10 years, including civil servants, special advisers and Prison Governor and uniformed Prison Officer grades are as follows:

  Staff numbers

  1991–92

  5,752

  1992–93

  5,683

  1993–94

  5,747

  1994–95

  5,705

  1995–96

  4,779

  1996–97

  4,590

  1997–98

  4,446

  1998–99

  4,232

  1999–2000

  3,929

  2000–01

  3,306

  Public Service Agreements
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the public service agreement targets which have been revised and those which have been introduced since the publication of the 2001 departmental report. [43255]

  Dr. John Reid
  I can confirm that none of my Department's existing PSA targets have been revised and no new targets introduced for the public service agreement since the publication of the 2001 departmental report.

  Creche Facilities
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what creche facilities are provided by his Department; and at what cost. [44862]

  Dr. John Reid
  Although the Northern Ireland Office does not provide creche facilities for its staff, it does provide assistance with the cost of child care to staff with pre-school aged children. In the last financial year the Department and its agencies have assisted 154 staff at a total cost of £114,000.

  Parental Leave Directive
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what estimate he has made of the(a) financial costs and (b) benefits to his Department of the Parental Leave Directive. [42481]

  Dr. John Reid
  The information is as follows:

  (a) There are no financial costs as parental leave is unpaid.

  (b) The benefits include meeting staff needs, raising staff morale and ensuring the retention of experienced and trained staff.

  Consultants
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the total cost to his Department was of the use of external consultants in each of the last four years. [35020]
  718W
  Jane Kennedy
  Details of the Department's (including it's agencies) total expenditure on the use of external consultants in each of the last four financial years are:

  1998–99: £254,080

  1999–2000: £486,622

  2000–01: £361,971

  2001–02: £1,955,910 (to date. There is substantial increase in this financial year due to numerous new IT projects).

  Golden Jubilee
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what events(a) he is and (b) other Ministers in his Department are planning to attend as part of the Golden Jubilee celebrations; and what events his Department is planning to arrange to celebrate the Golden Jubilee. [33252]

  Dr. John Reid
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer provided by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport on 11 February 2002,Official Report, column 59W.

  Mobile Telephones
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list, for 1997–98 and for each subsequent financial year, the amount spent(a) in the United Kingdom and (b) abroad by (i) his Department, (ii) its agencies and (iii) its non-departmental public bodies on (1) providing mobile telephone equipment, including handsets and other associated equipment, (2) telephone calls made using such equipment and (3) telephone calls made using privately owned mobile telephones but subsequently reclaimed by (x) Ministers and (y) staff. [34395]

  Dr. John Reid
  Details of the Department's (including it's agencies, but excluding NDPBs as we do not have access to breakdown of their expenditure) total expenditure on mobile telephones and calls in each of the last five financial years are:

  £

  Line rental

  Call charges

  Mobiles and equipment

  Total

  1997–98

  36,498

  38,293

  14,275

  89,065

  1998–99

  33,882

  69,224

  4,431

  107,537

  1999–2000

  43,175

  45,519

  5,652

  94,346

  2000–01

  64,297

  29,172

  3,314

  96,783

  2001–02

  49,457

  22,726

  2.587

  174,770

  1 To 31 January 2002.

  Note:

  Estimate for full year equals £89,724

  It is not possible to provide a breakdown of costs for UK/abroad. We do not hold any information on reimbursement for business calls made on private phones.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the target time will be in 2002–03 for(a) Ministers to reply to letters from hon. Members and (b) officials in his Department to reply to letters received directly from members of the public. [44947]

  Dr. John Reid
  The target time in 2002–03 for Ministers to reply to letters from hon. Members is 10 working days.
  719W
  The target time in 2002–03 for officials in his Department to reply to letters received directly from members of the public is 15 working days, except in the Compensation Agency where it is 10 working days.

  Energy Costs
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on energy costs incurred by his Department in each of the last 10 years. [42445]

  Dr. John Reid
  Financial information for the years prior to 1996–97 is not readily available.

  Details of the Department's (including its agencies, but excluding NDPBs) total expenditure on energy costs for the last six years are:

  Year

  £

  1996–97

  3,156,147

  1997–98

  2,981,720

  1998–99

  2,616,093

  1999–2000

  2,684,527

  2000–01

  2,762,408

  2001–02

  12,762,408

  1 To end February 2002. Total year estimate £2.259,857

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many special advisers there were in his Department; and what their salaries were in each of the last five years. [46940]

  Dr. John Reid
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 10 April 2002,Official Report, column 11W.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Entry Clearance
  David Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on how many occasions in the last two years applications for visitors' entry clearances have been given on the basis of the constituency hon. Members where the sponsor resides giving their word that the person would leave the UK at the end of the time permitted. [48798]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We do not keep records of the reasons behind the issue of entry clearance; it is granted where the applicant meets the requirements of the immigration rules.

  Nuclear Materials Transportation
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received on the Hazards of Nuclear Materials Transported from Europe to Japan by(a) CARICOM, (b) the Rio Group and (c) the Pacific Island Forum in the last 12 months. [49494]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Secretary of State received a representation from CARICOM on the movement of nuclear waste through the Caribbean sea while at the UK-Caribbean Forum in Guyana (3–5 April 2002). The Rio Group Heads of State and Government expressed their concern about the risks related to the transit of 720W
  radioactive materials in the Santiago Declaration of 17 August 2001. We have not received a representation on this from the Pacific Island Forum.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when a decision will be made on offering the people of Gibraltar a referendum on their future; who will write the referendum question; in what way the UK Government will be bound by the decision of Gibraltarians; what the UK Government policy will be on a referendum for the people of Gibraltar; if he will publish the full text of the Anglo-Spanish accord on the issue of Gibraltar; and whether the referendum question will be put before Parliament for approval before it is put to the people of Gibraltar. [47964]

  Peter Hain
  No decisions have been made on the timing or modalities of any referendum other than because it could trigger primary legislation in the UK. HMG will expect to oversee the organisation and timing of any such referendum in consultation with the Government of Gibraltar. The Government have also made clear that any proposals affecting the sovereignty of Gibraltar will be put to the people of Gibraltar and implemented only if they approve them.

  Israel
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) pursuant to his answer of 11 March 2002,Official Report, column 689W, to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvin (Mr. Galloway), what changes have been made to the evaluation of end-use undertakings issued by the Israeli Government with reference to Israel's assurances on 29 November 2000 on the use of UK originated equipment and systems; and if he will make a statement; [46418]

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 11 March 2002, Official Report, column 689W, to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvin (Mr. Galloway), what steps the Government are taking to clarify whether UK-controlled goods have been used by the Israel defence force activities in the Occupied Territories; and if he will make a statement. [46419]

  Mr. Straw
  The written reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Kelvin (Mr. Galloway) on 11 March 2002,Official Report, column 689W, informed Parliament of information that had come to light about UK-supplied equipment licensed for export under a previous Administration and a different export control regime being used in the occupied territories. I undertook to inform my hon. Friend and the House of the response from the Israeli Government to our request for an explanation.

  Following parallel action taken in London——on 12 March——and by our embassy in Tel Aviv——on 13 March——the Israeli Foreign Ministry formally responded on 26 March.

  The Israeli Foreign Ministry has said that the assurances given on 29 November 2000 were in good faith, and offered an explanation based on operational need about the use of the armoured personnel carriers in the occupied territories. They did not however accept that this was a breach of the assurances given and they have not committed to stop using the armoured personnel

  721W
  carriers in the occupied territories. In the light of this response we will (a) continue to assess export licence applications for the proposed export of controlled goods to Israel on a case-by-case basis against the consolidated EU and national arms export licensing criteria; but (b) in so doing, we will no longer take the Israeli assurances given on 29 November 2000 into account.

  We also have questions about other possible breaches of the assurances with regard to equipment supplied under previous Administrations, which we are taking up with the Israeli authorities. I will report the results of our inquiries to the House once they are complete.

  Linda Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what changes have been made to the advice given to travellers to Israel since the outbreak of recent fighting; and what further changes to this advice are planned. [49040]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  All travel advice notices are kept under constant review and updated to reflect the latest security situation.

  Since the most recent invasion of the occupied territories on 28–29 March, the travel advice for Israel and the Palestinian Authority has been updated twice to reflect the developments in the security situation and the risks to British nationals in Israel and the Palestinian Authority.

  Our key message
  "We strongly advise against travel to the west bank and Gaza, the Israel/Gaza border area and the area long Israel's border with Lebanon"
  has not changed during this period.

  On 4 April the travel advice was updated to state that Ramallah and Bethlehem had been declared closed military zones by the Israeli army. This meant that no one can travel in or out. British nationals in the west bank and Gaza were advised to leave when the situation permitted.

  Iraq
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what evidence Her Majesty's Government have that Iraq(a) has provided and (b) is planning to provide (i) information and (ii) materials for weapons of mass destruction to the al-Qaeda network. [49484]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  As we have previously made clear, we have no evidence of links between the Iraqi regime and al-Qaeda. But we are keeping an open mind about Iraqi connections to al-Qaeda and are investigating all reports of links.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what actions his Department has taken in relation to Zimbabwe since the inauguration of Robert Mugabe as President in March. [48786]

  Mr. Straw
  EU Foreign Ministers will consider further action on Zimbabwe at the General Affairs Council in Luxembourg on 15 April. I will give a substantive reply after the meeting. We also have been in close touch with the Commonwealth Secretariat and individual members of the Commonwealth. The right hon. Member will be aware 722W
  that, following the election, the Commonwealth "Troika" decided upon the suspension of Zimbabwe from the Councils of the Commonwealth.

  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the leaders of countries bordering Zimbabwe since the elections in that country last month; and what the results of those talks were. [48785]

  Mr. Straw
  Ministers and officials continue to be in close touch with key countries in the region and with other international partners about the situation in Zimbabwe.

  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if he will list those individuals who have had sanctions imposed on them by the European Union and the United States as a result of political violence and intimidation in Zimbabwe; [48790]

  (2) if he will list the occasions on which those individuals against whom targeted sanction have been imposed by the European Union have visited the EU since the 2000 parliamentary elections in Zimbabwe, broken down by (a) country visited and (b) the date of those visits; [48788]

  (3) if he will list the individuals who have had applications to visit the European Union turned down by member states and of the EU since the Union imposed targeted sanctions on Zimbabwe. [48791]

  Mr. Straw
  On 18 February 2002 the European Union imposed a travel ban (and assets freeze) on the following 20 senior members of the Government of Zimbabwe:

  President Robert Gabriel Mugabe

  Cabinet Secretary Charles Utete

  Parliamentary Speaker Emmerson Mnangagwa

  Home Affairs Minister John Nkomo

  Security Minister Nicholas Goche

  Youth Minister Elliot Manyika

  Information Minister Jonathan Moyo

  Information Minister's Permanent Secretary and Spokesman George Charamba

  Justice Minister Patrick Chinamasa

  Agricultural Minister Joseph Made

  Local Government Minister Ignatius Chombo

  Foreign Minister Stan Mudenge

  Senior Secretary MFA Willard Chiwewe

  General Vitalis Zvinavashe (CDS)

  Lieutenant General Constantine Chiwenga (army)

  Air Marshal Perence Shin (air force)

  Commissioner Augustine Chihuri (police)

  Brigadier Elisha Muzonzini (intelligence)

  Prisons chief Paradzai Zimondi

  Defence Minister Sidney Sekeramayi.

  None of the above mentioned Zimbabweans have attempted to visit the European Union since imposition of the travel ban on 18 February.

  We have no access to records of other EU member states. All were entitled to visit the UK prior to 18 February, as Zimbabweans are not required to obtain visas to travel to the UK. No consolidated record will be available for any such visits.
  723W
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports his Department has received concerning(a) food shortages, (b) politically motivated murders, (c) suppression of the media and (d) political intimidation and oppression in Zimbabwe since the elections. [48787]

  Mr. Straw
  We and the Department for International Development receive regular reports from a variety of governmental, non-governmental, media and other sources.

  (a) Food shortages——UNDP's Humanitarian Assistance and Recovery Programme is providing supplementary feeding to 558,000 people in Zimbabwe. In addition, the Department for International Development is providing supplementary feeding to 300,000 people.

  (b) Politically motivated murders——at least 10 opposition supporters, mostly election monitors, are reported to have been killed since the election and many more to have been injured.

  (c) Media suppression——the Access to Information Act requires Zimbabwean journalists to be licensed by the Zimbabwean Government, and effectively bans foreign journalists. A report for the Daily Telegraph (a Zimbabwean national) was detained, and subsequently released, over the Easter weekend.

  (c) Political intimidation and oppression——see (b) and (c) above.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 25 March 2002,Official Report, column 611W, on civil servants, if he will list the type of information held by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's manpower system, whether it provides information on the type of school that staff attended; and what steps his Department takes to ensure that its stated objective of reflecting the diversity of British society is monitored and implemented. [48698]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office's manpower system holds data on personal details, which include marital status, gender, date of birth, number of children, home address, next of kin. Other data held include entry and leaving details, promotion details, staff whereabouts and history, previous Foreign and Commonwealth Office service, appraisal history, skills details, language details, qualification details, employment details and training course details. Historical information on the type of school staff attended is held only in some cases, hence the data are incomplete. The recruitment section monitors ethnicity, gender and disability statistics at each stage of the recruitment process. Since 1995, the recruitment section records have identified the type of school attended for those candidates at policy and operational entry points who successfully gain entrance to the diplomatic service. Before 1995, recruitment data on the type of school were collected only on policy entrants. These figures are published annually 724W
  in the departmental report. A copy of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office diversity strategy has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Appointments
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the non-diplomatic service appointments he has made since 7 June 2001. [46226]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave him on 4 December 2001,Official Report, column 210W.

  The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has made nine appointments to FCO non-departmental public bodies since 7 June 2001. As well as those included in my answer of 4 December 2001, three appointments have been made to Wilton Park Academic Council (the new appointment of Mr. David Heath MP, and the reappointment of Lady Suzanne Warner and Mr. Nik Gowing).

  There have also been a number of non-diplomatic service appointments made by several departments within the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, records of which are not held centrally. These would include members of home civil service staff, 225 having taken up their appointment through open competition, 14 through transfer from other Government Departments; and five reinstated staff.

  Timber
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the companies from which his Department has obtained timber and wood products and the total spent with each firm over the last five years. [43406]

  Mr. MacShane
  Detailed information could be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, it is FCO policy to buy timber and wood products from sustainable and legal sources.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Egypt
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans she has to increase the provision of overseas aid to Egypt; and if she will make a statement. [48778]

  Clare Short
  We have no plans to increase direct development assistance to Egypt. The country already receives high levels of assistance from the EC of which the UK contribution was £17.5 million in 1999. Our bilateral allocations to Egypt are £4 million and £3.5 million in 2002–03 and 2003–04 respectively. New commitments will be focused on improving the effectiveness of EC assistance.

  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much overseas aid has been provided by her Department to Egypt in each year since 1997; and if she will make a statement. [48777]
  725W
  Clare Short
  Since 1997 my Department has provided the following amounts of direct assistance to Egypt:

  £000

  1996–97

  6,229

  1997–98

  7,246

  1998–99

  4,947

  1999–2000

  3,546

  2000–01

  2,661

  We also provide significant indirect assistance via multilateral institutions in particular the EC. In 1999 our share of the EC programme was £17.5 million

  India
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions her Department has had with the Andhra Pradesh Government on ensuring that the impact on food security for the population of Andhra Pradesh of strategies developed under the Government's Vision 2020 strategy is taken into account; and if she will make a statement. [48764]

  Clare Short
  Enhanced livelihood security for the poor is one of the five priorities for DFID support for Andhra Pradesh. We are in on-going dialogue with the Departments of the Government of Andhra Pradesh responsible for policy in the areas of agriculture production and productivity of natural resources. We are providing £45.4 million for the Andhra Pradesh Rural Livelihoods Project which seeks to help 1.5 million people, directly or indirectly, by reducing poverty and vulnerability to drought through land rehabilitation, productive and sustainable farming methods, social mobilisation, employment and non-land based income generation. All these elements have an important contribution to make in enhancing the food security of the poor.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions her Department has had with the Andhra Pradesh Government regarding the consolidation of farms and the impact of the reduction in number of farms on the population of Andhra Pradesh; and if she will make a statement. [48765]

  Clare Short
  Improving the livelihoods of people in rural areas is a major theme of our dialogue with the Government of Andhra Pradesh. There has been no discussion of any reduction in the number of farms in the state.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions her Department has had with the Andhra Pradesh Government on ensuring that the poorest citizens of Andhra Pradesh benefit from the strategies developed under the Government's Vision 2020 strategy; and if she will make a statement. [48767]

  Clare Short
  Our partnership with the Government of Andhra Pradesh is entirely focused on the reduction of poverty. As part of our on-going dialogue, DFID representatives participate in discussions of the Government's Poverty Eradication Mission, which the Chief Minister chairs. The Government are establishing a Technical Support Unit in the Mission, in order to strengthen capacity for social and poverty analysis and 726W
  monitoring. We are currently discussing with the Government possible ways of supporting the Technical Support Unit.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions her Department has had with the Andhra Pradesh Government on ensuring that the environmental impact of strategies developed under the Government's Vision 2020 strategy are taken into account; and if she will make a statement. [48763]

  Clare Short
  Vision 2020 is a draft document, which was published by the Government of Andhra Pradesh in 1999 setting out a series of goals, including the eradication of poverty in the state in 20 years. In 2000, we initiated a discussion with the Government of Andhra Pradesh and others, including civil society, about how best to deploy our resources so that they contributed most effectively to poverty reduction in the state. This resulted in a DFID strategy paper for Andhra Pradesh, which sets out our approach to assisting in the elimination of poverty in the state by working towards five priorities. A copy of the strategy in the Library of both Houses.

  Improved human development outcomes are one of the five priorities for DFID support for Andhra Pradesh. We are in on-going dialogue with the Departments of the Government of Andhra Pradesh responsible for policies affecting the environment about the linkages between environment and poverty. The Government of India are currently considering a proposal from the Government of Andhra Pradesh for DFID to provide support for additional strategic environmental assessment of Vision 2020.

  Palestine
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) what assessment has been made of the recent damage to the water supply pipelines in(a) Ramallah, (b) Qalqilya, (c) Bethlehem, (d) Tulkarm and (e) Nablus; [48800]

  (2) what assessment has been made of the damage to the emergency water and sanitation programme in the West Bank by recent Israeli action; and what is the (a) estimated cost of this damage and (b) estimated number of beneficiaries affected. [48773]

  Clare Short
  Water is a critical issue with the WBGS, and since the Intifada began, the international community has collaborated with the Palestinian institutions to help address both urgent short term needs and the longer term institutional and physical infrastructure.

  Water and sanitation, along with other basic services, has been dramatically affected by the recent escalation of violence. The international community, together with the Palestinian authorities, is gathering data on areas where there is no direct access to water supplies. But it has not yet been possible to make a comprehensive assessment of the damage incurred. Access to many areas is still denied.

  Israel
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what representations have
  727W
  been made to the Israeli Government to allow entry of relief consignments and facilitate their transport into the Occupied Territories. [48793]

  Clare Short
  The Government has called for an immediate and full Israeli withdrawal from Palestinian towns, which would facilitate human relief access, in accordance with UN Security Council Resolution 1402.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) how much UK aid to Israel and the Palestinian territories has been obstructed by(a) Israel and (b) Palestinians during the recent violence in the Middle East; [48967]

  (2) what guidance she issues to UK air workers in Israel and the occupied territories; [48971]

  (3) what representations she has made to the Government of Israel regarding the obstruction of humanitarian aid to Palestinians; [48969]

  (4) to what extent the humanitarian needs of the Palestinians have increased during the recent violence between Israel and the Palestinians; and if she intends to change her aid policy to Palestinian territories; [48965]

  (5) if she will make a statement on her assessment of the security of UK aid workers in each country in the Middle East; [48973]

  (6) when she last had discussions with the Palestinian Authority regarding the humanitarian consequences of terrorist attacks on Israel; and when she next intends to do so; [48968]

  (7) what assessment she has made of the effectiveness of UK aid to the occupied territories; and how she intends to increase the effectiveness of her Department's spending in the occupied territories; [48972]

  (8) what assurances she has received from the Government of Israel regarding the safety of UK aid workers in the occupied territories; [48970]

  (9) if she will make a statement on the humanitarian situation within Palestinian refugee camps; what assistance her Department provides to the refugee camps; and if she intends to increase aid to the refugee camps; [48966]

  (10) if she has made an assessment of the water shortage problems in the Palestinian refugee camps. [48974]

  Clare Short
  There are approximately three million Palestinians living in the West Bank Gaza Strip, nearly half of whom are registered refugees. Following three consecutive years of rising real per capita income from 1997 to 2000, the Palestinian economy has been hit hard by the conflict. Surveys have barely been able to keep up with the level of damage inflicted on the Palestinian economy since the start of the Intifada in 2000. Damage to infrastructure, loss of life and strict closure activities has led to a dramatic decline in economic activity, particularly as Palestinians have been denied access to their jobs over the Israeli border. During 2001, it is estimated that GNI had declined by 12–15 per cent., unemployment risen by up to 50 per cent., and the numbers of people living below of the poverty (US$2 a day) increased to 50 per cent..

  The damage inflicted during the recent escalation of violence, in terms of destruction of infrastructure (including basic services), damage to private property and
  728W
  government buildings will take some time to quantify. But it has further desecrated livelihoods, disrupted the delivery of water and sanitation, health and education services, and undermined the institutions of government.

  We are working with others to try to determine the full extent of the damage and the humanitarian consequences. But international efforts remain hampered by restricted access. It is clear that there will be no improvements in the situation without an end to violence and a return to negotiations.

  I have kept our programme of development assistance under close review. The long-term goal remains unchanged——the establishment of a viable Palestinian State, which can co-exist peacefully with Israel. The strategy also remains valid: to provide help for immediate and emergency needs while at the same time working for longer-term sustainable and institutional development.

  The economic and social decline over the past 18 months has required a review of the balance between longer-term goals and urgent needs. We have sought to provide emergency assistance in ways that can contribute to sustainable development. As soon as possible we will work for a rapid assessment of the current situation and set priorities for action so that all agencies can respond in a co-ordinated and effective manner.

  DFID is committed to support the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNWRA) in meeting the needs of Palestinian refugees. We have steadily increased our financial and technical support to UNRWA, from £6 million in 1997 to £35 million in 2001, in response to the rising needs. I am in contact with Commissioner General Peter Hansen about the impact of the Israeli Defence Force incursions to many UNRWA camps, and what additional support is required for urgent actions. We have provided £5 million for the 2002 Emergency Appeal and will consider urgently what further support we can give, on top of our planned contribution for this year to UNRWA's core activities.

  It is hard to quantify the impact of violence on UK development assistance. Closures and violence have adversely affected all programmes. It has proved difficult for international staff to travel to the region. In addition, closures and violence have hindered the movement of project staff. Prior to the recent incursions, we were confident that projects would meet their goals, albeit in a longer time period. We will need to look afresh at the impact on our programmes of recent intense incursions.

  The UK does not provide any development assistance to Israel.

  The Government has serious concerns for the safety of civilians and the access of medical, humanitarian and consular aid. We have made clear to Israel at the highest level that we expect them to ensure that medical and humanitarian organisations and Consular staff have uninterrupted access to those in need. The Foreign Secretary stressed these concerns to Israeli Foreign Minister Peres in a telephone call on 10 April.

  The Government has repeatedly called on the Palestinian authority to take determined action to prevent terrorist attacks against Israeli citizens.
  729W
  We have called on both Israel and the Palestinian Authority to implement UN Security Council Resolution 1402, including the establishment of a meaningful ceasefire, the withdrawal of Israeli troops from palestinian towns and the implementation of the Tenet plan and Mitchell recommendations, with the aim of resuming negotiations on a political settlement.

  We have tried and trusted mechanisms in place to provide security requirements for UK aid workers. DFID currently employs three people in the Consulate General in Jerusalem, and one secondee to the local EC office. UK and other nationals are also contracted under DFIDfunded projects.

  Those who work in the West Bank and Gaza Strip are aware they are operating in an unstable environment. All who travel to the area are fully briefed on the security situation and travel restrictions. UK nationals based permanently in the WBGS appear on the Consulate General Register, and the Consulate General is in regular contact, especially in times of crisis.

  There are no aid-funded workers in Israel.

  We judge that the risks posed to aid personnel in other Middle Eastern countries——Jordan, Egypt, Yemen and Iraq in DFID's context——are less acute. However, we, and the Foreign Office, continue to monitor the safety of people in the region closely.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Amy Gehring
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if her Department has received a similar letter to that received from the Police about Amy Gehring in the last 12 months. [45857]

  Mr. Timms
  The police report any conviction, except for minor road traffic offences, of a teacher (including a former teacher or a student teacher), or ancillary worker in a school or further education institution, to my officials. They also report any conviction of a proprietor of an independent school or a youth worker.

  The police write to the Department about a range of issues relating to individuals connected with schools. We do not record these reports centrally in a way that allows us to compare them to the report received in respect of Amy Gehring.

  Graduate Unemployment
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the rate of unemployment of newly graduated students has been for each of the last 10 years. [46335]

  Margaret Hodge
  The latest available information, which shows the unemployment rates for newly qualified graduates six months after graduation, is shown in the table. Information for students graduating in 2001 will be available in June 2002. As at spring 2001, the unemployment rate for all graduates in the population, at 2.4 per cent., was around half that for the workforce as a whole, at 4.6 per cent.
  730W

  Destinations of full-time first degree students from higher education institutions in England

  of which, those who were unemployed1:

  Year of graduation

  Total graduates with known destination

  Numbers

  Percentage

  1990

  83,340

  7,280

  8.7

  1991

  87,380

  11,070

  12.7

  1992

  96,660

  13,750

  14.2

  1993

  108,360

  14,040

  13.0

  1994

  121,390

  12,870

  10.6

  1995

  136,450

  12,510

  9.2

  1996

  145,930

  11,780

  8.1

  1997

  146,490

  10,140

  6.9

  1998

  147,890

  8,570

  5.8

  1999

  152,400

  8,430

  5.5

  2000(2)

  145,540

  7,680

  5.4

  1. Based on the employment position of graduates six months after graduation.

  2. Covers UK domiciled and EU students only; figures for previous years cover UK domiciled, EU and other overseas students.

  Selective Schools
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of selective schools by category are located(a) within five, (b) five to 10, (c) 10 to 15 and (d) more than 15 kilometres from settlements with under 3,000 people. [46508]

  Mr. Timms
  The information requested is not readily available and can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  School Spending
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what expenditure in real terms per pupil was in(a) maintained secondary schools and (b) primary schools in each local education authority each year between 1979 and 1989. [47044]

  Mr. Timms
  The information requested is not held in this form by the Department and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Some information is provided in the CIPFA 'Handbook of Education unit costs' for the years from 1984–85.

  Hugh Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the average spend per pupil has been in(a) primary and (b) secondary schools in each year since 1995 in (i) England, (ii) York, (iii) the highest spending local education authority and (iv) the lowest spending local education authority in England. [46767]

  Mr. Timms
  The information requested is contained in the following tables:

  £

  England

  York

  Pre primary/primary

  secondary

  Pre primary/primary

  Secondary

  1995–96

  1,920

  2,610

  ——

  ——

  1996–97

  1,910

  2,590

  1,710

  2,450

  1997–98

  1,860

  2,530

  1,730

  2,520

  1998–99

  1,960

  2,550

  1,840

  2,570

  1999–2000

  2,070

  2,640

  1,840

  2,480

  731W

  Highest spending authority

  Authority

  £

  Pre primary/primary

  1995–96

  Lambeth

  3,000

  1996–97

  Westminster

  2,980

  1997–98

  Lambeth

  3,040

  1998–99

  Lambeth

  3,040

  1999–2000

  Lambeth

  3,110

  Secondary

  1995–96

  Lambeth

  4,400

  1996–97

  Kensington and Chelsea

  3,780

  1997–98

  Brent

  4,070

  1998–99

  Brent

  4,210

  1999–2000

  Tower Hamlets

  3,830

  Lowest spending authority

  Authority

  £

  Pre primary/primary

  1995–96

  St. Helens

  1,620

  1996–97

  Hartlepool

  1,570

  1997–98

  Darlington, Stockton-on-Tees

  1,540

  1998–99

  Darlington, Cambridgeshire

  1,660

  1999–2000

  Peterborough

  1,620

  Secondary

  1995–96

  Bromley

  2,110

  1996–97

  Bromley

  1,700

  1997–98

  Bradford

  1,720

  1998–99

  Bradford

  1,760

  1999–2000

  Barnsley

  2,270

  Notes:

  1. The tables exclude City of London, Isles of Scilly, and Rutland.

  2. York was formed as part of LEA reorganisation in 1996–97, previously it was part of North Yorkshire.

  3. NIE per pupil in real terms (2000–01 prices using GDP deflators published by Treasury 20 December 2001).

  4. All figures are rounded to the nearest £10.

  Adult Education
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much funding has been made available to education authorities in inner London boroughs to promote services for adult education in the last three years. [48681]

  Mr. Timms
  2001–02 is the latest year for which specific funding figures on adult education are available: the LSC made available £17.8 million in grant to inner London education authorities in that year. Prior to this, it was for each authority to decide how much of its education SSA it wished to spend to promote services for adult education: total education SSA for the inner London authorities was £1,187 million for 1999–2000 and £1,248 million for 2000–01. 'Adult Education' is interpreted as the local education authority secured adult education sector.

TRANSPORT, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE REGIONS

  Starter Homes Initiative
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 26 March 2022,Official Report, column 979W,
  732W
  if he will publish a list of the organisations and local authorities which have or are due to receive funding under the Starter Homes Initiative. [49888]

  Mr. Byers
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Sally Keeble) to the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) on 29 October 2001,Official Report, columns 484W–88W.

  Rough Sleeping
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to reduce the incidence of rough sleeping in rural settlements with populations under 3,000; and if he will make a statement. [46454]

  Ms Keeble
  Recorded levels of rough sleeping in small rural settlements are not high. On 3 December 2001 the Prime Minister announced that the Rough Sleepers Unit had achieved its target of reducing rough sleeping by at least two-thirds by 2002.

  The latest published rough sleeping figures for England show that all local authority areas containing rural settlements with populations under 3,000 returned either a count of less than 10 rough sleepers or an estimate of 0–10.

  On 13 March the DTLR launched "More than a roof", the Government's new approach to tackling homelessness, which has sustaining the two-thirds reduction in rough sleeping as one of its key objectives.

  Many former rough sleepers have now moved into shelters, hostels and their own homes as part of their move to an independent lifestyle, but many still need help to rebuild their lives away from the streets. It is also vital that we continue to prevent those vulnerable to rough sleeping from hitting the streets in the first place and that those still on the streets receive the help they need to come inside.

  The DTLR will invest over £30 million during 2002–03 to support local strategies around the country to ensure the two thirds reduction is sustained——the same level of revenue funding that led to the Rough Sleepers Unit meeting its target.

  The new Homelessness Act will also bring about radical change in the way that central and local government, and all other partners, work together to tackle homelessness in all parts of the country including rural areas. For the first time ever, local authorities will be required to carry out a review and develop a strategy for their area that prevents homelessness and provides solutions for people who are, or who may become, homeless.

  Planning
  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions in the last three years, how many developments have been referred for his determination, pursuant to the arrangements set out in Part IV of the memorandum attached to DOE circular 18/84; and in respect of these referrals, how many he has decided(a), pursuant to written representations and (b) following a non-statutory public inquiry. [48938]
  733W
  Ms Keeble
  The Department does not maintain a central record of these cases and the information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how often in the last three years, and for what purpose, his Department has applied the special urgency provisions in paragraph 22 of Circular 18/84 (Development by Government Departments). [48947]

  Ms Keeble
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) on Friday 1 March 2002,Official Report, columns 1590–591W.

  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what matters he takes into consideration when deciding whether to rely on written representations or to institute a non-statutory public inquiry when determining a referral to his Department, pursuant to the arrangements set out in Part IV of the memorandum attached to DOE circular 18/84; [48937]

  (2) when instituting a non-statutory public inquiry, pursuant to the arrangements set out in Part IV of the memorandum attached to DOE circular 18/84, what format he would expect such an inquiry to take; and if he would expect providers of local services and members of the local community to be able to give evidence. [48936]

  Ms Keeble
  DOE circular 18/84 makes it clear that the method of written representations will be suitable for most cases. But where there is evidence of interest by other parties the dispute may be resolved by either a meeting of the representatives of the local planning authority and the developing Department or through a non-statutory public local inquiry. Planning inquiries for cases decided by the Secretary of State follow the Town and Country Planning (Inquiries Procedure) (England) Rules 2000. But an inquiry held under the arrangements set out in DOE circular 18/84 is non-statutory and so it is not bound by these rules. However, it is expected that any such inquiry would follow the spirit of these rules so far as practicable and that interested parties would be given an opportunity to express their views.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what rules govern meetings between Ministers and hon. Members on planning issues awaiting decision. [48784]

  Ms Keeble
  Such meetings are covered by Guidance On Propriety Issues In The Handling Of Planning Casework In DTLR. A copy of the guidance is available on the Department's website [www.planning.dtlr.gov.uk/gpihpc].

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment he has made of the reasons underlying proposals to reform the planning system. [49489]

  Ms Keeble
  The reasons underlying the proposals for reform of the planning system are set out in chapter two of the Planning Green Paper: 'Planning: Delivering a fundamental change'. A separate consultation document concerning the planning system in Wales has been issued by the National Assembly.

  Affordable Houses (Lancashire)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how much turnover new town land in Lancashire has been allowed for affordable houses in the last five years; and if he will list the sites. [47427]

  Ms Keeble
  Over the last five years approximately six hectares of New Town Land in Lancashire has been released for development of affordable houses. The sites are:

  (i) Cottam Hall, Preston

  (ii) Eastway, Fulwood

  (iii) Railway Road, Skelmersdale.

  Boundary Commission for Wales
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when the Boundary Commission for Wales will report its results. [45903]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The Commission anticipate that they will commence their next general review and a review of Assembly electoral regions in December 2002. They are obliged by statute to submit their report by 15 December 2006, but hope to do so before the end of 2004.

  Trial Lane Rental
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the predicated annual income generated by the trial lane rental schemes is. [49874]

  Ms Keeble
  The Government is not yet in a position to calculate accurately the amount likely to be raised by the lane rental pilot schemes in Camden and Middlesbrough. However, we have appointed consultants——Halcrow——to monitor the pilots and they will be reporting to us in due course on the effect of the schemes in reducing disruption which utility street works cause to road users as well as the charges paid by utility companies.

  Local Authorities (Joint Working)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on progress since the issue of draft guidance in December 2000 on powers to enable joint working and pooling of budgets between local authorities and other public agencies. [47266]

  Dr. Whitehead
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: Following consultation with local authorities on draft guidance on the well being power provided under Part 1, Section 2 of the Local Government Act 2000, the Government published final guidance in March 2001. Copies are available from the DTLR website.

  The Department also published on 29 March 2001 a Consultation Paper, "Working with Others to Achieve Best Value: A Consultation Paper on Changes to the Legal Framework to Facilitate Partnership Working". The proposed Section 16 powers complement the provisions in the 2000 Act, extend the approaches available to other local authority functions, and go further in some areas of activity. We expect to lay the Orders before Parliament later in the year.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list those local authorities imposing an increase in council tax for a Band D property in excess of 10 per cent. in financial years(a) 2002–03 and (b) 2001–02. [48735]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The information requested has been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  New Deal
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 26 March 2002,Official Report, column 9848W, on the New Deal for Young People, what information he collates on the subsequent destinations of people who were employed by his Department under the scheme. [50338]

  Dr. Whitehead
  Records are not kept of whether New Deal staff take up employment on leaving this Department.

  Maladministration
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what payments have been made to individuals following findings of maladministration by ombudsmen with responsibility for agencies under the remit of his Department in the last 12 months; and what plans he has to review the powers to increase the level of awards that can be made. [47954]

  Dr. Whitehead
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: The Department has made four such payments totalling £535,215.54 to individuals in the past 12 months.

  There are no statutory limits to the level of payments that can be made. Payments are based on the merits of individual cases.

  Ministerial Travel
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many times Ministers in his Department have travelled abroad at taxpayers' expense since March 2001; what countries they visited; and what the total cost of each visit was. [47105]

  Dr. Whitehead
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, on 11 April 2002, ref. (47100).

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many times special advisers have accompanied Ministers on overseas visits in each of the last five years; which countries were visited; and what the total cost of each individual visit was. [47135]

  Dr. Whitehead
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Westmoreland and Lonsdale (Tim Collins) on 7 March
  736W
  2002, Official Report, column 572W. Details of special adviser travel for the period 1 April 2001 to 31 March 2002 will be published as soon as possible.

  User Consultation
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what new steps his Department took in 2001–02 to consult the users of its services about their wishes and expectations; and if he will publish the findings. [47304]

  Dr. Whitehead
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: The executive agencies of DTLR regularly consult their customers and representative bodies on customer service issues. In many cases the overall results are published in their annual reports. The outcomes are used to inform service developments. The methods and timing of consultation are designed to fit the nature of individual services and are kept under review.

  External Consultants
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how much his Department has spent on external consultants in each of the past five years. [46035]

  Dr. Whitehead
  [holding answer 26 March 2002]: The Department's consultancy spend is as follows:

  £

  2000–01

  98,700,000

  2001–02

  119,022,000

  These figures include spend by the former Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. Figures for the previous three years can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Multi-Modal Studies
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when and where the recent DTLR Multi-Modal Study infrastructure charging seminar took place; and who attended it. [49462]

  Mr. Byers
  The seminar was held on 1 February in the conference hall at Mary Sumner House, 24 Tufton Street, London SW1. It was attended by officials from DTLR, the Government Offices for the Regions and the Highways Agency and by consultants working on each of the multi-modal studies.

  Airport Security
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to increase security at UK airports. [45902]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Following the attacks on 11 September, heightened aviation security measures were immediately introduced at all UK airports and for all airlines operating from the UK. Security requirements remain at an enhanced level.

  An additional package of action was announced by the Secretary of State on 28 March, following the review of airside security carried out as a result of the recent

  737W
  robberies at Heathrow. Measures include enhancements to current access control systems, extensions to the use of counter terrorist checks and criminal record checks for airport staff, and improvement of CCTV systems at airports.

  Open Skies
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on progress towards an Open Skies agreement with the US. [49873]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Government would like to liberalise the UK-US aviation market in a way that would allow UK airlines to be able to compete with US airlines on fair terms. We are reviewing the policy options for achieving that objective.

  Airports (Slot Allocation)
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what his policy is on European airport slot allocation. [49818]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Slot allocation is governed by European Regulation 95/93. The Commission issued a proposal to amend this regulation in June 2001. This proposal is being carefully considered following consultation with the UK aviation industry. The UK's objective is to ensure the most efficient use of scarce airport infrastructure.

  Seamen
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what estimates he has made of the effect of the tonnage tax on employment of UK seamen. [48847]

  Mr. Jamieson
  It is too early for meaningful estimates to be made. However, to date 50 groups of companies have been approved by the Inland Revenue for entry into tonnage tax. These 50 groups, and eight more, have received approval from the DTLR of their training commitments. This equates to about 509 officer training places.

  We believe that recent changes we have made to the Support for Maritime Training (SMarT) scheme, together with the tonnage tax training commitments, will lead to a significant increase in seafarer recruitment.

  Overstay Charges (Utility Services)
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions which Department receives the overstay charges from utility services for any work not completed within the agreed period under Section 74A of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991. [49875]

  Ms Keeble
  Where a highway authority chooses to impose overstay charges on utility companies, under section 74 of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991, the authority can keep the moneys received to meet the cost of operating the charging scheme and can spend any surplus on developing policies for the promotion and encouragement of safe, integrated, efficient and economic 738W
  transport facilities and services to, from and within their area. The proceeds are not retained by central Government.

  Section 74A of the 1991 Act covers a separate system, under which undertakers carrying out works have to pay a daily charge from the outset of works, or "lane rental". Pilots schemes testing these powers are currently under way in Middlesbrough and the London borough of Camden. Again, the highway authority is permitted to retain the proceeds of the charging scheme.

  Abandoned Vehicles
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many responses to the consultation on abandoned cars were received; how many were(a) supportive of and (b) against reducing the notice period for removal; when he expects to bring forward proposals for reform; and if he will make a statement. [48746]

  Mr. Jamieson
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 10 April a package of measures that the Government had taken to deal with the problem of abandoned vehicles. New regulations came into effect on 9 April to reduce the notice periods after which abandoned vehicles could be removed and disposed of. It is now possible where vehicles of no value have been abandoned on the highway for a local authority to remove and dispose of them on the termination of a 24 hour notice. In addition, measures were announced to promote joint working between local authorities and the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency.

  My right hon. Friend also announced his intention to reform the vehicle registration system to ensure that, in future, all vehicles can be traced to the correct keeper.

  The Government's consultation on abandoned cars issued in October 2001 attracted 361 responses from organisations and individuals. Over half of the respondents were local authorities. A full report has been placed in the Libraries of the House, giving a breakdown of responses and a full list of respondents.

  In general respondents supported the Government's proposals. 115 respondents expressed support for the proposals as a whole, 155 expressed a general support for immediate measures including the reduction of notice periods, with 46 expressly supporting the reduction of notice periods. There was very little opposition to the proposals.

  Private Hire Vehicles
  Clive Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on progress of the implementation of the Private Hire Vehicle Registration (London) Act 1998. [49263]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Responsibility for the regulation of private hire vehicles in London has been passed to the Mayor. The Public Carriage Office undertakes the licensing function as part of Transport for London.

  Road Use
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the estimated
  739W
  number of vehicle kilometres travelled is in each of the last five years by (a) lorries, (b) cars and (c) all vehicles. [49701]

  Mr. Byers
  The information is published in Transport Statistics Bulletin 02(5)——Traffic in Great Britain: Q4 2001 (Table 2), a copy of which is in the Libraries of the House.

  Interactive Speed Signs
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when his Department will approve interactive speed signs for general use by highways authorities. [48792]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Department commissioned trials over several years to establish the effectiveness and suitability of vehicle activated signs and the results are being collated into a report to be published during the summer.

  Motoring Charges
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how much the Ten Year Transport Plan estimates will be raised in(a) congestion/road charging schemes and (b) work place parking charge schemes over the period of the plan. [49464]

  Mr. Byers
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, to the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) on 25 February 2002,Official Report, column 791W.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what steps he is taking to ensure that the provisions of the Channel Tunnel Act 1987 concerning regional passenger services are put into effect. [49959]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Transport Act 2000 repealed the part of the Channel Tunnel Act 1987 concerning regional passenger services and, as of 2001, the Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) has a duty under S206(4) of the Transport Act 2000 to formulate a strategy for British passenger services through the Channel Tunnel.

  In the year 2000 the British Railways Board reviewed its plan for international regional services as it was obliged to do under Section 40 of the Channel Tunnel Act 1987. This review is available on its website at www.brb.gov.uk and concludes that Regional Eurostar services would be heavily loss making and that there are no economic, environmental or social grounds for providing a subsidy.

  The SRA have said that later this year they will publish a strategy relating to services in various parts of Great Britain for facilitating the carriage of passengers or goods by rail by way of the Channel Tunnel.

  CLG
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what costs have been incurred to date by the CLG team; [46963]
  740W
  (2) what budget has been provided to the CLG team for the period up to 30 July. [46964]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The SRA has approved a budget for the CLG bid to the end of July 2002 of £11,163,327. Costs incurred to the end of February 2002 were £1,203,697.

  Station Platforms
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the proposals to extend platforms at Stonehouse, Gloucestershire station. [39437]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 1 March 2002]: I am not aware of any current proposals to extend these platforms. Any future proposals would be for Railtrack and the Strategic Rail Authority to consider.

  Railtrack
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will place a copy of the railway administrators' six month progress report in the Library. [49458]

  Mr. Byers
  Although this is not a Government document, the administrator has agreed to a copy of his six month statement of proposals and progress report being placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how much the Government have spent on Railtrack administration; and if he will break down the costs by the main heads of expenditure. [47518]

  Mr. Jamieson
  £1.932 billion was drawn down from the Government loan facility and repaid by Railtrack plc in Administration on 25 March. £1.615 billion was used from the Trust Facility to pay pre-Administration trade and finance creditors and £0.317 billion was used from the Working Capital Facility.

  Network Rail
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what information has been provided by the Strategic Rail Authority on the increase in borrowings from their pre-administration level to the £9 billion envisaged by Network Rail. [48185]

  Mr. Jamieson
  It is for bidders for Railtrack plc to set out their proposed debt finance requirements, based where appropriate on information available from the Administrator and from published sources.

  Railways
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many franchise agreements with train operating companies include provisions for the Government to underwrite any part of the franchise in the event of the regulatory system changing. [46968]

  Mr. Byers
  All franchise agreements remove the regulatory risk or opportunity arising from a change to track and station access charges, following a regulatory review, so that the franchise operator makes no windfall profit or loss as a result of the change.
  741W
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has for increasing the percentage of the rail network that is electrified. [49709]

  Mr. Byers
  Rail electrification schemes will be considered where clear practical advantages and/or environmental benefits exist, and value for money can be demonstrated.

  Mr. Lyons
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will estimate the cost of repairs necessary on(a) the East Coast and (b) the West Coast main lines to Scotland. [48835]

  Mr. Jamieson
  This is an operational matter for Railtrack.

  Train Punctuality
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what discussions he has had with(a) First Western Trains and (b) Wales and West Trains to produce a strategy to improve punctuality. [48602]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) has regular meetings with all train operators regarding train performance, at which punctuality and reliability of services are discussed. In the Directions and Guidance published by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 11 April, the SRA has been given a primary objective to work with the rail industry to achieve substantial lasting improvements in performance. The Directions and Guidance has been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Rail Fares
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how much additional funding would be generated if regulated rail fares rise by the retail prices index in the 10-year plan. [47385]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Strategic Rail Authority estimates that a 10 per cent. increase in regulated fares might generate an increase of between 4 and 6 per cent. in fare revenue.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Departmental Spending
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the total expenditure was on(a) advertising, (b) polling, (c) focus groups, (d) design consultants, (e) caterers, (f) production of departmental publications and (g) photographs/photographers by 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. [6902]

  Mr. Morley
  DEFRA was created on 8 June 2001. Historic information prior to this date, relating to the merged operations which constitute DEFRA, could be obtained only at a disproportionate cost.
  742W
  Publicity expenditure is not recorded in the format requested. Our records show a publicity spend for the six months following DEFRA's creation of £1,373,737 and includes the categories in the question.

  This expenditure is not exhaustive and excludes foot and mouth disease expenditure and the merged ex-DETR directorates, also non-departmental public bodies and agencies. The recovery of this expenditure would incur a disproportionate cost.

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

  Sustainable Development
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps her Department has taken in response to the(a) ECE Regional Assessment report on progress made in the implementation of Local Agenda 21, (b) conclusions on sustainable development of the OECD Ministerial Council Meeting of May 2001 and (c) EU Sustainable Development Strategy of June 2001. [46568]

  Mr. Meacher
  (a) The ECE Regional Assessment report covered the implementation of Agenda 21, not Local Agenda 21. The UK has promoted the conclusions of the report in subsequent discussions in the EU and the UN in preparations for the World Summit on Sustainable Development.

  (b) The OECD Policy Report on Sustainable Development was endorsed by environment and finance Ministers at the OECD Ministerial Committee Meeting on 17 May 2001. The report outlines a policy framework for better integrating economic, environmental and social objectives, and decoupling economic growth from a range of environmental pressures. In response to the report, my Department has been closely involved in an initiative to develop indicators of sustainable development for use in OECD peer reviews. We have used the report to inform our approach to the external dimension of the EU Sustainable Development Strategy and to the OECD's institutional report to the World Summit on Sustainable Development.

  (c) The Department has supported the implementation of the EU Sustainable Development Strategy through conclusions adopted by the Environment Council on 12 December 2000 and 4 March 2001, and at regular meetings with the European Commission and member states; reviewing the strategy is the responsibility of the European Council at its annual spring meetings.

  Rural Public Houses
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the Countryside Agency's 'The Pub's the Hub' campaign; and if she will make a statement. [46453]

  Alun Michael
  The concept of the pub being "the hub" of the rural community is being promoted by Business in the Community as part of its Rural Action programme launched in July 2001. Rural pubs have great potential to assume a business and community role in the future as
  743W
  one-stop shops for essential rural services while at the same time helping them to increase their own long term viability.

  In December 2001 the Countryside Agency, working with Business in the Community and the British Beer and Pubs Association published "The Pub is the Hub: a Good Practice Guide". This guide provides local case studies of village pub diversification, and a check list for expanding business opportunities.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Publicity Expenditure
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the publicity and advertising campaigns run by her Department in each of the last four years, specifying the(a) purpse, (b) cost to public funds, (c) number of staff involved and (d) method of evaluation in each case. [39091]

  Ms Hewitt
  The table lists the costs of DTI advertising campaigns through the COI for the last four years for which final figures are available. Information regarding the purpose, number of staff involved, and method of evaluation for each campaign is not held centrally, and could be produced only at disproportionate cost.

  £

  Amount (Ex VAT)

  1997–98

  Import Licences

  58,111

  Export Licences

  6,809

  Languages For Export

  21,546

  Queen's Awards

  155,743

  Firework Safety

  73,097

  Business Links

  1,331,702

  IT For All

  653,290

  Invest In Britain Bureau

  21,750

  Miscellaneous

  182,837

  Total

  2,504,885

  1998–99

  Import Licences

  48,776

  Export Licences

  7,660

  Queen's Awards

  228,159

  Firework Safety

  73,863

  Working Time Regulations

  646,151

  Business Links

  1,021,352

  Carbon Monoxide Campaign

  46,261

  Trade UK

  7,198

  IT For All

  100,642

  Languages For Export

  8,404

  National Minimum Wage

  3,363,882

  Total

  5,552,348

  1999–2000

  Import Licences

  58,417

  Export Licences

  12,699

  Export Website Awareness

  19,402

  National Minimum Wage

  377,585

  Information Society Initiative

  852,375

  Miners Compensation

  164,768

  Queen's Awards

  61,512

  Metrication

  22,213

  Carbon Monoxide

  71,805

  Foresight

  63,046

  Miscellaneous

  18,192

  Total

  1,722,014

  744W

  £

  Amount (Ex VAT)

  2000–01

  Import Licences

  46.195

  Export Licences

  16.729

  National Minimum Wage

  4,230,125

  Small Business Service

  92,233

  Distance Selling

  17,953

  Miners Compensation Ad

  142,899

  UK Online for Business

  1,793,154

  Smart Awards

  165,226

  Paid Annual Leave

  3,393,735

  Carbon Monoxide

  46,885

  Small Business Service——Business Link

  1,225,070

  Trade Partners UK

  1,511,218

  Miscellaneous

  4,887

  Total

  12,686,309

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list her overseas visits since 7 June 2001. [46222]

  Ms Hewitt
  As Secretary of State. I have undertaken the following overseas visits since 7 June 2001.

  United States of America

  Italy

  Spain

  Qatar

  Belgium

  South Korea

  Japan.

  Quarries
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessments she has made of(a) the number of operational quarries in the UK (i) now and (ii) 10 years ago and (b) the percentage change in full-time quarrying jobs over the last 10 years. [45739]

  Mr. Wilson
  No special assessments of the quarrying industry have been made in order to determine the number of operational sites and the number of full-time employees. Each year, we conduct a survey of quarrying known as the Annual Minerals Raised Inquiry, which is sent to all quarries having extant planning permission, for the purpose of determining the amount of material being quarried. Over the period 1990 to 2000, the number of such quarries dealing with either stone or sand and gravel declined slightly from around 1,780 to around 1,710. However, over the same period, the number of people present within quarries and covered by the provisions of the Mines and Quarries Acts 1954 and 1969 declined in these quarries by some 40 per cent. from around 31,500 to around 18,000.

  British Investment Projects
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what figures she has collated on how many British investment projects there have been into Japan in(a) 1996–97, (b) 1997–98, (c) 1998–99, (d) 1999–2000 and (e) 2000–01; what their size was; and how many of those projects were (i) engineering and (ii) manufacturing based. [46445]
  745W
  Nigel Griffiths
  There is no requirement on companies to record British direct investment overseas on a project basis and there is no organisation in Japan that records inward investment in the way that Invest.UK does for the UK.

  The Office for National Statistics publish figures for the value of UK net investment flows into Japan. Figures detailing flows for 1996 to 2000 are given in the table. The dramatic increase in investment in 1999 and 2000 is probably accounted for by investments by Vodafone and Cable and Wireless.

  Year

  £ million

  1996

  378

  1997

  383

  1998

  14

  1999

  1,929

  2000

  1,269

  Source:

  National Statistics MA4: Overseas Direct Investment

  Sellafield
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the result of the investigations undertaken by the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate into an accident on Friday 8 February in one of the magnox reactors at Calder Hall in Sellafield. [47037]

  Mr. Wilson
  The event on 8 February at Calder Hall did not warrant an NII investigation. I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for North Down on 6 March 2002,Official Report, columns 356–57W for a statement on the event, which noted that defuelling at Calder Hall has been suspended until BNFL reports the outcome of its internal investigation and completes any requirements for remedial action. NII is now monitoring the implementation of the recommendations of BNFL's investigation.

  British Nuclear Fuels
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate has given the necessary regulatory approval required by British Nuclear Fuels before it can return the faulty MOX fuel it has supplied to Japan; and if she will place a copy of the approval document in the Library. [46911]

  Mr. Wilson
  HSE's Nuclear Installations Inspectorate has informed BNFL that it has no regulatory objections on health and safety grounds to BNFL receiving and storing this fuel at its Sellafield site. I am arranging for copies to be placed in the Libraries of the House of its unconditional acknowledgement of BNFL's safety documentation, the formal means by which this was done.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what her latest estimate is of the number of businesses in the United Kingdom which employ fewer than 200 people; and what proportion of all businesses in the United Kingdom they represent. [49485]
  746W
  Nigel Griffiths
  In 2000 there were approximately 3.7 million businesses in the UK that employed fewer than 200 employees. This was equivalent to 99.8 per cent. of all UK businesses in 2000.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what her latest estimate is of the percentage of the private sector work force which is employed by companies with(a) fewer than 200 employees and (b) fewer than 100 employees. [49488]

  Nigel Griffiths
  In 2000 there were approximately 22 million people employed in the private sector or public corporations. Of these 48.5 per cent. were in businesses with fewer than 100 employees. 53.5 per cent. were employed by businesses with fewer than 200 employees.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what her latest estimate is of the share of national output produced by companies with(a) fewer than 200 employees and (b) fewer than 100 employees. [49487]

  Nigel Griffiths
  National output, or GDP, data is not collected by size of business. Two proxies for this measure are employment share and turnover share, which are collected by size of business. The table shows the figures for businesses with fewer than 200 and 100 employees:

  UK per cent.

  Employees

  Employment share

  Turnover share

  0–99

  48.5

  38.7

  0–199

  53.5

  44.5

  Source:

  SME Statistics in the UK 2000

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what her latest estimate is of the number of sole trader businesses in the United Kingdom; and what proportion of all businesses in the United Kingdom they represent. [49479]

  Nigel Griffiths
  In 2000 there were approximately 2.6 million businesses in the UK that were classified as having no employees. This figure includes sole proprietorships, partnerships comprising only the self-employed owner-manager(s) and companies comprising only an employee director. These 2.6 million equate to 69.6 per cent. of all UK businesses.

  Electricity Industry
  Brian White
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will bring forward legislation to establish British electricity trading and transmission arrangements, as recommended by Ofgem. [50641]

  Ms Hewitt
  I have been working closely with colleagues in the Scotland Office and the Scottish Executive. We have concluded that the time is now right to join the separate markets in Scotland and England and Wales together to create a GB electricity market. The Government will bring forward legislation to achieve this when parliamentary time allows.

  Minimum Wage
  Jeff Ennis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the national minimum wage. [49988]
  747W
  Ms Hewitt
  The Government said last year, following recommendations from the Low Pay Commission, that it would consider the economic circumstances at the time before deciding whether to increase the main and development rates of the minimum wage by 10 pence/hour in October 2002, to £4.20 and £3.60 respectively.

  The Government have considered the latest evidence across the overall economy and in the key sectors most affected by the minimum wage. We have concluded that conditions in the autumn of 2002 can be expected to support increases of 10 pence/hour and will therefore make regulations implementing these increases later this year. We have placed a short paper on this subject in the Libraries of the House.

  Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps have been taken to ensure that practical measures directed at the arms industry are in place for the enforcement of Part 12 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. [46296]

  Beverley Hughes
  I have been asked to reply.

  Part 12 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 applies to the arms industry in the same way as it applies in other fields. Under these provisions, United Kingdom nationals and United Kingdom-registered corporate bodies are liable to prosecution in the United Kingdom for offences of bribery and corruption committed overseas. The provisions will be enforced by the police, the Crown Prosecution Service and (in appropriate cases) by the Serious Fraud Office.

  UK Online
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what criteria were used in selecting Loudcloud to host the UK online website; and if she will make a statement; [43210]

  (2) how many (a) companies and (b) UK companies were invited to tender for the contract to host the UK online website; [43211]

  (3) what discussions took place with the Prime Minister's Office regarding the choice of companies invited to tender for the contract to run the UK online website. [43212]

  Mr. Leslie
  I have been asked to reply.

  No discussions took place with the Prime Minister's Office regarding the choice of company selected to run the UK online website.

  Negotiations between the Office of the e-Envoy and BT Syntegra on renewal of the UK online contract broke down in autumn 2001. OeE received legal advice that——given the need to maintain continuity of service——the only option was to contract directly for hosting services with BT's proposed sub-contractor, Loudcloud UK, a UK company. Doing so was fully compliant with EC procurement rules.

  Prescription Medicines (Internet Trading)
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on her Department's monitoring of dot.com chemists and their supply of prescription medicines. [42724]

  Ms Blears
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Medicines Control Agency do not routinely monitor 'dot corn' pharmacies. However, their Enforcement Group investigate any illegal activity of which they are made aware, including the supply of prescription medicines via the internet.

WALES

  Legal Costs
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what legal costs have been incurred by his Department in each of the last four years. [34293]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The external costs of the former Welsh Office were £568,000 in 1998–99 and £55,000 in the first quarter of 1999–2000.

  Since it came into existence in July 1999, the Wales Office has not separately distinguished legal costs.

  Accountancy Contracts
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish the(a) number and (b) value of contracts awarded by his Department to (i) Arthur Andersen, (ii) Deloitte Touche, (ii) Ernst and Young, (iv) KPMG and (v) PricewaterhouseCoopers accountants in each year since 1997. [34984]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Since its creation in July 1999, my Department has had no contracts with any of these accountancy firms.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the contracts agreed by his Department with the five largest accountancy firms since May 1997; and what was the total value of contracts with each. [42108]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  My Department was created in July 1999 and has entered no contracts with these accountancy firms.

  Publicity Expenditure
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the total real terms expenditure of his Department, its agencies and non-departmental public bodies on publicity in each of the years(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99, (c) 1999–2000, (d) 2000–01 and (e) 2001–02 (i) to date and (ii) as estimated for the whole of the present year; and if he will break these figures down to indicate expenditure on (A) advertising and (B) press and public relations. [36165]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  This information is not readily available. However, my Department does not have the sort of executive responsibilities which would generally require advertising or public relations expenditure. It has no agencies or non-departmental public bodies.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many staff left the service of his Department and its agencies in the year ended 31 March 2001; how many left before attaining the formal retirement age of 60 years; and in respect of how many his Department and its agencies assumed responsibilities for making payments until retirement age. [37543]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The permanent civil servants in my Department are all secondees from elsewhere and so when they leave the Wales Office it is to return to their home Departments.

  The Wales Office does not have any agencies.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what the average response time was for responding to departmental correspondence; what percentage of letters took longer than one month for a response; and what percentage took longer than three months for a response in each of the last five years. [37437]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  My Department came into existence in July 1999.

  During 2001, 26 per cent. of letters took more than one month for a response; 1 per cent. of letters took longer than three months for a response.

  Figures for 2000 and for July——December 1999 were held on a different basis and cannot be analysed in the way requested.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what the target time will be in 2002–03 for(a) Ministers to reply to letters from hon. Members and (b) officials in his Department to reply to letters received directly from members of the public. [44946]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Fifteen working days in each case.

  Refurbishment
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 6 February 2002,Official Report, column 960W, what the cost of refurbishing each ministerial private office was in each year since May 1997. [37901]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Following its creation in July 1999, the Wales Office has redecorated and refurbished its London offices. It is not possible to accurately separate the cost of the work carried out on Ministers' offices from that carried out on other parts of the building.

  Ministerial offices in Cardiff are part of the National Assembly for Wales building in Cardiff Bay and the Wales Office meets a proportionate share of the whole cost of maintaining that building.

  Advertising
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the publicity and advertising campaigns run by his Department in each of the last four years, specifying the(a) purpose, (b) cost to public funds, (c) number of staff involved and (d) method of evaluation in each case. [39099]
  750W
  Mr. Paul Murphy
  My Department was created in July 1999. It does not have any service-delivery responsibilities of the type which ordinarily require advertising or publicity campaigns.

  Equipment Leasing
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the equipment leasing arrangements entered into by his Department in each of the last four years; and what the cost is to public funds in each case. [39086]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  There is no record of my Department entering into equipment leases since its creation in July 1999.

  Communications Costs
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what the annual budget for communications activities, including press, public relations, marketing and internal communications, was for his Department for each financial year from 1997–98 to 2001–02. [39909]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Since its creation in July 1999 the Wales Office has not budgeted separately for these functions. That approach reflects the small size of the Department and the fact that expenditure on all these items will be modest or, in some cases, zero.

  Rail Journeys (Staff)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy that rail journeys undertaken by staff in his Department should ordinarily be on standard class tickets. [40442]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The Wales Office is committed to ensuring that staff use the most efficient and economic means of travel commensurate with meeting their operational needs. Hence, official rail journeys undertaken by Wales Office staff are in line with the guidance and principles set out in Section 8 of the Civil Service Management Code and the departmental staff handbook.

  Ministerial Private Offices
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what the running costs were of(a) his Ministers' private offices, separately identifying expenditure on staff, and (b) his Department in each year from May 1997 to the nearest date for which the information is available. [40981]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  My Department was created in July 1999 and information on running costs have been given in annual Department reports (Cm 4620 and Cm 5121 available in the Library). Private office costs are not separately identified.

  Accommodation Costs
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what the cost was of hotel accommodation for departmental staff working away from home in each of the last four years. [41059]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Hotel costs are not identified separately from other expenditure on travel and subsistence.

  Press Office
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many staff in his Department's press office have received(a) termination and (b) redundancy payments in each of the last four years. [41073]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  None.

  Age Discrimination
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what his Department's policy is towards age discrimination. [42572]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  My Department does not discriminate on grounds of age within the working-age band.

  Parental Leave Directive
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has made of the(a) financial costs and (b) benefits to his Department of the Parental Leave Directive. [42482]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The cost of the Department of the Parental Leave Directive is none to date.

  The Wales Office is committed to helping its staff achieve a better balance between their home and work lives, including statutory entitlement to parental leave.

  Staff Numbers
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many staff have been employed by his Department in each of the last 10 years. [42472]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  My Department has only been in existence since July 1999. I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office on 19 March 2002,Official Report, column 296W.

  Election Expenses
  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish the returns of election expenses for the 1999 elections to the National Assembly for Wales. [45293]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  No. Responsibility for making available for inspection returns of election expenses in respect of these elections rested partly with individual returning officers and partly with the Assembly itself.

  Equal Opportunities
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he has established a baseline for policy appraisal against which to measure progress on equal treatment; and what progress has been achieved; [46496]

  (2) what new data series separated by gender, race, disability and age have been commissioned by his Department since August 1997; [46497]

  (3) if he will list the subject of each gender impact assessment drawn up by his Department since June 1997, indicating in each case whether the outcome has been (a) put out to consultation and (b) published. [46498]
  752W
  Mr. Paul Murphy
  [holding answer 26 March 2002]: The Government are fully committed to promoting equality of opportunity. In 1998, we included an obligation in the Government of Wales Act requiring the National Assembly for Wales to have due regard to the principle of equality of opportunity for all the people of Wales.

  Most of the executive responsibilities of the former Welsh Office transferred to the Assembly in July 1999. Since then, I have not identified a need to conduct gender impact assessments nor to establish baselines for policy appraisal in respect of any of my remaining responsibilities.

  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the women's organisations which have been consulted over proposed legislation by his Department during(a) 2000–01 and (b) 2001–02 sessions; and if their responses have been published. [46499]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  [holding answer 26 March 2002]: My Department has direct responsibility only for legislative provisions which relate specifically to Wales.

  Detailed information about consultees is not collated centrally. However, available records indicate that the Wales Assembly for Women and Welsh Women's Aid have been consulted on a number of proposals.

  In the 2001–02 session, the Wales Assembly for Women responded to consultation on proposals for the Education Bill. Unless the respondent asked for confidentiality, all responses were placed in the National Assembly for Wales library, where they can be made available on request.

  Overtime Payments
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what his policy is on overtime payments for staff in his Department. [49134]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Overtime is paid only when there is no viable alternative and when the individual staff member is content to work additional hours. Levels of pay for overtime are in accordance with National Assembly for Wales guidelines.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many staff were involved in each of the last three years in preparing draft answers to written parliamentary questions. [49146]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Advice on answering written parliamentary questions is prepared by the most appropriate official in each case. Approximately 25 staff spend some part of their time doing work of this kind.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many private finance initiative projects have been subject to refinancing after the contracts have been signed; and what has been the financial effect in each case. [50558]
  753W
  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Since its creation in July 1999 my Department has not entered any private finance initiative contracts.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what have been the total salary costs of each of the non-departmental public bodies for which he is responsible in each of the last five years. [50557]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  My Department was created in July 1999 and has no non-departmental public bodies.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Lord Chancellor's Private Office
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for Buckingham of 13 March 2002,Official Report, column 1176W, if she will provide a full breakdown of the main items comprising the increase in the running cost of the Lord Chancellor's private offices between April 1998 and April 2001. [45121]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The increase in expenditure since 1998 is the result of the increasing workload of the Department and the appointment of two additional Ministers. The main increase was for the additional staffing costs of the offices.

  Creche Facilities
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what creche facilities are provided by his Department; and at what cost. [44858]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Department spends approximately £125,000 per annum on child care support. About £115,000 is used to provide subsidised nursery places for 40 staff mainly in London and the surrounding regions, Newcastle, Manchester, Birmingham, Bristol and Grimsby, plus a further £10,000 on subsidised playschemes during school holidays. Approximately 120 children of members of staff used the playschemes during 2001–02.

  Asylum Seekers (Legal Advice)
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what assessment she has made of the impact of the provision of quality legal advice to asylum seekers prior to an initial decision on their application, the efficiency and quality of those decisions and the number of subsequent appeals; what assessment she has made of the potential costs and savings of ensuring quality legal advice is available prior to initial decisions; and if she will make a statement. [46015]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Government's White Paper "Secure Borders, Safe Haven" (CM 5387) published in February 2002 states at paragraph 4.36:"While access to legal advice is not a pre-requisite to initial decision-making, and should not hold up the decision-making process, the Government is committed to ensuring access to quality legal advice at that, and all later stages, for all asylum seekers whether or not they are in the Accommodation Centre"
  754W
  The Home Office is currently undertaking a 12-month study entitled "An Evaluation of Access to Early Legal Advice and Representation in the Asylum Determination Process". The aim of the project is to assess the implications of providing early legal advice and representation for the asylum determination process. It will provide systematic and objective information on the implications of providing such advice for the speed, quality and sustainability of asylum decision making. It is hoped a final report will be available internally in November 2002 with a view to publishing as soon as possible thereafter.

  It is therefore too early to calculate, with any degree of accuracy, the potential costs and savings that access to early legal advice can bring.

  Part-time Employees
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many and what proportion of the staff of her Department are part-time employees. [47167]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  I refer my right hon. friend to the central answer given by the Cabinet Office dated 10 April 2002.

  Underspends
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what the(a) capital and (b) revenue underspend in her Department is expected to be in the financial year 2001–02. [47806]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Estimated outturn figures for 2001–02 will be published in the Budget report on 17 April.

  Performance Targets
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what the measurable criteria are for the PSA target to respect the rights of defendants and to treat them fairly; and if he expects the target outturn specified on page 16 of the 2001 departmental report to be met by March. [47231]

  Mr. Wills
  Our target outturn is to achieve 100 per cent. improvement across a range of measures. An interdepartmental/agency working group has agreed that these targets are:98 per cent. of prisons by March 2002 to have a Legal Services Officer so as to ensure that all prisoners receive information about legal services on reception and know who can assist them with applications for public funding;
  50 per cent. of magistrates courts to have full access to a comprehensive courts-based bail information scheme by March 2002, rising to 80 per cent. by March 2003;
  80 per cent. of prisons holding remand prisoners to have a bail information scheme by March 2002, rising to 90 per cent. by March 2003;
  90 per cent. of people in police stations requesting the service of a duty solicitor to receive the service within 45 minutes by March 2002.

  Information about progress on these targets will be published in the Department's 2002 departmental report.

  Ministerial Travel
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many times Ministers in her Department have travelled abroad at taxpayers' expense since March 2001; what countries they visited; and what the total cost of each visit was. [47115]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Since 1999 this Government has published an annual list of all visits overseas undertaken by Cabinet Ministers costing £500 or more during each financial year. The Government has also published on an annual basis the cost of all Ministers' visits overseas. Copies of the lists are available in the Libraries of the House. The 1999 list contained information on all such visits undertaken from 2 May 1997 to 31 March 1999. Details for travel undertaken in the period 1 April 2001 to 31 March 2002 will be published as soon as possible.

  Possession Proceedings
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what percentage of possession proceedings for rent arrears in local authority and RSL accommodation related to tenants who have had their housing benefit reduced as a result of non-dependent deductions in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [48552]

  Mr. Wills
  Figures concerning possession applications brought by landlords are not collected in the manner of breakdown requested above, nor by reason for application. The figures could only be provided at a disproportionate cost to the Department.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Union Duties
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many staff in his Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies receive paid leave to undertake union duties; how many days they are allocated; and what has been the cost to public funds in each of the last four years. [36196]

  Angela Eagle
  The Employment Protection Act 1975 gave trade union officials a statutory right to reasonable paid time off from employment to carry out trade union duties. In the Civil Service, since April 1996, Departments and agencies have been given the freedom to set their own levels of facility time and make other facilities available to their trade union accredited representatives.

  In accordance with the Departmental Facilities Agreement between the Home Office and recognised trade unions 57 union representatives in the Home Office and its agencies receive up to 100 per cent. paid leave to undertake union duties. A further 66 accredited representatives are allocated 25 days a year to spend on union duties. Related costs in 2001–02 are expected to amount to approximately £3,237,000. Information about costs in previous years is not available.

  The Department values the constructive working relationships with the trade unions which provide an efficient means of involving staff at all levels in shaping and delivering our aims.

  Operation Helios
  Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many of the complaints by members of the public in relation to the conduct of officers involved in Operation Helios have been referred voluntarily to the Police Complaints Authority; [39361]

  (2) if the Police Complaints Authority has asked for a referral so that it can supervise complaints made against police officers in Operation Helios. [39362]

  Mr. Denham
  No complaints made against officers involved in Operation Helios have been referred by the Metropolitan police service to the Police Complaints Authority for supervision. The Authority has not formally asked for a referral. However, the Authority has suggested to the Metropolitan police that it might be appropriate for any complaint accepted by the police in relation to this investigation to be referred voluntarily.

  European Union Directives
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the European Union directives and regulations relating to his Department that have been implemented in each of the last four years, specifying(a) the title and purpose of each, (b) the cost to public funds of each and (c) the cost to businesses of each. [39130]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The Home Office has implemented two European Community directives during the period specified.European Community directive 95–46 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data was implemented by the Data Protection Act 1998.
  European Community directive 2000–8 on the manufacture and placing on the market of certain substances used in the illicit manufacture of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances was implemented by SI 2001 No. 3683.

  The Home Office also has responsibility for the following European Community measures which have been formally adopted but which have not required any specific implementation.
  Council decision establishing a European Refugee Fund for the financing of projects relating to conditions for reception of displaced persons; integration for recognised refugees and others with stable and lasting forms of international protection; and voluntary repatriation for persons who have applied for asylum or some other form of international protection and been refused. Formally adopted on 28 September 2000.
  Council regulation concerning the establishment of "EURODAC" for the comparison of fingerprints for the effective application of the Dublin Convention. Formally adopted on 11 December 2000.
  Council decision on the conclusion of an agreement between the European Community and Republic of Iceland and Kingdom of Norway concerning the criteria and mechanisms for establishing the state responsible for examining a request for asylum lodged in a member state or Iceland or Norway. Formally adopted on 15 March 2001.
  Council directive on minimum standards for giving temporary protection in the event of a mass influx of displaced persons and on measures promoting a balance between member states in receiving such persons and bearing the consequences thereof. Formally adopted on 20 July 2001.
  757W
  Additionally, a number of measures have been adopted by the Council relating to Title IV matters on which the United Kingdom has not exercised its right to opt in to the adoption of the measure. The United Kingdom is therefore not bound by them.

  The Home Office does not hold information concerning the cost to public funds of each instrument. This information could be assembled only at disproportionate cost. The costs of the European Refugee Fund come from the Community budget.

  Where a proposal is likely to impose significant costs on business, charities or voluntary organisations, a Regulatory Impact Assessment is produced. Copies of these are placed in the Library.

  Energy Costs
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on energy costs incurred by his Department in each of the last 10 years. [42444]

  Angela Eagle
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Rural Affairs on 19 March 2002,Official Report, column 269W.

  Knife Crime
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures are being taken to tackle knife crime. [43420]

  Mr. Denham
  We are committed to ensuring that violent offenders are punished effectively. Severe penalties are available to the courts to deal with offenders who carry knives. For instance, any person who has an article with a blade or point in a public place or on school premises can be sent to prison for up to two years. It is also an offence for any person to have an offensive weapon in a public place or on school premises, or for any person to sell knives to people under 16.

  The police give high priority to action against knife crime. For example, the Metropolitan police are using an intelligence-led approach in exercising their powers to stop and search people who they believe may be carrying knives, and are working with door staff to tackle the problem at licensed premises. Largely as a result of these initiatives, the Metropolitan police have arrested and charged 17.8 per cent. more people for carrying knives and offensive weapons over the year to February 2002 than in the previous year.

  Criminal Damage
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many recorded offences of criminal damage there were in(a) each police force area in each year since 1997 and (b) each crime disorder reduction partnership area in each year since their establishment. [43977]

  Mr. Denham
  Recorded crimes of criminal damage are not collected at Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership level.
  758W
  The requested figures for the criminal damage recorded crime offence group are given in the table. There was a change in counting rules for recorded crime on 1 April 1998, which was estimated to have increased the total number of criminal damage offences recorded over England and Wales as a whole by 5 per cent. Numbers of recorded crimes after this date are therefore not directly comparable with previous years.

  Recorded crime——offences of criminal damage by police force area since 19971

  Police force

  1997

  1998–992

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Avon and Somerset

  20,396

  20,605

  20,519

  22,479

  Bedfordshire

  8,025

  7,893

  8,048

  7,892

  Cambridgeshire

  9,250

  11,925

  12,110

  13,197

  Cheshire

  11,205

  11,596

  12,627

  13,078

  Cleveland

  11,274

  10,681

  10,812

  10,684

  Cumbria

  8,047

  8,405

  8,943

  8,922

  Derbyshire

  13,387

  14,316

  15,207

  14,997

  Devon and Cornwall

  15,232

  17,722

  18,490

  18,284

  Dorset

  8,245

  8,303

  8,408

  9,419

  Durham

  10,518

  11,122

  10,654

  10,375

  Essex3

  18,845

  18,834

  21,766

  24,673

  Gloucestershire

  6,158

  6,570

  7,990

  9,087

  Greater Manchester

  68,100

  67,052

  75,201

  77,154

  Hampshire

  26,429

  25,100

  28,125

  28,714

  Hertfordshire3

  9,831

  10,177

  11,560

  13,839

  Humberside

  20,177

  21,486

  20,739

  20,910

  Kent

  24,047

  23,049

  24,806

  27,947

  Lancashire

  26,767

  21,360

  22,776

  25,445

  Leicestershire

  14,034

  15,143

  16,889

  16,664

  Lincolnshire

  7,145

  7,728

  8,391

  9,078

  City of London

  287

  297

  409

  260

  Merseyside

  23,677

  27,465

  30,822

  30,593

  Metropolitan Police District3

  140,516

  136,870

  151,590

  144,231

  Norfolk

  9,782

  10,393

  10,978

  11,481

  Northamptonshire

  11,595

  11,771

  11,736

  11,448

  Northumbria

  35,314

  31,634

  30,436

  29,775

  North Yorkshire

  8,537

  8,372

  8,617

  9,167

  Nottinghamshire

  28,165

  23,953

  23,692

  23,187

  South Yorkshire

  23,568

  24,198

  25,305

  24,173

  Staffordshire

  16,940

  15,668

  18,442

  21,655

  Suffolk

  7,835

  7,898

  9,547

  10,150

  Surrey3

  6,557

  7,576

  8,602

  12,318

  Sussex

  23,945

  23,828

  26,361

  27,219

  Thames Valley

  25,584

  26,006

  28,630

  29,719

  Warwickshire

  6,362

  6,888

  7,439

  7,290

  West Mercia

  14,965

  15,346

  17,410

  16,817

  West Midlands

  49,120

  50,407

  61,422

  57,459

  West Yorkshire

  46,446

  49,239

  48,106

  49,568

  Wiltshire

  5,722

  6,644

  7,151

  7,452

  Dyfed-Powys

  4,497

  4,497

  4,417

  4,572

  Gwent

  9,947

  11,690

  12,253

  11,221

  North Wales

  11,238

  9.652

  10,102

  12,182

  South Wales

  29,331

  30,227

  28,154

  25,313

  England and Wales

  877,042

  879,586

  945,682

  960,087

  1 1997 is the calendar year, with the other years ending in March.

  2 The number of crimes recorded in that financial year using the expanded offence coverage and revised counting rules which came into effect on 1 April 1998.

  3 There was a boundary change on 1 April 2000 in which parts of the Metropolitan Police area were transferred to Essex, Hertfordshire and Surrey, so that these police force areas followed county boundaries thereafter.

  Public Transport (Assaults)
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce plans for mandatory bans from using public transport to those convicted of violence while using public transport systems. [43956]

  Mr. Denham
  Powers are already available to individual transport operators and the criminal justice system to ban those convicted of violence while using public transport systems from using public transport. Transport operators can take action in respect of preventing violent individuals from using the transport
  759W
  system by taking out civil injunctions. Football Banning Orders against individuals can also be applied for through the Crown Prosecution Service. Under proposals in the Police Reform Bill, the British Transport police will be able to apply directly to the courts for Anti Social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs) in order for them to deal more effectively with particular problems of anti-social behaviour. It is also proposed to give criminal courts powers to place restrictions through ASBOs on the actions of offenders imprisoned for anti-social behaviour related offences once they are back in the community.

  Police Retention
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on ill health retirement from the police service; what the consistent approach to it will involve; and what measures he will introduce to increase officer retention. [44027]

  Mr. Denham
  The recently published White Paper "Policing a New Century: A Blueprint for Reform", reaffirmed the Government's view that one of the priorities for the police service is to manage ill-health retirement effectively. The Police Negotiating Board are considering ways to deliver a fair and more consistent approach towards early retirement due to ill health. This should enable forces to reduce the level of ill-health retirement and match the performance of the best quartile of forces by 2005. The measures under consideration include the Police Negotiating Board issuing joint guidance to police authorities and senior management to ensure that wherever possible officers continue in employment where they are capable of performing sufficient duties to make their retention operationally justifiable.

  In the White Paper the Government also announced that they will establish a national occupational health strategy for the police service, which should assist forces to manage cases of ill health more effectively at the outset.

  Confiscated Asset Fund
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the performance the Confiscated Asset Fund in Wales. [44048]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  While contributions to the Confiscated Assets Fund (CAF) from Welsh courts were relatively low, a number of bids to the fund from organisations in Wales were successful (see table). The new Recovered Assets Fund, which has replaced CAF, and other measures, including the Proceeds of Crime Bill now under consideration by Parliament, will enable more criminal assets to be seized and recycled back into the community.

  Amount

  Project

  (£)

  Counselling in 12 pharmacies spread evenly throughout Dyfed Powys

  54.000

  Production of a leaflet in five key languages for use throughout Wales

  50,000

  Helping to fund a part-time creative therapy worker in West Glamorgan

  81,086

  Developing a treatment service for young heroin users in Gwent

  77,000

  Total

  262,086

  Drivers (Mobile Phones)
  Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent discussions he has had with the Association of Chief Police Officers about the use of hand held mobile phones when driving. [44610]

  Mr. Denham
  The Association of Chief Police Officers confirmed last year that they remain satisfied with existing legislation, which allows for the successful prosecution of those whose use of a mobile phone may contribute to a driving offence. This is a matter that we keep under review.

  Conviction Rates
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the conviction rate was per police force area in each year since 1997. [44461]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The available information for 1997 to 2000 is contained in the table and relates to the proportion of defendants proceeded against at magistrates courts for all offences who were found guilty at all courts, by police force area.

  Information on court proceedings for 2001 will be available in the autumn.

  Conviction rates1for all offences, by police force area, England and Wales

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  Avon and Somerset

  73

  71

  71

  73

  Bedfordshire

  73

  74

  73

  74

  Cambridgeshire

  79

  80

  78

  80

  Cheshire

  81

  81

  79

  80

  Cleveland

  73

  72

  72

  75

  Cumbria

  81

  81

  80

  81

  Derbyshire

  76

  76

  77

  78

  Devon and Cornwall

  73

  73

  75

  76

  Dorset

  73

  77

  77

  75

  Durham

  72

  73

  73

  74

  Essex

  80

  80

  81

  78

  Gloucestershire

  74

  75

  73

  74

  Greater Manchester

  76

  77

  76

  77

  Hampshire

  78

  79

  77

  78

  Hertfordshire

  75

  74

  76

  74

  Humberside

  78

  79

  80

  79

  Kent

  81

  81

  78

  77

  Lancashire

  70

  71

  72

  71

  Leicestershire

  75

  75

  76

  76

  Lincolnshire

  77

  77

  79

  79

  London, City of

  74

  67

  70

  80

  Merseyside

  76

  76

  76

  73

  Metropolitan police

  75

  78

  77

  76

  Norfolk

  92

  92

  91

  83

  Northamptonshire

  71

  70

  71

  72

  Northumbria

  74

  74

  74

  76

  North Yorkshire

  78

  78

  75

  76

  Nottinghamshire

  74

  74

  73

  75

  South Yorkshire

  74

  75

  77

  78

  Staffordshire

  75

  78

  78

  74

  Suffolk

  77

  78

  77

  74

  Surrey

  75

  79

  79

  75

  Sussex

  72

  73

  73

  73

  Thames Valley

  72

  72

  71

  71

  Warwickshire

  76

  76

  80

  81

  West Mercia

  75

  75

  75

  76

  West Midlands

  69

  69

  66

  66

  761W

  Conviction rates1for all offences, by police force area, England and Wales

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  West Yorkshire

  70

  70

  70

  68

  Wiltshire

  84

  77

  78

  75

  Dyfed Powys

  73

  75

  73

  73

  Gwent

  78

  80

  80

  78

  North Wales

  74

  78

  78

  79

  South Wales

  72

  72

  72

  72

  England and Wales

  75

  75

  75

  75

  1 Defendants found guilty of all offences at all courts as a percentage of persons proceeded against for all offences at magistrates courts, as notified to the Home Office.

  Number of pedal cyclists proceeded against1 for offences connected with failing to obey traffic signals. England and Wales 20002

  Offence description

  Statute

  Proceeded against

  Pedal cyclist failing to obey school crossing patrol

  Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 Sec 28(3)

  6

  Pedal cyclist: Neglect of traffic directions and signs (including traffic light signals)

  Road Traffic Act 1988 Sec 35 and 36

  52

  1 These data are on the principal offence basis

  2 Staffordshire police force were only able to submit sample data for persons proceeded against and convicted in the magistrates courts for the year 2000. Although sufficient to estimate higher orders of data, these data are not robust enough at a detailed level and have been excluded from the table.

  Metropolitan Police
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what London allowance is paid to police officers employed in the Metropolitan police force. [44630]

  Mr. Denham
  In addition to any housing allowance entitlement, an officer who joined the Metropolitan police force prior to 1 September 1994 is entitled to a London allowance of £1,011 plus London weighting of £1,773.

  An officer who joined the Metropolitan police force after 1 September 1994 and who is not in receipt of housing allowance, receives an enhanced London allowance of £4,338 plus London weighting of £1,773.

  Golden Jubilee
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many extra Metropolitan police officers will be on duty each day during the period 1 to 4 June; and if he will make a statement; [44569]

  (2) what safety precautions are being taken by the Metropolitan police force during the Queen's Golden Jubilee weekend; what the anticipated cost is; and if he will make a statement. [44568]

  Mr. Denham
  For security reasons it would be inappropriate to disclose in advance of the event the planned number of officers who will be on duty or the projected cost of safety and security operations.

  The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis informs me that the number of police officers on duty for each day between 1 and 4 June will depend on circumstances and be commensurate with the need to provide appropriate security, crowd management and public reassurance, with sufficient capacity to deal with unexpected incidents.

  The operation will be run in partnership with other London police forces (City of London police, British Transport police and Royal Parks constabulary).

  Cyclists
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cyclists have been prosecuted for failure to observe traffic signals in the last 12 months for which data are available. [44369]

  Mr. Denham
  The available information, from the Home Office Court Proceedings Database, relating to England and Wales for 2000 is shown in the table. It relates to offences by pedal cyclists for failing to obey school crossing patrols and neglecting traffic directions and signs, including traffic lights.

  Information on court proceedings for 2001 will be available in the autumn.

  People Trafficking
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases of trafficking in people were identified in each year since 1997; and what enforcement action was taken(a) against the victims of trafficking and (b) against the organisers and beneficiaries of trafficking. [44709]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  Forming an accurate estimate of the levels of trafficking in people is problematic due to the hidden nature of the act. There is currently no accurate, reliable data in existence with the United Kingdom or the European Union. A Home Office research study "Stopping Traffic" published in 2000, indicated that the number of women and children trafficked into the United Kingdom for the purposes of sexual exploitation was likely to be in the range of 140 to 1,400 per annum.

  As there is at present no specific offence of trafficking, the police and other law enforcement agencies are not able to say how many organisers and beneficiaries of trafficking have been investigated, arrested or prosecuted. However, we are introducing a new stopgap offence of trafficking for prostitution in the forthcoming Nationality Immigration and Asylum Bill, which will carry a maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment. We will follow the stopgap offence with further legislation to cover those being trafficked for both labour and sexual exploitation. These offences will go wider than is possible in the immigration legislation and will cover people who are trafficked within the United Kingdom, as well as those who are brought here from abroad. The Government's aim is to tackle the organised criminal groups who are behind the trafficking, not the victims of this heinous trade.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his policy towards trafficking in people is; and what assistance he offers to those tricked into(a) prostitution and (b) domestic slavery. [44707]
  763W
  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The Home Department has set out its strategy on trafficking in the recently published White Paper "Secure Borders, Safe Haven", comprising our plans on legislation, enforcement, international co-operation and prevention and support for victims. Trafficking of people involves arranging their movement for the purposes of exploitation. The exploitation may take the form of bonded labour or servitude, or commercial sexual exploitation. It is often accompanied by violence, or threats of violence, against the victim, or their family. Trafficking is often associated with illegal immigration but does not necessarily involve crossing a frontier. Our strategy takes account of those who are trafficked into and throughout the United Kingdom, as well as those trafficked within the country.

  We recognise the need to offer the victims of trafficking particular support to help them escape their circumstances, and facilitate them to assist law enforcement to tackle organised criminal gangs behind the trafficking. We will make special arrangements for their protection and support. Where victims are not entitled to remain in the United Kingdom, we will consider whether it is appropriate to allow them to stay here. If they wish to return home, we will work with the voluntary sector to help them do so, provide initial counselling and ensure they have suitable accommodation to return to and to help them reintegrate in to their own community. The White Paper also sets out our intention to develop a best practice "toolkit" on victims of trafficking, which will act as a guide for immigration officers, police and others potentially dealing with victims of this heinous crime.

  "Mein Kampf"
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take steps to prohibit the sale of Arabic editions of Mein Kampf; and if he will make a statement. [44795]

  Angela Eagle
  No. The text of "Mein Kampf" in English translation has been freely available in the United Kingdom for many years. It has served as a means of understanding the background to a particular period in European history and the terrible crimes that were committed by the Nazis. However, if anyone believes that there is anything in this particular translation that falls foul of the law, they should of course report the matter to the police.

  Independent Police Complaints Commission
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how the Independent Police Complaints Commission will be funded; how many staff it will employ; and if he will make a statement. [44963]

  Mr. Denham
  As an executive non-departmental public body, the Independent Police Complaints Commission will be funded through grant in aid from the Home Office.

  Current estimates are that the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) will employ around 160 people.

  Cannabis
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what cases in the last 30 years 764W
  of police officers being disciplined owing to a previous partner having smoked cannabis his Department has records of. [45078]

  Mr. Denham
  This information is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  European Crime Convention
  Ross Cranston
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the answer of 9 November 2001,Official Report, column 492W, on the European Crime Convention, if he will make a statement on the outcome of consideration as to the practical implications for banks. [44793]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The practical implications for banks of the 2001 Protocol to the 2000 European Union Mutual Legal Assistance Convention (which the hon. and learned Member for Dudley, North (Ross Cranston) has referred to as the European Crime Convention) are very similar to the existing provisions on customer information in the Terrorism Act 2000 and the provisions on customer information orders and account monitoring orders contained in the draft Proceeds of Crime Bill. The Government's current view is that the mechanism to be used to obtain information in response to requests for these orders made under the Protocol will resemble that used to obtain similar types of information under the Terrorism Act and the relevant provisions of the draft Proceeds of Crime Bill. Accordingly, the costs per order are expected to be comparable to those identified by the Regulatory Impact Assessment conducted for that Bill. A separate Regulatory Impact Assessment for this Protocol will be carried out.

  The key difference between the measures in the Terrorism Act and the Proceeds of Crime Bill and the Protocol is scope. The Protocol covers a wider range of serious crimes. Banks will therefore be expected to provide information in relation to slightly different types of criminal investigation.

  Asylum Accommodation Centres
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he made of the implications of the existence of(a) a landfill site adjacent to and (b) a foot and mouth disease burial site on Throckmorton airfield when listing the airfield as a potential site for an asylum accommodation centre. [45559]

  Angela Eagle
  In making final decisions on preferred sites, we will take all the relevant factors into account including those to which the hon. Member refers. These assessments have not yet been made.

  Criminal Cases Review Commission
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department by what means the processes of the Criminal Cases Review Commission are subject to continuous improvement. [45573]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  Much of the commission's routine managerial effort is directed to continuous improvement of its processes. The Commission has an internal advisory Process Improvement Group (PIG) that is convened by the chairman whenever particular facets of the commission's processes require special review.
  765W
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the seven topics for special review that the Criminal Cases Review Commission's Process Improvement Group was convened to discuss during 2000–01. [45565]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The seven topics that were listed for special review were:

  Review cases;

  Plan operations;

  Manage finances;

  Provide expert staff;

  Provide Information Technology;

  Provide physical facilities; and

  Manage communications.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how the Criminal Cases Review Commission plans to encourage prospective applicants to seek legal advice; and how it will measure its progress. [45580]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  When corresponding with applicants, the Commission encourages applicants to seek legal advice. It has a list of legal representatives that it will provide without recommendation. It carries out a six monthly survey of the level of active legal representation, and gathers data on legal representation as submitted by applicants.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department(a) what improvements are planned at the Criminal Cases Review Commission to increase the rate at which case accumulation will be reduced and (b) how this will be measured. [45566]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The case accumulation at Stage 1 is already negligible. The accumulation at Stage 2 screen will be minimised by 31 March 2002, or soon afterwards The accumulation at Stages 2–3 will be progressively minimised during the period to 31 March 2005. The measures will include the numbers of cases in each tray and under review at each stage.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how the Criminal Cases Review Commission encourages its staff to improve their formal qualifications; and how this is measured. [45584]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The Commission encourages all staff to improve their formal qualifications. Training needs and opportunities for staff are discussed at regular personal development reviews. The Commission's personnel systems maintain information on the achievement of formal qualifications.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how the Criminal Cases Review Commission determines which cases justify the formal appointment of an external investigating officer. [45579]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  It is a statutory provision of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995 that a committee of at least three or more Commission members determines whether or not a formal appointment of an external investigating officer should be made.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what aspects of(a) a legal background, (b) the criminal justice system, and (c) the
  766W
  skills for effective casework, the Criminal Cases Review Commission has identified as appropriate for acquisition by its staff during training. [45582]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The Commission continuously develops an integrated training programme, beginning from induction, and progressing through acquisition of the appropriate knowledge base and practical skills. For Commission members, case review managers and other case working staff, the emphasis is on legal background and other aspects of the criminal justice system, and the development of the skills necessary to carry out effective casework.

  The training schedule that the Commission develops includes:

  Unsafe convictions;

  New evidence;

  Fair trials;

  Sentencing;

  Legal incompetence;

  Disclosure;

  Misconduct by investigators and witnesses;

  Guilty pleas and

  Identification procedures.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how the Criminal Cases Review Commission determines what constitutes a real possibility that a conviction, finding, verdict or sentence will not be upheld in court. [45567]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  It is a statutory provision of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995 that any decision that a real possibility exists that a conviction, finding, verdict or sentence would not be upheld at appeal must be made by a committee of at least three Commission members. The Commission will generally be looking for arguments not raised, or evidence not adduced, in the proceedings that led to the conviction, verdict or finding.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the measures for casework best practice incorporated in the Criminal Cases Review Commission's training programme. [45583]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The Commission develops continuously an integrated training programme, beginning from induction, and progressing through acquisition of the appropriate knowledge base and practical skills. For example, for Commission members, case review managers and other caseworking staff, the emphasis is on legal background and other aspects of the criminal justice system, and development of the skills necessary to carry out effective casework. The training schedule includes: unsafe convictions; new evidence; fair trials; sentencing; legal incompetence; disclosure; misconduct by investigators and witnesses; guilty pleas and identification procedures.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how the Criminal Cases Review Commission determines if its policies are being optimised along its three dimensions of effectiveness, efficiency, and economy. [45575]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The Commission distinguishes between effectiveness (achieving high output standards), efficiency (maximising output from its human and
  767W
  physical resources) and economy (minimising the cost of those resources), and recognises that its processes must be optimised along all three dimensions. The Commission's annual business plan sets process goals along these dimensions, which should approach optimality.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers and their dependants are supported by(a) NASS, (b) local authorities and (c) the mainstream welfare benefits system. [45773]

  Angela Eagle
  As at the end of December 2001, 65,630 asylum seekers (including dependants) were supported by the National Asylum Support Service (NASS).

  From the grant claims sent to the Home Office by local authorities, as at September 2001, 25,370 single adult asylum seekers and 14,310 families were supported by local authorities. Figures including dependants are not available.

  As at November 2001, Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) were supporting 12,000 asylum seekers. Figures including dependants are not available.

  This is the latest available information on supported asylum seekers.

  Figures for NASS supported asylum seekers and local authority supported asylum seekers are rounded to the nearest 10. Figures for DWP supported asylum seekers are rounded to the nearest 1,000.

  Yarl's Wood Detention Centre
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many detainees were held in Yarl's Wood Detention Centre in each of the last 12 months; what the average time of detention was; and how many were subsequently removed from Britain. [48623]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: Yarl's Wood Removal Centre opened in November 2001. Internal management information, which has not been quality-assured, records that there were 112 detainees at Yarl's Wood at the end of November 2001; 252 detainees at the end of December 2001 and 308 detainees at the end of January 2002. There were 385 detainees at Yarl's Wood on 14 February 2002.

  Information about the average time of detention and subsequent removals is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost by an examination of individual case files.

  Overseas Visits
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many overseas visits have been undertaken by parliamentary private secretaries in his Department at departmental expense in each of the last four years; and at what cost to public funds. [36816]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 25 March 2002]: There have been no visits undertaken by parliamentary private secretaries at departmental expense in the last four years.

  Campsfield House
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what timetable had been decided for the closure of Campsfield House at 7 February; and whether the timetable for closure of Campsfield House has since been changed. [46663]

  Angela Eagle
  The intention is to close Campsfield House when places can be transferred to the new removal centres that are expected to be in operation by spring 2003. This timetable was announced by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary (Mr. Blunkett) on 7 February 2002,Official Report, column 1040, and remains unchanged.

  DNA Samples
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the impact of the ruling which allows the police to retain DNA samples from suspects later released without charge. [48256]

  Mr. Denham
  The requirement for the police to destroy fingerprint and DNA samples taken from suspects later released was amended by Article 82 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 which allows the police discretion to retain these samples. DNA provides an important tool in the fight against serious crime and in particular offences of violence against the person. The Government are pleased that the Court has upheld its view that the law strikes a fair balance between the interests of the individual, the victims of crime and society as a whole. The court's decision will allow the police to continue to make best use of this important scientific technology in the fight against crime.

  Correspondence
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Immigration and Nationality Directorate expects to reply to the letters of 6 January, 28 January and 3 March from the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston regarding the case of Mr. Rynier Jacobus Greyling. [47883]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: A reply was sent to my hon. Friend by the Immigration and Nationality Directorate on 15 March 2002.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Rail Journeys (Staff)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 6 March 2002,Official Report, column 421W, on rail travel, if staff below Band B2 are permitted to travel first class; and if line management approval is required beforehand to do so. [50546]

  Mr. Leslie
  Rail travel on official business for staff below B2 is at standard class. First class travel is permitted only if there is a requirement to accompany either a civil servant who is entitled to travel first class, or someone who is not a civil servant who is travelling first class. All first class travel by staff below B2 level must be approved in advance.

TREASURY

  Equipment Leasing
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the equipment leasing arrangements entered into by his Department in each of the last four years; and what the cost is to public funds in each case. [39088]

  Ruth Kelly
  This information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Human Rights Act
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many cases have been brought against his Department under the Human Rights Act 1998; and what has been the cost in(a) legal fees to defend cases and (b) compensation payments. [45074]

  Ruth Kelly
  Human rights are now integrated in the general law and are rarely the sole basis for a challenge. Central records are not maintained of all cases in which the Human Rights Act 1998 has been relied on or of the cost to public funds of cases which include a human rights aspect. However, we have recorded two cases which have been brought against the Treasury.

  Access to Information
  Tony Wright
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the administrative manuals and internal guidance which his Department has made public as required by Part 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information; and which of these were first made available after May 1997. [45395]

  Ruth Kelly
  We publish a wide range of material designed to inform members of the public about our activities. Information including advice on the Treasury's Values and Code of Conduct, how to obtain information under the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information and how to complain about the department are published on our public website.

  Private Sponsorship
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 11 March 2002,Official Report, column 700W, on private sponsorship, if he will list the conferences and seminars that HM Treasury and its associated departments have organised since May 1997; and if he will make a statement. [46610]

  Ruth Kelly
  Records are not maintained centrally. The information required may be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Wanless Report
  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent studies he has conducted into alternative health care systems other than those contained in the interim Wanless report; and if he will publish them. [R] [47963]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  [holding answer 9 April 2002]: I refer to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the House on 11 April 2002, Official Report, column 135:
  "[Mr. Wanless] will also publish a study commissioned by his review on international health care systems, considering health systems in individual countries around the world."

  Banks (Excessive Charging)
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to extend the new regulations relating to excessive charging by banks in England and Wales to Northern Ireland. [48853]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government accepted in full the conclusions of the Competition Commission report into the supply of banking services to SMEs in the UK and have asked the Director General of Fair Trading to seek undertakings from the eight main clearing banks to implement the remedies suggested. The majority of those remedies will apply through the UK and are designed to improve competition in this market. In addition the Competition Commission found evidence of excess profits for the four largest clearing banks in England and Wales, but not in Scotland or Northern Ireland. Consequently, their recommendation that banks should be required to offer interest or free banking to SMEs will apply only in England and Wales.

  Retirement Income
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action he will take to reform the law on annuities and income in retirement. [48898]

  Ruth Kelly
  For some time the Government have actively encouraged innovation in the annuity market to improve benefits for customers. A consultation document, "Modernising Annuities", was issued on 5 February. It was intended to stimulate discussion on how the annuity market could be encouraged to become more flexible and competitive. The consultation period ran until 5 April. The Government are now considering the responses carefully before deciding how to proceed.

  Finance Capital
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he last set out policies for substantial reform of finance capital; and if he will make a statement. [48877]

  Ruth Kelly
  The pre-Budget report (Cm 5318), published in November 2001, sets out a range of measures designed to improve both the supply of, and access to, finance capital. The forthcoming Budget will provide an up-date on these measures.

  Overtime Payments
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his policy is on overtime payments for staff in his Department. [49135]

  Ruth Kelly
  Overtime payments are made to staff where appropriate. Sufficient staff have been recruited to fill all complemented posts in the Treasury, and the Department has a number of alternative working policies in place such as flexible working hours, part-time working and compressed hours, as well as working at home. These are available to all staff by agreement with their line managers.

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Mark Tami
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many families he estimates are eligible for
  771W
  (a) working families tax credit and (b) children's tax credit in (i) Alyn and Deeside and (ii) Delyn that are not claiming it; [48918]

  (2) how many families in (a) Alyn and Deeside and (b) Delyn are claiming (i) working families tax credit and (ii) children's tax credit. [48920]

  Dawn Primarolo
  For the numbers claiming the working families' tax credit (WFTC), I refer my hon. Friend to my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Hepburn) on 16 January 2002,Official Report, column 293W. Information about the children's tax credit (CTC), or about the numbers eligible for WFTC, is not available by constituency. However, the number of families who are eligible for the CTC in Wales is estimated to be 225,000.

  Births, Marriages and Deaths
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans his Department has to put on-line the registration of births, marriages and deaths. [50531]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Ms Joan Walley, dated 15 April 2002:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question concerning what plans there are to put on-line the registration of births, marriages and deaths. (50531)
  The Government's proposals for modernising civil registration in England and Wales are contained in the White Paper "Civil Registration: Vital Change" published on 22 January 2002, copies of which are available in the Libraries of the House.

  Minimum Wage
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many employers have been detected paying less than national minimum wage in the last three months; and what action has been taken. [45041]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue have detected 471 non-compliant employers in the last three months, with the total amount of wages arrears identified being £2,734,000.

  In the same period, 25 enforcement notices and eight penalty notices have been served on employers. There have been four cases taken by the Inland Revenue to employment tribunal on behalf of workers, with a successful outcome in each instance.

  Afghanistan
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions have been held with the multi-lateral creditors regarding multi-lateral debt relief for Afghanistan. [48769]

  Mr. Boateng
  No discussions have been held so far.

  Child Care Tax Credit
  Andrew Selous
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to review the eligibility for the child care tax credit. [45034]
  772W
  Dawn Primarolo
  The eligibility criteria for the child care tax credit are kept under constant review.

  Pensions
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the average impact on the Exchequer over the course of the last 10 years of each tranche of one thousand persons contracting into SERPS/state second pension from a personal or occupational pension. [44682]

  Maria Eagle
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information is in the table:

  £ million

  Year

  Amount

  1991–92

  0.6

  1992–93

  0.6

  1993–94

  0.6

  1994–95

  0.5

  1995–96

  0.6

  1996–67

  0.6

  1997–98

  0.6

  1998–99

  0.6

  1999–2000

  0.6

  2000–01

  0.5

  Note:

  The figures show the increase in national insurance contributions that would result from 1,000 people rejoining SERPS in each of the last 10 years. They have been calculated on the assumption that their arrangements are broadly representative of all people contracted out, in terms of age, earnings and type of contracted-out arrangement.

  Source:

  Government Actuary's Department

  Departmental Report
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the 2002 departmental report will be published. [49591]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The 2002 departmental reports will be published in spring 2002. The dates will be announced shortly.

  Small Businesses (Taxation)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much money was paid in direct and indirect taxation by companies with(a) fewer than 200 employees and (b) fewer than 100 employees in each of the last 10 years. [49486]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The information requested is not available.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the total savings to public funds of the Public-Private Partnership with Siemens Business Services for the Department of National Savings by comparison with a non-Private Finance Initiative alternative. [49503]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Public Private Partnership with Siemens Business Services (SBS) delivers full operational service to National Savings and Investments (NS&I) and its customers.
  773W
  The cost of delivery of the operational service from SBS is at least £157 million less than the public sector comparator, assuming the contract runs for its 15 year life.

  The finances were clearly set out in the contract. NS&I expenditure on this contract remains as originally negotiated and reported to the PAC.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many Private Finance Initiative projects have been subject to refinancing after the contracts have been signed; and what has been the financial effect in each case. [50278]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Comprehensive records of refinanced PFI contracts are not held centrally. No Treasury PFI projects have been refinanced.

PRIME MINISTER

  Performance Targets
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Prime Minister what new initiatives his office has taken in 2001–02 to assist in achieving its public service agreement targets. [47188]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office on 12 April 2002.

  Appointments
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Prime Minister if hon. Members have been appointed to task forces and other ad hoc advisory bodies created by the Government since 1997. [49729]

  The Prime Minister
  Individuals are invited to join task forces and reviews solely on the basis of the knowledge, experience and expertise they are able to bring.

  Governments have always taken advice from a number of sources——internal and external. There is nothing to prevent hon. Members being appointed to task forces and other ad hoc advisory groups.

  Summary date are recorded and published for each task force and ad hoc group in the Cabinet Office's publication "Taskforces, Ad Hoc Advisory Groups and Reviews". This was last published in October 2001 and copies are available in the House Library. The publication sets out the composition, gives numbers of people by category of appointment, and gives the name of the chairperson. A category in this report shows ministerial membership but no specific data on hon. Members' membership of these groups is held.

  Steel Tariffs
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister what matters in respect of the United States policy on steel imports were discussed in his meetings with President Bush on 6 to 7 April in Texas. [49264]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson) in the House on 10 April 2002,Official Report, column 17.
  774W
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he had with President Bush during his recent visit about the possible exemption of British steel products from US tariffs; and if he will make a statement. [48930]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson) in the House on 10 April 2002,Official Report, column 17.

  Israel
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister whether he discussed Israel's nuclear weapon capability in his meetings with President Bush on 6–7 April. [49481]

  The Prime Minister
  I outlined the issues I discussed with President Bush in my statement to the House on Wednesday 10 April.

  Kyoto Protocol
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister whether he has raised the United States opposition to the Kyoto Protocol on climate change during meetings and other communications he has had with(a) the United States President and (b) the United States Vice President since 11 September 2001. [49495]

  The Prime Minister
  I and my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister have raised the US position on climate change and the Kyoto Protocol with President Bush and Vice President Cheney respectively on a number of occasions since 11 September 2001.

  Sustainable Development
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Prime Minister when he established a Cabinet Committee on Sustainable Development; who its members are; and if he will make a statement. [48894]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Watford (Ms Ward) on 7 March,Official Report, column 486W.

  Texas Visit
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list those persons who accompanied him on his recent trip to Texas other than Ministers, civil servants, journalists and special advisers; and in each case, specify whose costs were met in whole or part from public funds. [48955]

  The Prime Minister
  I was joined in Texas by members of my family who had been invited by the President and Mrs. Bush. Their participation on the visit was at no additional cost to the taxpayer.

  Lord Levy
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister on what date he was informed of the commercial arrangements between Lord Levy and Westfield. [48985]

  The Prime Minister
  This is a personal matter for Lord Levy. I am satisfied that there is no conflict of interest.

  Overseas Charitable Donations
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Prime Minister which foreign Heads of State and Government have informed Her Majesty's Government of personal donations to UK charities following visits to the United Kingdom and discussions with the Prime Minister since 1997. [48768]

  The Prime Minister
  I am not aware of any donations. There is no central record maintained of such donations.

  Gifts in Kind
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will include in the Ministerial Code of Conduct a requirement for Ministers to publish the value of gifts in kind provided by overseas Governments. [48771]

  The Prime Minister
  All gifts are handled in accordance with the requirements of paragraphs 136 to 139 of the Ministerial Code.

  Hospitality
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Prime Minister which foreign Heads of State have accepted free travel and accommodation within the United Kingdom from the UK Government since May 1997. [48776]

  The Prime Minister
  It has been the policy of successive Governments to provide hospitality for official visits by Foreign Heads of State who come as guests of Her Majesty's Government.

  Travel and Accommodation Allowances
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will refer the subject of travel and accommodation allowances for the Prime Minister to the(a) Senior Salaries Review Board and (b) Committee on Standards in Public Life. [48775]

  The Prime Minister
  No. All travel by Ministers is undertaken in accordance with the requirements of the Ministerial Code and Travel by Ministers.

  New Zealand
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Prime Minister what assurances he has given to the Prime Minister off New Zealand about the length of time that young citizens of that country can work in the UK before returning home. [49298]

  The Prime Minister
  Under the current terms of the working holidaymaker scheme young Commonwealth nationals may spend up to two years in the united Kingdom and are able to engage in work incidental to the holiday for up to approximately half their stay. The scheme is currently being reviewed.

  I have assured the Prime Minister of New Zealand that any reform of the scheme will not erode its benefits to those coming from New Zealand.

  The Government fully appreciates the important contribution that working holidaymakers make in the United Kingdom, and is committed to maintaining the benefits of the scheme for New Zealand citizens, as well as citizens of other Commonwealth countries.

  Special Advisers
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will take steps to ensure members of the House of Lords who(a) hold ministerial office and (b) are employed as special advisers agree to give evidence to select committees of the House. [49886]

  The Prime Minister
  All civil servants, including special advisers, are accountable to Ministers for their decisions and actions. Ministers are accountable to Parliament. It is therefore for individual Ministers to decide who provides evidence on their behalf to select committees. These decisions are taken on a case-by-case basis.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) if he will make a statement about the rules which apply to the pursuit of outside interests by special advisers and the accountability thereof; [49885]

  (2) if he will review the rules relating to the allowable financial interests of specialist advisers. [49274]

  The Prime Minister
  The Model Contract for Special Advisers, which incorporates the Code of Conduct for Special Advisers, sets out the terms and conditions of employment for special advisers. Special advisers are also covered by the requirements of their employing Department's Staff Handbook, which includes the handling of financial interests and outside employment.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister if his policy permits the employment of special advisers who have non-domicile tax status. [49276]

  The Prime Minister
  The employment restrictions on the recruitment of civil servants, including special advisers, are set out in the Civil Service Management Code.

  Egypt
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister what was the value of hospitality provided to him by the Egyptian Government on his recent visit to Egypt; what charities in Egypt were the recipients of his charitable donations; and what was the value of those donations. [49275]

  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Prime Minister what the value was of the facilities provided to him and his family by the Egyptian Government in December 2001, broken down by(a) cost of hotel accommodation, (b) cost of travel and (c) cost of exclusive access to tourist sites. [48770]

  The Prime Minister
  The position is as I made clear in the Register of Members' Interests.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister what factors led him to conclude that it was appropriate to accept free tickets for the internal aeroplane flight he made from Cairo to Sharm-el-Sheikh. [49277]

  The Prime Minister
  For security reasons, the Egyptian Government identified the appropriate accommodation and internal aeroplane travel during my family holiday in Egypt. This is in line with the requirements of 'Travel by Ministers' which makes it clear that for some Ministers, security factors may make special arrangements necessary.
  777W
  I made charitable donations to a charity chosen by the Egyptian Government equating to the cost.

  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Prime Minister if the provision of free travel and accommodation by the Egyptian President to the UK Prime Minister is a reciprocal arrangement. [48782]

  The Prime Minister
  No.

  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Prime Minister if he sought advice from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office before accepting the offer of travel and accommodation from the Egyptian Government. [48774]

  The Prime Minister
  Yes.

  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Prime Minister whether his Chief of Staff arranged the travel and accommodation details of his visit to Egypt in December 2001. [48781]

  The Prime Minister
  No.

HEALTH

  Cancer Treatment
  Mr. Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the radiotherapy waiting times are for patients categorised as(a) Group 1, (b) Group 2, (c) Group 3, (d) Group 4 and (e) Group 5 for each UK health authority; and what the comparative figures were for 1997. [37907]

  Yvette Cooper
  The information requested is not available centrally. The NHS Cancer Plan set out maximum waiting time targets for first cancer treatment which will come into effect over the next few years. Arrangements to monitor these targets are currently being put in place and will cover radiotherapy where this is the first treatment.

  From December 2001, there is one month maximum wait from diagnosis to first treatment for breast cancer and a one month wait from urgent general practitioner referral to first treatment for children's, testicular and acute leukaemia. By 2005, there will be a maximum one month wait from diagnosis to first treatment for all cancers.

  NHS Decentralisation
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on his policy towards the advancement of mutual solutions to allow further decentralisation of decision-making and operations within the NHS. [39387]

  Mr. Hutton
  A structural and cultural reform of the national health service is currently taking place with the aim of shifting the balance of power towards frontline organisations, and within organisations to patients and staff. From 1 April 2002, primary care trusts, local organisations run by clinicians and local people, are responsible for improving health, securing services and integrating health and social care locally. By 2004, these organisations will receive 75 per cent. of the NHS budget to enable them to do so effectively, which constitutes considerable devolution in the running of the NHS. As 778W
  responsibility is devolved to the frontline, the Department will develop new ways of working and step back from operational issues.

  A package of earned autonomy freedoms and the potential to achieve foundation status will also become available for the best performing primary care and NHS trusts. This will be another way in which the Government devolves decision-making and operational management in the NHS.

  Medical Records
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what systems are in place to ensure medical records are not falsified. [39371]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 1 March 2002]: The Department is fully committed to the principles of patient privacy and confidentiality, and to ensuring that medical records are handled in a secure manner and are not falsified.

  Caldicott Guardians appointed within NHS organisations have the responsibility for overseeing the handling of confidential patient information within their own organisations. This work includes responsibility for ensuring that procedures and systems are in place to control access to patient information, and that medical records are capable of being robustly audited.

  In the case of GP's, their Terms of Service state that they shall be responsible for keeping adequate records of the illnesses and treatment of their patients and forward such records to the health authority on request. Health authorities are able to audit GP practices by Post Payment Verification and the General Medical Council is able to bring to account any GP that does not keep clear, accurate and contemporaneous records.

  NHS Professionals
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what savings for the NHS(a) have been achieved and (b) are projected to be achieved from the establishment of NHS Professionals; and how (i) has the money been re-directed and (ii) will the money be re-directed; [39674]

  (2) pursuant to the oral answer to the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) of 11 December 2001, Official Report, column 699, if he will make a statement on the value of money improvements achieved by NHS Professionals in London, indicating how much money (a) has been saved and (b) is projected to be saved. [39781]

  Mr. Hutton
  Estimates of detailed cost savings have not been completed.

  NHS Professionals charges a management fee to recoup operating costs currently set at a maximum of 7.5 per cent. This compares favourably with that of commercial agencies as highlighted in the Audit Commission report 'Brief Encounters——Getting the Best from Temporary Nursing Staff'. This report indicated wide variations in the commission rates charged by agencies with an averaging charge of 20.5 per cent.
  779W
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether NHS trusts will be permitted to contract with commercial nurses' agencies to administer temporary staffing services to the specification laid out for NHS Professionals. [41725]

  Mr. Hutton
  Health Service Circular 2001–02 highlights the aim that NHS Professionals will be used by all NHS organisations as the primary supplier of all temporary staffing requirements for the NHS with, as and when necessary, contracts agreed with commercial agencies to meet any surplus demand. The circular also encourages NHS organisations to review their arrangements for accessing supplementary staff and skills, and to work with their Regional Offices to agree an implementation plan for NHS Professionals across their local health economy.

  St. George's Hospital, Tooting
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people were treated in accident and emergency departments of St. George's hospital, Tooting in the last 12 months. [40520]

  Mr. Hutton
  In the latest financial year 2000–01, St. George's Healthcare NHS Trust had a total 79,013 accident and emergency attendances, 75,813 being first attendances.

  From 2001–02, the information is available on a quarterly basis and is available on the Department's website www.doh.gov.uk/hospitalactivity.

  Paediatrics
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many transfers of ventilated children between intensive care units took place in each quarter of the last five years for which figures are available. [41479]

  Yvette Cooper
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Transfers of critically ill children in ventilated and stable condition are arranged between local hospitals and paediatric intensive care centres, and more rarely between centres, to access specialist interventions which cannot be provided in every location, and in order to obtain the best achievable outcome for the child.

  Variant-CJD
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to contact patients who may have been exposed to v-CJD through(a) surgical instruments or (b) blood transfusions. [41805]

  Yvette Cooper
  We are awaiting the results of the CJD Incidents Panel consultation before finalising any decisions regarding contacting patients about their possible exposure to v-CJD via surgical instruments.

  Folic Acid
  Mr. MacDougall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans his Department has to implement the Committee on Medical Aspects of Food and Nutrition Policy report of January 2000 on flour fortification with folic acid. [43866]
  780W
  Yvette Cooper
  A consultation document on whether or not to fortify wheat flour with folic acid was issued in July 2000 jointly by the Health Departments and the Food Standards Agency (FSA). This was based on the Committee on Medical Aspects of Food and Nutrition Policy (2000) conclusion that fortification of wheat flour with folic acid would help reduce the number of births affected by neural tube defects.

  The consultation responses have been analysed and the summary of responses posted on the Department's website. The majority of respondents were in favour of fortification although this was not overwhelming (59 per cent.). The most common concerns were over the potential risks of fortification and the possible restriction of consumer choice.

  The complexity of the analysis and the need for additional work led to a longer timescale than anticipated. The Health Departments and the FSA held a joint stakeholders meeting on 18 March 2002 to discuss the issue and help inform policy. The policy options will be considered by the FSA Board as well as Health Ministers.

  Genetics
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what the licensing and vetting procedures are for new genetic tests to be sold directly to the public; [44758]

  (2) what mechanisms have been put into place to ensure that claims made by manufacturers of currently licensed genetic tests have scientific and medical validity; [44762]

  (3) what the procedures are for approving and regulating genetic testing services. [44763]

  Yvette Cooper
  The "in vitro" diagnostic medical device (IVD) regulations (SI2000 No. 1315) ensure that IVDs that have a specific medical purpose meet relevant essential safety, quality and performance requirements before being placed on the market with a CE mark. The regulations came into force on 7 June 2000 with a transition period until December 2003. During this time, manufacturers may choose on which basis to place their device on the market. The regulations require that manufacturers of IVDs bearing the CE mark must be able to demonstrate that the device will achieve the manufacturer's claimed performance.

  The Department has published two voluntary codes of practice and guidance for genetic tests being sold directly to the public. These set out broad requirements in areas such as: peer-reviewed evidence of value, accreditation and quality assurance in testing laboratories, consent, confidentiality, sample and information storage, and customer information. Under the "Code of Practice and Guidance on Human Genetic Testing Services Supplied Direct to the Public" (September 1997) suppliers notify the Human Genetics Commission (HGC) of their proposed service and HGC publishes a statement of conformance with the Code. In addition, those supplying genetic paternity testing services are expected to comply with the Code of Practice and Guidance on Genetic Paternity Testing Services" (March 2001). All Government and public bodies commissioning paternity testing services are expected, so far as is practical, to ensure that those supplying services comply with this code.
  781W
  Ministers have asked HGC to conduct a review of the provision of genetic tests offered directly to the public, and to report by the end of the year.

  Accreditation for UK laboratories providing diagnostic testing for patients is voluntary. It is mostly overseen by Clinical Pathology Accreditation (UK) Ltd. (CPA). CPA standards are compatible with international standards (ISO). Laboratories registered with CPA are subject to on-site peer inspection to ensure compliance with these standards.

  Laboratory accreditation is now part of the quality standards compiled by the Genetics Commissioning Advisory Group (GenCAG) and endorsed by the Joint Medical Genetics Committee of the Royal Colleges of Physicians and Pathologists and the British Society for Human Genetics. Commissioners and NHS trusts purchasing genetic testing services are recommended to purchase from accredited laboratories.

  NHS Commissioners may evaluate new service developments before agreeing to fund them. As part of the national NHS genetic testing network, consideration is being given to mechanisms to evaluate genetic tests before being considered for NHS funding. There is further scope for evaluation through the Health Technology Assessment programme which produces research information on the clinical and cost-effectiveness and broader impact of health technologies including diagnostic techniques.

  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his policy is on(a) access to counselling and advice services, (b) procedures for gaining informed consent and (c) protection of personal genetic information where genetic testing is being undertaken. [44759]

  Yvette Cooper
  Patients may seek advice from their General Practitioner, other health care workers or NHS Direct. Specialist NHS services for genetics are concentrated in Regional Genetic Centres (RGCs), to which patients may be referred as appropriate. Those receiving genetic tests as part of NHS clinical genetic services normally receive counselling and advice before and, where appropriate, after testing.

  The Government response to the 3rd Report of the House of Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology 1994–5, stated that: 'The Government agrees with the Committee.. that people who seek diagnosis of a genetic condition of late onset, i.e in adult life, should be given adequate information about the medical and social implications of the findings and offered sufficient counselling, in advance of any testing, and subsequently if the result of a test is positive'.

  The Secretary of State announced in January 2002 how part of the £30 million investment in genetics would be used to pump-prime additional capacity within existing genetics services. This will enable more people concerned about familial disease to receive advice, testing and counselling.

  Patients have a fundamental legal and ethical right to determine what happens to their own bodies. Valid consent to treatment is therefore central to all forms of healthcare, from providing personal care to undertaking major surgery. Patients may indicate consent non-verbally
  782W
  (for example by presenting their arm for their pulse to be taken), orally, or in writing. For the consent to be valid, the patient must: be competent to take the particular decision; have received sufficient information to take it; and not be acting under duress.

  The Department has issued guidance on consent, and this should be consulted for advice on the current law and good practice requirements in seeking consent. This includes what to do when a patient lacks the capacity to give consent to an intervention. The relevant documents are available at "www.doh.gov.uk/consent". Health professionals should also be aware of any guidance on consent issued by their own regulatory bodies.

  Genetic information, like most other patient information, is held in confidence by health professionals and is also subject to the requirements of Data Protection legislation. This means that, unless exceptional circumstances apply, individuals should be informed about how the information will be used and that the information should only be disclosed to a third party with the consent of the person to whom it refers.

  The Department published a national confidentiality strategy for the NHS "("Building the Information Core: Protecting & Using Patient Information: A Strategy for the NHS")" in December 2001. The development of systems and processes to record and respect patient preferences including objections to disclosures is a key element of the strategy. In addition, the Human Genetics Commission (HGC) has been considering issues associated with the storage, protection and use of personal genetic information and will be reporting to Ministers later this spring.

  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he plans to publish the planned Green Paper on genetics. [44760]

  Yvette Cooper
  We plan to publish our Green Paper on genetics later this year.

  Children's Diet
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what measures his Department has taken to combat obesity in children; [45002]

  (2) what initiatives his Department has taken to encourage children to eat healthy food. [45001]

  Yvette Cooper
  We are committed to tackling the rising trend in childhood obesity and action to encourage children to eat a balanced diet. We have put in place major cross-Government programmes of work to improve healthy eating and increase physical activity. This includes:The National School Fruit Scheme where over 80,000 children in 27 areas and over 500 schools now receive a free piece of fruit each school day. Additional funding of £42 million from the new opportunities fund will enable the scheme to expand to cover over 1 million children from 2002 to 2004. From 2004 all 4 to 6-year-olds will be entitled to a free piece of fruit each school day.
  We already have a National Healthy School Programme, a joint initiative between the Department and the Department for Education and Skills, which has as one of its themes healthy eating. Schools are encouraged to provide, promote and monitor healthier food at lunch and break times and in any breakfast clubs. This will be complemented by the food in schools programme,

  783W
  which aims to bring together under one umbrella all food-related initiatives in schools and after school clubs to improve health and learning.
  Work to ensure that children have opportunities to participate in a wide range of physical and sporting activities. The Government's White Paper "Schools——achieving success" gave a commitment that all children will be entitled to two hours of high quality physical education (PE) and school sport a week, within and outside the curriculum. Significant funding is also being provided to enhance PE and sports facilities in schools including £541 million from the new opportunities fund for a PE and Sports Programme.

  Anaesthetic Services
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many consultant anaesthetists are in post; and what was the figure in 1997. [45111]

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

  Hospital medical consultants within the anaesthetics specialty (headcount)——England

  At 30 September

  Consultants

  1997

  2,760

  2001

  3.550

  Source:

  Department of Health medical and dental workforce census

  The number of consultant anaesthetists has increased by 29 per cent. since 1997.

  Human Rights Act
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases have been brought against his Department under the Human Rights Act 1998; and what has been the cost in(a) legal fees to defend cases and (b) compensation payments. [45069]

  Ms Blears
  We do not collect central records of all cases in which the Human Rights Act 1998 is relied upon. Human rights are now integrated in the general law and are rarely the sole basis for a challenge. We do monitor centrally those cases which we consider may be of particular significance to this Department. We have recorded 22 cases to date.

  We do not collect information centrally about the costs to public funds, legal fees or compensation payments in cases which include a human rights issue. In most cases it will be difficult to single out associated costs relating to the human rights element.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the target time will be in 2002–03 for(a) Ministers to reply to letters from hon. Members and (b) officials in his Department to reply to letters received directly from members of the public. [44951]

  Ms Blears
  The Department's target times for replying to correspondence from hon. Members and members of the public is 20 days, this is the Service First Target set by the Cabinet Office.

  UVB Machines
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many UVB machines there are in NHS hospitals in England and Wales; and how many are immobilised because of lack of trained staff. [45703]

  Ms Blears
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  It is for health authorities in partnership with primary care groups/trusts and other local stakeholders to decide what services to provide for their populations including those who require treatment with UVB machines.

  The Action On Dermatology (AOD) programme aims to identify, develop and share best practice in the organisation and delivery of services, with particular emphasis on improving access and reducing waiting times. Local services are helped to identify their constraints and to find effective solutions by developing new methods of organisation and clinical practice. A key element is the involvement of the clinical professions in identifying good practice and in encouraging its widespread adoption. Change in clinical practice is most effective when it is owned by clinicians themselves.

  Brain Disorders
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures are being taken(a) to improve the treatment of brain disorders and (b) increase the number of neurologists in the UK. [45278]

  Jacqui Smith
  The National Service Framework for Long-term Conditions (NSF) will have a particular focus on the needs of people with neurological disease, brain and spinal injury, as well as some of the common issues faced by people with a long-term condition.

  We are investing in extra training places in neurology. We have announced an increase of up to 15 specialist registrars in neurology for 2002–04. This will mean that by 2009 there will be an additional 140 trained specialists available to take up consultant posts in neurology.

  Radiographers
  Tony Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recruitment targets exist for therapy radiographers; how he intends they should be achieved; and by when. [45950]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department does not have a target specifically for therapy radiographers. They are included within the NHS Plan target for 6,500 more therapists and other health professionals by 2004, which will be met by improving recruitment and retention, encouraging return to practice, increasing number of students completing training and international recruitment.

  Between 1997 and 2001 the number of therapeutic radiographers employed in the NHS has increased by 130 (9 per cent.) and the number of training places available for students has increased by 29 (21 per cent.).

  Respiratory Specialists
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what the recommended number of hospital respiratory specialist physicians is(a) per head of population and (b) per NHS trust; [45742]
  785W
  (2) how many hospital respiratory specialist physicians posts are unfilled, broken down by NHS trust; [45744]

  (3) how many hospital respiratory specialist physicians are in post, broken down by (a) coverage per head of the population and (b) NHS trust. [45743]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department does not set quotas for the numbers of hospital respiratory specialist physicians per head of population or by individual NHS Trust. We continually review future requirements for trained specialists as part of the NHS's new multi-disciplinary workforce planning processes. These look at the national requirements for doctors alongside other staff focusing on the potential for new ways of working and developing new roles.

  As at September 2001 (latest figures available), there were 1.9 respiratory specialist physicians, consultants and doctors in training, per 100,000 of the population (England). Numbers of respiratory specialist physicians by NHS Trust are shown in the table, a copy of which has been placed in the Library.

  Respiratory Medicine is not one of the specific specialties included in the NHS Vacancy Survey 2001 and information about the number of unfilled respiratory specialist physicians posts is not available centrally.

  NHS Efficiency Gains
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what efficiency and other value for money gains were achieved in the NHS as a percentage of health authority unified allocations, in each year since April 1999, and for the latest year for which figures are available. [45720]

  Mr. Hutton
  Allocations to Health Authorities are based on an overall assessment of the resources required to cover inflationary pressures and deliver national targets. Allocations to Health authorities in 1999–2000 and 2000–01 were made net of 3 per cent. efficiency savings, and in 2001–02 allocations were made net of 2 per cent. efficiency savings. This means that health authorities needed to achieve the efficiency target to fully fund delivery of national targets and inflation.

  Emergency Re-admissions
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will place in the Library the emergency re-admission figures for Q2 2001–02 broken down by(a) region and (b) health authority. [45772]

  Mr. Hutton
  The figures for Quarter 2 2001–02 emergency re-admissions of patients aged 75 and over have been placed in the Library.

  Muscular Dystrophy
  Kevin Brennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much has been spent on research into a cure for Duschenne Muscular Dystrophy in the last five years, and if he will make a statement. [45787]

  Jacqui Smith
  The main Government agency for research into the causes of and treatments for disease is the Medical Research Council (MRC) which receives its funding via the Department of Trade and Industry. The MRC supports a major project on the molecular analysis 786W
  of Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy at the MRC Functional Genetics Unit in Oxford and the expenditure on this is about £440,000 a year.

  The MRC expenditure figure on all types of Muscular Dystrophy for the last five years is an estimated £3.7 million. It is not possible to extract Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy spending specifically from this total as so much of the work is basic in nature and could apply to all forms of the disease.

  The Department provides support funding for research commissioned by charities and the research councils that take place in the NHS. Management of much of the research supported by NHS research and development funding is devolved and expenditure at project level is not held centrally by the Department.

  Depleted Uranium
  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to instruct the National Radiological Protection Board to carry out research into illnesses caused by exposure to depleted uranium. [43654]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 26 March 2002]: The Department has no plans to ask the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) to carry out research specifically into illnesses possibly caused by exposure to depleted uranium. However, NRPB does undertake research that is relevant to the assessment of the risks to health from such exposures. In particular NRPB has carried out extensive research into the distribution of uranium in body organs, its retention and excretion, following inhalation of a wide range of uranium compounds. It has also developed computer models that enable the concentration of uranium in the various organs and resulting radiation doses to be calculated. Depleted uranium is mildly radioactive, and NRPB's research programme on the effects of ionising radiation in general is therefore relevant to assessment of the radiological risks from exposure to depleted uranium.

  Food Supplements
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment the Government have made of the cost to British business of the Directive on food supplements. [45515]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 26 March 2002]: The Food Standards Agency, which has been responsible for negotiating this Directive on the Government's behalf, has consulted widely on its likely impact. There would be labelling costs falling on manufacturers of all food supplements, but these would be substantially offset by a two-year transitional period. Any additional impact of future developments on lists of permitted nutrients and maximum limits cannot yet be assessed.

  Blood Tests
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many blood tests in each of the last five years for which figures are available(a) were sent to laboratories for tests and (b) were misplaced before the patient received the results. [46576]

  Yvette Cooper
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Community Pharmacists
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the number of community pharmacists(a) in post and (b) vacancies, broken down by (i) health authority and (ii) region in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [45641]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 20 March 2002]: Information on the number of community pharmacists in post and vacancies is not held centrally.

  University Hospital Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the reasons for which the Chief Executive of the University Hospital Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust remained in post after the publication of the CHI report and the zero rating of Walsgrave hospital. [46822]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: All Trusts were assessed on their performance during 2000–01 against a set of key targets that are the most significant factors in determining their overall performance rating for the year. Those Trusts that indicated the poorest levels of performance against the key targets were awarded a rating of zero stars.

  In September 2001, twelve NHS Trusts, including the University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust, were classed as 'zero stars' under the new performance ratings system. In line with national guidance on monitoring ongoing performance, as the Chief Executive had been in post for longer than 18 months, the Trust were given 3 months notice to improve the performance of the Trust to a satisfactory level.

  Deep Vein Thrombosis
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the link between women taking the contraceptive pill or on hormone replacement therapy and their likelihood of suffering a deep vein thrombosis; and what measures are being taken to advise and make aware these vulnerable groups of the dangers of DVT and how to lower the risk of suffering from it. [46830]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: A very small increase in the risk of developing deep vein thrombosis (DVT) for women who take oral contraceptives (OCs) or hormone replacement therapy (HRT) has been recognised for many years. Accordingly, OCs and HRT are contraindicated in women who have a personal or family history of DVT and who are therefore most at risk.

  In 1995 several new studies suggested that a slightly increased risk of DVT was associated with newer OCs (the so-called third generation pills that contain desogestrel or gestodene as progestogen) compared to older ones (so-called second generation pills that contain levonorgestrel as progestogen). This issue was considered by the Committee on Safety of Medicines (CSM) in 1995, 1996 and 2001 and by the Medicines Commission in 1998 as more data became available. They have advised that
  788W
  for every 100,000 women who use OCs for a year, 10–20 more cases of DVT may be expected to occur relative to healthy non-users. This increase in risk is less than the risk of DVT associated with pregnancy (an extra 55 cases of DVT for every 100,000 pregnancies).

  Warnings about the risk of DVT in women who take OCs have been in the Summary of Product Characteristics (SPCs) for health professionals and the patient information leaflet (PIL) for women for many years. These warnings were updated with respect to the increased risk of DVT in women who use third, as opposed to second, generation pills in early 1999 and were included in the BNF (British National Formulary). In 2001, product information for all combined oral contraceptives was further updated to inform women and their health professionals that their risk of DVT is greatest in the first year they ever use an OC. Comprehensive information about the risk of DVT with use of oral contraceptives was provided to health professionals and women in a Dear Doctor letter in 1995, in an article in the Medicine Control Agency's (MCA) safety bulletin "Current Problems in Pharmacovigilance" in 1999 and on the MCA's website in 2001.

  With respect to HRT, evidence suggesting an increased risk for DVT was considered by CSM in 1996. They advised that an additional 10–20 women may experience a DVT out of every 100,000 women who use HRT compared with healthy non-HRT users of a similar age. The SPCs and PILs for HRT products and the BNF were updated in line with this advice in 1998. Health professionals were informed of the risk of DVT in association with use of HRT in an article in "Current Problems in Pharmacovigilance" which contained a pull-out sheet with information specifically for women.

  In addition to targeted information, every pack of oral contraceptives and HRT contains a PIL for women. These clearly inform women that they should not use OCs or HRT if they have a personal or family history of DVT. They also inform women of their additional risk of DVT compared with non-users. PILs for the second and third generation OCs describe what DVT is and how it is caused, its potential severity and possible outcome. They also list the symptoms of DVT and advise women to stop taking their pills immediately and seek medical help in the event of their occurrence. In addition, they advise women to stop taking their pills prior to periods of prolonged immobilisation, especially surgery and to re-start only when fully re-mobilised. Any woman wishing to take OCs is encouraged to discuss the risks of DVT with her doctor and, provided she understands and accepts those risks, to jointly choose the treatment that is best suited to her in light of her individual medical history.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people in England have been diagnosed with deep vein thrombosis in(a) each of the last six years and (b) 2002 to the latest available date. [46743]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: The information shown in the table is the number of admissions to national health service hospitals in England where the patient's main diagnosis was Deep Vein Thrombosis.
  789W

  Year

  Finished consultant episode

  1995–96

  19,598

  1996–97

  20,736

  1997–98

  22,551

  1998–99

  24,871

  1999/2000

  25155

  2000/01

  24,903

  Notes:

  Admissions are defined as the first period of patient care under one consultant within one health care provider. Admissions do not represent the number of patients, as a person may have more than one admission within the year.

  Figures are only given for NHS hospital in-patient admissions; there are no figures available for patients diagnosed or treated elsewhere. The figures are the latest available.

  The figures for 1995–96 to 1999–2000 are grossed for both coverage and invalid/unknown clinical data, but the figure for 2000–01 have not yet been adjusted for shortfalls in data (i.e. it is ungrossed).

  Source:

  Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), Department of Health.

  The International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10) code used: 180.2.

  BCG Inoculation
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the level of BCG inoculation take-up is in each regional health authority. [47538]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: Information about the numbers of children receiving BCG vaccinations by regional office area is contained in table 8 of the statistical bulletin "NHS Immunisation Statistics, England: 2000–01". A copy of the bulletin is available in the Library and can also be found on the Department of Health Website www.doh.gov.uk/public/sb0121.htm.

  MRSA Superbug
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps his Department is taking to combat cases of the MRSA superbug. [47540]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: We require all acute Trusts to collect data on MRSA blood stream infections and the early results of this new surveillance system have recently been published. These data provide a baseline against which future performance and action can be measured.

  Initiatives that will contribute to controlling MRSA include:

  The Commission for Health Improvement's monitoring of compliance of the national infection control standard for acute Trusts during their routine clinical governance reviews.

  The development of workshops to help implement the guidelines on the prevention and control of hospital acquired infection published in January 2001.

  Work is also under way on a manual for the control of healthcare associated infections and a tool kit to assist Trusts in assessing their infection control staffing needs.
  790W
  Guidelines for community infection control are being developed as part of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence programme.

  A comprehensive study to describe the pattern of provision of infection control in the community is under way, plus a review of the role of CIC nurses. This review will clarify their skills, education and training requirements and identify best practice.

  Action plans for healthcare acquired infections and antimicrobial resistance that build on the above initiatives will be produced later this year.

  Food Standards Agency
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many sick bags were sent to food establishments by the Food Standards Agency as part of their promotional campaign. [47475]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) on 25 February 2002, Official Report, column 1026W.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health to which sort of food establishments the Food Standards Agency sent sick bags as part of their promotional campaign. [47476]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: Food hygiene material including sick bags were sent to restaurant and catering establishments registered on local authority premises databases. These included: restaurants, take-aways/cafés, stalls at public events, roadside eateries, recreational clubs, pubs, hotels, bed and breakfasts, catering outlets for special events and catering outlets supplying delicatessen and patisserie counters at retailers.

  Performance Targets
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent assessment he has made of whether the latest PSA target to promote independence by reducing nationally the per capita rate of growth in emergency admissions of people aged over 75 to an annual average of 2 per cent. up to 2002–03 will be met. [47287]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: The public service agreement target is for a reduction in the growth of the emergency admissions rate for people aged 75, comparing performance in 2003–04 with performance in 2000–01. However, we set a specific target, as part of the planning and priorities guidance, for 2001–02 of growth not exceeding 2 per cent.

  Quarter 3 estimates suggest the 2001–02 target will be met: predictions are suggesting a reduction in the per capita rate of 0.5 per cent.

  Psychiatry Beds
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many old-age in-patient psychiatry beds there have been in each of the past five years. [47832]
  791W
  Jacqui Smith
  Information on beds designated as "Mental illness——elderly" is given in the table.

  Average daily number of available beds in mental illness——elderly wards, England, 2000–01——1996–97

  Number

  2000–01

  13,151

  1999–2000

  13,385

  1998–99

  14,279

  1997–98

  14,791

  1996–97

  15,599

  Source:

  KH03——Bed availability and occupancy.

  The reduction in hospital beds for people with mental illness reflects the policy of re-providing long stay hospital accommodation with community based provision.

  Liquid Cytology Units
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many new liquid cytology units there have been since the publication of the NHS National Plan. [47012]

  Yvette Cooper
  Three new liquid based cytology (LBC) units have been installed in national health service trusts in England since the publication of the NHS Plan. The units are at Newcastle Royal Victoria Infirmary NHS Trust, Norfolk and Norwich Hospitals NHS Trust and North Bristol Hospitals NHS Trust.

  The installation of LBC units is part of a pilot set up in April 2001 to evaluate the effects, costs and practical implications of introducing LBC into the NHS cervical screening programme alongside human papilloma virus testing. The evaluation report is due in autumn 2002, and will inform an appraisal of LBC by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Subject to the outcome of the evaluation and appraisal, full roll-out will follow.

  Food Poisoning
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the cost has been of the Food Standards Agency promotional campaign against food poisoning. [47477]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: A budget of around £4 million was spent on all aspects of the agency's food hygiene campaign for the financial year 2001–02, including radio and television advertising. This included the extensive preparatory work needed to ensure that it was properly constructed and targeted, as well as the materials themselves.

  Magnetic Resonance Imaging Scans
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the waiting times were, broken down by regional health authority, for an MRI scan in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [48011]
  792W
  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: We do not collect waiting times for an MRI scan. The Government acknowledges the importance of diagnostic procedures, such as Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) and is encouraging hospitals to streamline their services so that tests are carried out, and a diagnosis made, as quickly as possible. The length of time that a patient may have to wait for any scan is dependent on their clinical condition. Emergency cases need to be seen immediately. Other cases will be carried out as quickly as possible, however this is dependent on the clinical priority of all the remaining patients waiting to be scanned. To increase the capacity of diagnostic services, funding has been made available for the provision of new and replacement scanners. By 2004, approximately 100 MRI scanners and 200 CT scanners will be provided through central purchasing programmes. In addition to this, workforce initiatives are underway that aim to improve recruitment and retention of staff.

  Relocation
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to relocate executive agencies and non-departmental public bodies under the remit of his Department to Scotland. [47981]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: None.

  Television Licences
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the(a) number and (b) total cost of television licences paid for by his Department. [48350]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: The Department has purchased eight TV licenses in the last year, at a total cost of £872, in respect of premises occupied by the Department itself.

  Flu Jabs
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people and what percentage of patients aged over 65 had the flu jab this winter. [47549]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: Final monitoring figures at the end of the influenza campaign showed that 5.1 million people aged 65 and over received the influenza vaccine this winter, which represents 68 per cent. of those in this age group.

  Nursing Homes
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many nursing homes were located(a) within five, (b) five to 10, (c) 10 to 15 and (d) more than 15 kilometres from settlements with under 3,000 people in (i) 1999, (ii) 2000 and (iii) 2001. [46506]

  Jacqui Smith
  The information requested is not held centrally.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Manchester.

State Pension Forecasts
Lord Woolmer of Leedsasked Her Majesty's Government:
When they intend to provide United Kingdom citizens with the facility to have an on-line calculation of their state pension forecasts.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): My Lords, we are undertaking a programme of work that is designed to improve the frequency and quality of personal information that is available to people about their levels of state and private pensions and their likely retirement income.
We are currently exploring the feasibility of making state pension forecasts available on-line, as my noble friend asked.
Lord Woolmer of Leeds: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Can she confirm that the general public will be able to obtain forecasts of their state pension on-line by 2004? Will those forecasts be available in real time, as opposed to the current target of a 40-day turnaround period in responding to inquiries? Do the Government have any plans to require the personal pension providers to provide forecasts on-line by 2004, so that individuals can compare meaningfully state and personal pension provisions in considering their future?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, my noble friend asked two questions: one about pension forecasting as such and the other about on-line access of forecasts. Perhaps I may deal with each of those points. In terms of the first—pension forecasting—we are currently rolling out combined pension forecasts of private and retirement pensions. There will be about 15 million statements a year going out by 2005–06. Of course individuals can always request their individual retirement pension forecast.
On the second point—access on-line—one can request the information on-line now. About 2 to 3 per cent of the population do so. But the response comes back by post, and therefore in the normal way as if one had posted the inquiry in. We are conducting a series of feasibility studies over the summer to analyse the cost benefits of on-line forecasting in real time, as my noble friend requested. Perhaps after the summer he might put in a Written Question and I shall tell him where we have got to on the matter.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, can the Minister explain how it is possible to have meaningful forecasts of the state pension, which is not an insurance scheme but hypothecated taxation which can be, and frequently is, changed, in terms of any of the benefits, at any time by any government who happen to be in office?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the noble Lord is right, which is why it is almost impossible for us to do forecasting of, say, the pension credit and anything that is a means-tested benefit. The pension statements state—and I have a couple of examples here because I was interested in just those same questions— the current entitlement and, should current assumptions still apply, what that benefit would therefore look like when the individual inquirer is 60 or 65.
Lord Addington: My Lords, there is a danger in moving to more on-line services. Does the Minister agree that the current situation of great under-claiming of benefits may well be accentuated by not having face-to-face contact? We will not be able to assume, for instance, that there are questions not being asked. The person will be dependent on knowing which buttons to click on the screen.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I do not think that my noble friend was suggesting that the only way to access this information would be on-line. At the moment, of 620,000 inquiries per year about retirement pension only 17,000 are on-line. Whether or not an inquirer goes on-line has nothing to do with age. But I should expect that, as now, most pensioners will seek that information by telephone of the new and improved pension service.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, is the problem one of security with having on-line information—the Government could note that the banks have addressed on-line banking without having too many security issues—or is it simply one of cost?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I understand that it is a question, first, of funding and, secondly, of the routing device of the government gateways. If the noble Lord wants further information—in other words about the technicalities of the matter—I should be very happy to write to him.
Baroness Greengross: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is absolutely essential that people get updated information about their entitlement over the next few years, especially women because of the change in their age of entitlement and also people who live abroad and who in many countries do not get their pensions uprated? There is a current court case because of that. On-line would be of particular value to them, so that they would be very well informed.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I agree absolutely. The more information people have about

675
their projected pension income, the more we can hope that—resources allowing—they will make greater investment in providing for old age.
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, could the Minister clarify whether there are any data protection implications to the proposed on-line service, particularly in the context of the marriage of an individual's public and private pensions data? I note that the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, Ian McCartney, has stated that data is,
"provided with [their] consent and that the data shared between the private/public sectors occurs in a controlled environment".
But should not there be a tick-box on the application form for individuals to give their explicit consent?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I shall look into the question or whether or not the forms should include the tick-box, but my understanding is that someone gets a combined pension forecast because they ask for it. Therefore, their consent, so to speak, is implied in that action.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, why cannot the articles come by e-mail instead of by post?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, that is one of the issues we are looking to develop. At the moment, we do not have the e-mail facility. People inquire by e-mail, by telephone and by post. Whatever way one does it, it takes just as long and the answer comes back by post. That is precisely why I am being nagged by my noble friend—quite correctly.

Hand-held Mobile Phones
2.41 p.m.
Lord Astor of Heverasked Her Majesty's Government:
When they will follow the example of numerous other countries in banning the use of hand-held mobile phones when driving.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, the Government are satisfied that current legislation provides the police with sufficient powers to enable them to prosecute irresponsible drivers. However, in accordance with our road safety strategy Tomorrow's roads—safer for everyone, we are keeping the need for the introduction of a specific offence under review.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Does he agree with RoSPA's research—I declare an interest as a former president—which indicates an increasing number of deaths and terrible injuries caused by drivers using hand-held phones while driving, despite all the safety advice and publicity campaigns? If he does, can he tell the House
676
why the Government objected to the Bill prohibiting drivers using hand-held phones, in the other place last Friday?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, the Government agree that using a hand-held mobile phone—or any form of mobile phone—in a car is potentially dangerous. Without going into detail, there is now fairly clear evidence of that from both the United Kingdom and elsewhere. The only difference between us is that the Government's position is that the police consider that they have adequate powers and we are intent on pursuing advertising and promotion to try to ensure that the public, many of whom recognise the danger, adjust their behaviour voluntarily.
However, we have undertaken to keep the question of creating a specific offence under review. If we are unable to persuade drivers that they should not use a mobile phone while driving, we accept that new legislation may have to be introduced.
Baroness Boothroyd: My Lords, will the Minister explain the position in relation to cyclists who use mobile phones? I have witnessed a horrendous incident in which a cyclist had one hand on the handlebars and the other hand holding a mobile phone, dicing with death around Hyde Park Corner. I confess to having taken the matter into my own hands by using my horn so loudly that the cyclist had no alternative but to drop the telephone. I am sure that the House would like to know the rules and regulations relating to cyclists, who cause great trouble and difficult circumstances by the use of mobile phones.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I commend the direct action of the noble Baroness, and am delighted to hear that the phone, rather than the cyclist, fell off. I share her desire that the House should know exactly what are the regulations under which cyclists are prohibited from using mobile phones. I am racking my brains to remember whether cyclists are covered by the Highway Code—actually, they must be. The advice in the Highway Code is that one must have proper control over one's vehicle; a bicycle is a vehicle; therefore, cyclists could presumably be prosecuted by the police for failure to have adequate control over their vehicle. If my conjecture is wrong, I shall write to the noble Baroness.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that "keeping a matter under review" is one of the least satisfying responses that any Member of the House ever receives? Does he further agree that to speak on a hand-held telephone at the same time as driving comes near to defining the offence of driving without due care and attention?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that that would be one of the least satisfactory responses that one could give if it were weasel words, not a genuine commitment. But the Government have made clear that next month there will be a further publicity campaign to promote the cessation of the use

677
of mobile phones while driving and two research studies are under way to try to narrow down the risks involved in so using mobile phones. The Government are genuine in what we have said: if we are not able within a reasonable period to persuade the public to shift their behaviour, we shall have no option but to legislate.
On the noble Lord's second question, which, if I remember it correctly, was about the use of hand-held phones being an especially pernicious and dangerous activity—
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: No, my Lords, it was about due care and attention.
Lord Filkin: Indeed, my Lords, I thank the noble Lord. Under powers given over those who do not have proper control of their vehicle, the police are already able to prosecute. For example, one police force mounted a campaign and imposed fixed penalties on two-thirds of those whom they had stopped having observed them holding a mobile phone while attempting to control a motor vehicle. So the police demonstrated that they could convict people in those circumstances without much difficulty.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I declare an interest as the current president of RoSPA, and am delighted to follow a distinguished former president. Is my noble friend aware that this October the Irish Republic will join more than 35 other countries in banning the use of mobile phones while driving, with a rigorous system of fines backed up by the threat of imprisonment and penalty points? Road safety campaigners are mystified why the Government do not accept the existing evidence, including the most recent evidence from the Transport Research Laboratory, that using a mobile phone is as dangerous as drinking and driving.
Is it not time that the Government thought again, bearing in mind that in February my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer wrote to me as follows:
"If drivers cannot be persuaded that they should not use mobile phones while driving, then we will consider the introduction of new legislation".
How long do we have to wait before it is quite clear that drivers will not change their habits?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, the short answer is yes and no: yes, I was aware of the Irish position. The recent Direct Line research produced a most interesting report. The Government thought that it was a valuable contribution to the debate. Evidence clearly measured the increase in reaction time demonstrated by drivers when using mobile phones—about half a second—and how serious that could be. That is quite clear, so there is no doubt about the risks involved.
Neither my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester nor RoSPA are in any doubt about what is the Government's position. In my earlier answer, I said clearly that the matter is under active review. If we do not have evidence that the public are shifting their
678
behaviour, we will legislate. I should have expected a degree of rejoicing about that statement, rather than intemperance in terms of the question.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the Minister said that the use of any form of mobile telephone in a car is potentially dangerous. Does he regard hands-free telephones—one sees people bellowing into their dashboard—as potentially dangerous, or does he regard that use of a mobile telephone in a car as acceptable?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, the Government's position—and the Highway Code—is explicit on the matter. Hands-free mobile phones are also dangerous. The evidence for that, in the UK and elsewhere, is clear. There is a popular misconception that because you are not holding the damned thing, you are, in some way, safer. In practice, it is the mental distraction that causes the problem, just as much as holding the phone in the hand.
I apologise to the House for using somewhat unparliamentary language. I shall leave it at that.
Lord Jacobs: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, given the fact that two drivers were observed driving buses down Oxford Street with one hand on the steering wheel and one hand holding a mobile phone, the present legislation is not adequate?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, the essential debate is not whether such action is dangerous or whether the public generally believe it to be dangerous—they do. The debate is about whether we can shift public behaviour without legislation. The Government's hope has been that enough publicity and enough common sense would remove the necessity for laws and regulations in all cases. However, if the practice were to persist in a way in which many noble Lords would feel is unsatisfactory and we were unable to shift the public's view, we would have to consider the matter further.
It is grossly irresponsible of public service vehicle drivers to behave in that way. They should know their responsibilities better than anybody else.

Terrorism: International Law Enforcement
2.52 p.m.
Lord Archer of Sandwellasked Her Majesty s Government:
Whether they have initiated discussions with a view to clarifying the limits of legitimate intervention in the territory of states harbouring terrorists.
The Minister for Trade (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, Article 51 of the United Nations Charter makes it clear that governments have a right to take action in self-defence. Military action against terrorists is very much a last resort, but the Government are prepared to take military action in self-defence, fully in accordance with international law, when necessary. In various multilateral fora, the Government have discussed the problems posed by terrorism. Those discussions addressed the problem of terrorists operating in areas in which a state either cannot establish law and order or knowingly harbours and protects terrorists.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that thoughtful response. Does she agree that there is a consensus that national sovereignty cannot provide a licence to commit mass murder? Does she also agree that international law enforcement is at a stage akin to the sheriff raising a posse of those whom he could persuade to join him? The problem is exacerbated because we do not have a sheriff; we have nation states—however well intentioned—who place themselves at the head of coalitions. Is there not an urgent need for an internationally recognised authority to bring to bear objective judgment and legitimise appropriate interventions? Can the Government work on that?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I agree that national sovereignty is never a licence to commit what my noble friend calls mass murder. However, he should consider the fact that Article 51 of the United Nations Charter is enormously important because it gives the right to take action in self-defence. That action must, of course, be proportionate and lawful.
My noble friend asks what else we can do to achieve international consensus. As your Lordships will know, there was discussion in the United Nations—particularly after the terrible events of 11th September—where we addressed issues such as the financing of and recruitment to terrorist organisations and how those activities could be stopped. In the Commonwealth, we have addressed legal and judicial issues, and, in the EU, we have considered plans of action to combat terrorism. Several fora are addressing those issues. Although we are only starting, we are making useful progress.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, does the Minister agree that objective judgments about the harbouring of terrorists are, sadly, difficult to achieve? When one examines the detail of UN resolutions—not only 51 but 56, 1368, 1373 and 1378—one sees that they just about justify all forms of self-defence, individual and collective, in hunting down terrorists. That leads us to conclude that the real problems do not lie in the legalities but in the practicalities. No nation can hunt out terrorists alone; the operation requires
680
the most intimate intelligence collaboration. Even a great nation such as the United States cannot do it alone.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I agree with almost every word the noble Lord said. His remarks reflect debates in your Lordships' House on this difficult issue on which many different points of view have been brought to bear. Objective international judgments as to what is a terrorist in the first place are, of course, enormously difficult to arrive at, as we have discussed. I have sat round tables in the past few months and have heard the Provisional IRA described as freedom fighters. Others around those tables made remarks that were equally difficult for people from other countries to defend.
The issue is how to get some sort of international consensus about what can be done practically. We are addressing that through the fora to which I referred. When an act of terrorism is perpetrated, there should be a proper international response.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, does the Minister agree that there is a safeguard in Article 51? A state that crosses an international frontier in the exercise of self-defence must notify the Security Council, and, if it is doing its job properly, the Security Council ought to debate such notifications. If a state crosses an international frontier without complying with that obligation, the Security Council should take note of that and censure the state concerned.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, that is entirely right. I remind the noble Lord that UK participation in, for example, the military action in Afghanistan accords with international law. The action was taken in self-defence, to prevent further terrorist attacks, and we did, indeed, notify the president of the Security Council.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, it is, perhaps, time to revisit Article 2 sub-paragraph 7 of the UN Charter, as we have gone a long way beyond the old idea of state sovereignty in this and many other matters. Will Her Majesty's Government introduce a broader debate within the UN about how far all states—including the most powerful—must accept that state sovereignty is no longer something to which they can cling in order to exclude external criticism and intervention in domestic matters?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the problem with the noble Lord's thesis is how we get some sort of consensus in the abstract on the issues. That is why we have supported the more pragmatic approach of the UN counter-terrorism committee, under the chairmanship of Sir Jeremy Greenstock. It seeks to respond to all member states by giving a critique of the domestic policies of those states. That is the practical approach. So far, over 50 letters have been sent, and Sir Jeremy's committee plays an invaluable role in driving forward the international implementation of UNSCR 1373. That is the sensible,

681
practical way forward, as opposed to trying to address issues on which we will not get consensus, particularly at such a time of heightened international tension.

Public Sector Jobs
2.58 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croyasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they foresee further significant reductions in the next five years in jobs in the public services through redundancies.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, public services are, self-evidently, a high priority for the Government. Generally, we expect staff numbers to increase over the next five years, in support of increasing levels of public service provision. Between 1997 and 2000, the number of public sector jobs increased by 140,000.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. Following the recent closing of post offices throughout the country, can he confirm that between 2,000 and 3,000 urban post offices are also to be closed in the next two years? Are the Government preparing the way for employees to find work elsewhere?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the closure of post offices has proceeded over a considerable number of years, not only under one administration. But I agree that it is a fact that Consignia has plans to close a large number of urban post offices. Clearly, the jobs of those who work in such post offices, whether they are themselves sub-postmasters or employees, is very much a concern of the management of Consignia, which has responsibility for these matters.
Lord McNally: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, over the past 20 years, the public service has been bedevilled by the constant belief by successive governments that services somehow can be provided more efficiently or of a higher quality in the private sector? Is it not time for the Government to declare their belief in the public service ethos and to provide the resources and training that will give us a public service and the public servants whom we can be proud of and who can be proud of their jobs?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it has been time to do that for the past five years and the Government have been doing it for the past five years. We have never subscribed to the view that the public sector is bad and the private sector is good. We have always taken the view that the quality of life in and, indeed, the economy of this country depend on an effective and flourishing public sector. In addition to that general recognition, we are very much taking the steps to which the noble Lord, Lord McNally, referred. We have been carrying out a cross-cutting review of the public sector labour market with the specific aim of ensuring that we strike a proper balance between supply and demand.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, the noble Lord gave the figure of 140,000 as the increase over the past five years. Does he anticipate that the future increase in public sector employment will be of the same order, smaller or larger than the figure he gave for the past five years?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the figure I gave was for three years rather than five years. Yes, we expect that there will be further increases. If we consider that the figure of 140,000 includes, for example, an additional 12,000 teachers, an additional 24,000 full-time equivalent support staff in our schools, an additional 20,000 nurses and midwives, and an additional 7,000 doctors, and then look at staffing levels in our health and education services— to take only two examples—it can be seen that there is scope for further increases.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether the considerable emphasis now being placed on public/private partnerships will involve the transfer of many people from public sector employment into the private sector? If so, will those workers' rights be protected?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Yes, my Lords, PPPs could well involve transfers from the public to the private sector. However, the original Question addressed the matter of redundancies in the public sector, which would not arise in the case of a transfer. I can confirm that the transfer of undertakings regulations do provide protection to those who are transferred.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, perhaps I may return to the original response given by the Minister to my noble friend with regard to post offices. The Minister knows that there is great concern among those who use post offices, not least among those who collect their benefits and pension payments from post offices. If such post offices are to be fewer in number, so that the cost of having to go and collect benefits and pensions rises, will any other provision be made to help people in those circumstances?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, other provisions are being made to help people in those circumstances, such as the extension of banking services and the plans for a universal bank, as well as facilities to have benefits payments paid directly into an account, including a universal bank account. These are very much designed to help people who find it difficult to get to a post office now, let alone after any reduction in the network.
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, are the difficulties of Consignia an example of the Government's commitment to what works in the context of public services?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the principle of what works was made evident in my reply to the

683
noble Lord, Lord McNally. We are not ideologically opposed to or supportive of either the public or the private sector. We believe that the public sector works in a large number of areas where the private sector clearly does not work. So far as concerns the Post Office and Consignia, clearly there are problems with Consignia and its economic viability which must be addressed by the Consignia management.
Baroness Sharpies: My Lords, the noble Lord referred to large numbers of new nurses and teachers. How do those figures compare with the number of people in fact leaving the teaching and nursing professions?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the figures I gave were net increases in the teaching and NHS workforces. They are not recruitment figures.

Copyright, etc. and Trade Marks (Offences and Enforcement) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.
Divorce (Religious Marriages) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill [H.L.]
3.5 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendments be now considered. (The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[The page and line refer to Bill 51 as first printed for the Commons.]
COMMONS AMENDMENTS

1 Clause 3, page 2, line 26, leave out paragraph (d)

2 Clause 6, page 3, line 29, leave out from "be" to end of line 30 and insert "altered by the Registrar under Schedule 4 to the Land Registration Act 2002 (alteration of register).

3 page 3, line 39, leave out "rectification" and insert "alteration"

4 page 4, line 6, leave out from first "of" to "(indemnity)" in line 7 and insert "Schedule 8 to the Land Registration Act 2002"

The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 1 to 4. For the convenience of the House, I should like to move Amendments Nos. 1 to 4 en bloc and speak also to Amendments Nos. 14 to 22. All 12 amendments are designed to bring the Bill into line with the Land Registration Act 2002 which, as noble Lords know, received Royal Assent on 26th February last.
Registration by the Land Registry is an essential part of the process of setting up a commonhold and the Bill makes certain provisions to allow that process to be carried through effectively. At the time of drafting, the operative legislation was the Land Registration Act 1925. By the time that this Bill comes to be implemented, the operative legislation will be the 2002 Act and so, as we signalled before the Bill left this House to go to the other place, we brought forward the necessary amendments there.
I turn to Amendment No. 1. Although an amendment was necessary to Clause 3(1)(d) to bring the Bill into line with the 2002 Act, Amendment No. 1 goes further than is required simply for that purpose. Clause 3(1)(d) provides that one of the consents required before land can be registered as commonhold is that of a person who is registered as a cautioner of the whole or part of the land. We signalled before the Bill left your Lordships' House that we would be tabling an amendment to remove mention of cautioners from the list of persons who must consent to registration of land as commonhold. Amendment No. 1 does this by removing from the Bill sub-paragraph (d) from subsection (1) of Clause 3.
There are two reasons for doing this. First, it would simplify the consent required on the face of the Bill because a class of interests would be removed from the blanket protection of the consent requirement and, so far as may be necessary, would be dealt with under Clause 3(1)(e).
Secondly, it will give room to manoeuvre to take the provisions of the new scheme in the Land Registration Act 2002 into consideration. The Land Registration Act makes changes to the scheme of protection of interests on the register which makes the reference to "a cautioner" in Clause 3(1)(d) of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill no longer effective or appropriate. Under the Land Registration Act 2002 it is still possible to enter cautions against first registration and transitional arrangements so that existing entries on the register are retained. However, it will no longer be possible to enter cautions against dealings on the register.
Instead, under the Land Registration Act, cautions against dealings will, for the most part, be replaced by "unilateral notices". Some types of interest that are presently protected by a caution in future will be protected by a restriction. Some interests may he able to be protected both by a notice and a restriction under the new regime: the notice to protect the priority of the interest and the restriction to ensure that certain procedural requirements of the interest are complied with.

685
The policy behind the inclusion of cautioners, as opposed to any other interest holder, in Clause 3(1)(d) was not based on a need for additional protection for cautioners, but rather on the fact that a caution is regarded as being a "hostile" entry on the register, and is subject to the warning-off procedure. Including a requirement for the consent of cautioners in Clause 3 effectively brought forward to the pre-application stage any dispute under the warning-off procedure that might otherwise delay the registration of the land. Bringing potential disputes to the fore at an early stage was felt to contribute to streamlining, which we considered sufficiently necessary so as to include it on the face of the Bill.
We want to continue with this policy of early discovery of potential disputes. We shall also need to consider whether provision for consent by holders of interests which were protected by entering a caution is necessary. Further consideration will need to be given as to whether, and if so what, consent provisions are required for beneficiaries of notices and restrictions as defined in the Land Registration Act 2002 who would not previously have been cautioners under the Land Registration Act 1925. Further work needs to be done on this area in conjunction with the implementation of the Land Registration Act 2002. Therefore, in order to deal with this range of interests, the Government would rely on the power as it stands in Clause 3(1)(e) to prescribe other classes of persons whose consent should be required.
As to Amendments Nos. 2 to 4, each amendment seeks to amend Clause 6 of the Bill, which deals with registration in error. Clause 6(2) refers to Section 82(1) of the Land Registration Act 1925, which deals with rectification. It does so in order to exclude the possibility of the register being rectified under Section 82(1) in the specific circumstance of errors in the process leading up to a commonhold registration and to create a specific procedure in respect of commonhold matters.
The Land Registration Act 2002 provides for a more limited scheme of rectification in Section 65 and Schedule 4 than was the case under Section 82(2) of the 1925 Act. However, although rectification is still possible under the new Act, the term "rectification" is more limited in scope in the new scheme than it had been in the 1925 Act. The process of "alteration" in the 2002 Act more nearly approximates to the 1925 Act's use of "rectification", and this amendment is simply necessary to correct the reference in Clause 6(2) so that it refers to "alteration" rather than to "rectification".
As to Amendment No. 3, in listing various courses of action which a court may take when making an order under Clause 6, the Bill, at Clause 6(6)(b), currently provides that the court may order the rectification of the register. For the reasons that I have already given, Amendment No. 3 seeks to substitute the word "alteration" for "rectification".
As to Amendment No. 4, Clause 6(6)(g) refers to Sections 83 and 84 of the Land Registration Act 1925, concerning provisions in respect of indemnity. This indemnity scheme is to be replaced by an amended
686
scheme contained in Section 102 of and Schedule 8 to the Land Registration Act 2002. As Clause 6(6)(g) confers a power to apply, disapply or modify, in a specific commonhold context, a provision of the indemnity scheme, the amendment simply seeks to correct the reference so that it refers to Schedule 8 to the Land Registration Act 2002.
Each of Amendments Nos. 14 to 19 seeks to amend Clause 63 of the Bill, which makes provisions in regard to registration procedure. Clause 63 empowers the Lord Chancellor to make rules about registration specifically in relation to commonhold land. In making provision about how these rules are to be made, what they may cover and how they are to have effect, Clause 63(2) relies on references to Section 144 of the Land Registration Act 1925. The appropriate reference is now to the "land registration rules" within the meaning of the Land Registration Act 2002, as Section 130(1) of the Land Registration Act defines "land registration rules" as any rules to be made under the 2002 Act. Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 simply reflect, in their respective places, the change brought about by Amendment No. 14.
Clause 63(3)(b) provides that commonhold registration rules may make provision for disapplying Section 64 of the Land Registration Act 1925 in certain circumstances, and Section 64 dealt with the production of certificates. It is not directly replaced on the face of the 2002 Act; rather paragraph 4 of Schedule 10 to the 2002 Act provides a power to make provision about the production of certificates. The disapplication of general rules for certain circumstances can be done under that power without the need for specific provision to that effect on the flee of the Bill as Section 128(1) of the Land Registration Act allows "different provision for different cases" to be made by land registration rules. Therefore, Clause 63(3)(b) is no longer necessary and Amendment No. 17 seeks to remove it.
Amendment No. 18 simply seeks to change the reference to the power to charge registration fees in the Bill from Section 145 of the 1925 Act to Section 102 of the 2002 Act. Clause 63(5) of the Bill requires a commonhold registration document to be accompanied by such fee as specified by order under Section 145 of the Land Registration Act 1925. Section 145 is replaced by Section 102 of the 2002 Act for all relevant purposes. Therefore Amendment No. 18 seeks to replace the reference to Section 145 of the 1925 Act with one to Section 102 of the 2002 Act.
As regards Amendment No. 19, Clause 63(6) of the Bill currently defines "commonhold registration document" and "general registration document", and does so for the latter by referring to a document sent to the registrar under a provision of the Land Registration Act 1925. Amendment No. 19 seeks to correct this to a reference to a document sent to the registrar under the Land Registration Act 2002.
Amendment No. 20 seeks simply to replace the definition of the term "register" in Clause 65 with the appropriate reference to the 2002 Act. Amendment No. 21 seeks to remove Clause 65(6). The clause

687
provides for an insertion in the 1925 Act after Section 126(4). That subsection made provision for the expenses of the registrar, principally salaries of staff, to be provided out of money given by Parliament. Clause 65(6) as it stands extends the scope of that provision so that expenses relating to commonhold registration functions can be similarly provided. Provision of the registrar's expenses out of money given by Parliament is no longer appropriate given the Land Registry's trading fund status and the Land Registration Act 2002 does not reproduce Section 126 or make provision in the same way. Land Registry expenses will be met in a different way and the provision to be inserted by subsection (6) is therefore no longer required.
As to Amendment No. 22, Clause 67(3) provides for any provision of the 1925 Act which defines an expression within that Act to apply to the use of that expression in Part 1 of the Bill unless the contrary intention appears. That reference to the 1925 Act should now to be to the Land Registration Act 2002 and Amendment No. 22 seeks to achieve this.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 1 to 4.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
3.15 p.m.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
5 Clause 20, page 10, line 4, leave out "other than a term of years absolute" and insert "of a prescribed kind"
6 Page 10, line 5, leave out "the whole or part of"
7 After Clause 20 insert the following new Clause—
"Part-unit: interests
(1) It shall not be possible to create an interest in part only of a commonhold unit.
(2) But subsection (1) shall not prevent—

(a) the creation of a term of years absolute in part only of a residential commonhold unit where the term satisfies prescribed conditions.

(b) the creation of a term of years absolute in part only of a non-residential commonhold unit, or

(c) the transfer of the freehold estate in part only of a commonhold unit where the commonhold association consents in writing to the transfer.

(3) An instrument or agreement shall be of no effect to the extent that it purports to create an interest in contravention of subsection (1).
(4) Subsection (5) applies where—

(a) land becomes commonhold land or is added to a commonhold unit, and

(b) immediately before that event there is an interest in the land which could not be created after that event by reason of subsection (1).

(5) The interest shall be extinguished by virtue of this subsection to the extent that it could not be created by reason of subsection (1).
(6) Section 17(2) and (4) shall apply (with any necessary modifications) in relation to subsection (2)(a) and (b) above.
(7) Where part only of a unit is held under a lease, regulations may modify the application of a provision which—

(a) is made by or by virtue of this Part, and

688

(b) applies to a unit-holder or a tenant or both.

(8) Section 20(4) shall apply in relation to subsection (2)(c) above.
(9) Where the freehold interest in part only of a commonhold unit is transferred, the part transferred—

(a) becomes a new commonhold unit by virtue of this subsection, or

(b) in a case where the request for consent under subsection (2)(c) states that this paragraph is to apply, becomes part of a commonhold unit specified in the request.

(10) Regulations may make provision, or may require a commonhold community statement to make provision, about—

(a) registration of units created by virtue of subsection (9);

(b) the adaptation of provision made by or by virtue of this Part or by or by virtue of a commonhold community statement to a case where units are created or modified by virtue of subsection (9)."

8 Insert the following new clause—
"Part-unit: charging
(1) It shall not be possible to create a charge over part only of an interest in a commonhold unit.
(2) An instrument or agreement shall be of no effect to the extent that it purports to create a charge in contravention of subsection (1).
(3) Subsection (4) applies where—

(a) land becomes commonhold land or is added to a commonhold unit, and

(b) immediately before that event there is a charge over the land which could not be created after that event by reason of subsection (1).

(4) The charge shall be extinguished by virtue of this subsection to the extent that it could not be created by reason of subsection (1)."
9 Clause 21, leave out Clause 21
10 Clause 31, page 15, line 3, after "20," insert "(Part-unit: interests),"
11 Clause 59, page 28, line 19, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
"(3) The requirement of consent under section (Part-unit: interests)(2)(c) shall not apply to transfer to a compulsory purchaser."
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 5 to 11 en bloc. Again, these are technical amendments.
Clause 20 of the Bill deals with the creation of interests and charges in commonhold units. Clause 20(3) provides that it is not possible to create an interest in a commonhold unit (other than a lease) unless the commonhold association is party to the creation of the interest or consents in writing.
The policy behind the restriction on the creation of interests in units was to prevent unit-holders creating easements and profits à prendre out of their units or any other interests which might cause nuisance or annoyance to other unit-holders, or otherwise cause problems for the commonhold association as a whole. For this reason, the Bill currently provides that the creation of interests in units has to be approved by the commonhold association. In this way, the assessment of what interests in units are likely to cause problems and should not be permitted to be created should be left to the commonhold association.

689
However, following the Committee stage of the Bill in another place, it was suggested to us by one of our consultees that we might inadvertently have excluded the possibility of a unit-holder creating an express trust of land without first gaining the consent of the commonhold association. It was not our intention to require the commonhold association to consent to such day-to-day innocuous and commonplace transactions as this and we now no longer believe that it is necessary to cast such a wide net on the face of the Bill to catch any potentially problematical interests.
The new amendment, if accepted, means that Clause 20(3) will read,
"It shall not be possible to create an interest of a prescribed kind in a commonhold unit unless the commonhold association is a party to the interest, or consents in writing to the creation of the interest".
Following consultation, regulations will then prescribe the interests to which the clause applies.
Amendment No. 6 removes reference to the creation of interests in part-units, consequential on the changes brought about by new Clause 21. The amended Clause 20(3) will relate only to the rules to be followed to create an interest in a whole commonhold unit. New Clause 21 will deal with interests in part-units. The creation of interests in part-units will be prohibited—except in the circumstances specified by new Clause 21(2)—by new Clause 21(1).
New Clause 21 is the pivotal amendment in a group of amendments dealing with the rules in the Bill which govern transactions involving part-units. Noble Lords will remember the history of these amendments, which follow through debates at earlier stages in this House.
The amendments have as their starting-point the policy that the transfer of part-units, which will inevitably involve change to boundaries, and possibly to the number of units, should be possible only as part of a comprehensive process involving the amendment, in parallel with the transfer, of the commonhold community statement, with an appropriate level of agreement from the commonhold association's members to the necessary amendment.
It has always been the intention that the practical effect of transfer of ownership of part of a unit should be possible by way of amendment of the commonhold community statement. This can be seen in Clauses 22 and 23, which require certain consents to be obtained where the size of a unit is changed. Amendment of the commonhold community statement in parallel with the transfer prevents the problems which would be caused by unilateral, unregulated dealings with part-units which would result in the pattern of ownership and boundaries of units changing without the necessary amendments to ensure that the rights and responsibilities of the unit-holders are enforceable with regard to the new position.
At Report stage in this House on 10th April 2001, we made amendments to Clauses 20 and 21 of the Bill. The amendments were intended first to ensure that the commonhold association did not have to consent to the creation of leases in units or part-units. This is in keeping with the unit-holder's freedom of disposition
690
as a freeholder. Secondly, we wanted to allow the creation of interests in part-units subject to regulations to be made under subsections (3) and (4) of Clause 22.
Following that amendment, as part of our ongoing process of consultation it fell to be considered whether, in amending Clauses 20 and 21 to enable the creation of interests in part-units, we might have opened up the possibility of the transfer of part-units with the consent of the commonhold association under Clause 20(3) but without ensuring the crucial concomitant amendment of the commonhold community statement. While this could be dealt with by regulations under Clause 21, we feel that it is preferable in this instance to ensure that the essential policy regarding the procedure to he followed to effect the transfer of part-units is more clearly reflected on the face of the Bill, with the finer technical detail reserved for regulations.
Under Clauses 20 and 21 as they stand, if a unit-holder purported to transfer part of a unit and an interest in the part-unit was created as a result of the transfer, as long as the unit-holder could secure the consent of the commonhold association (under subsections (3) and (4) of Clause 20) the transfer might be effective without modification of the commonhold community statement.
Of course, it would not be prudent for the commonhold association to agree to the transfer of part of a unit without making the necessary changes to the commonhold community statement. It certainly make the task of managing the commonhold a good deal more difficult. It would similarly be unwise for a unit-holder to transfer part of his unit to another without, for example, securing agreement to a corresponding change in the percentages of commonhold assessment fixed for the respective units. That does not mean to say that it would not happen and the amendments to Clause 20 and the insertion of new Clause 21 are designed to ensure that it does not by making it clear that transfer of part-units should be impossible except in the circumstances specified in Clause 21.
To this end, new Clause 21(1) provides that the creation of interests in part-units is not possible, and is bolstered by subsection (3), which provides that an attempt to create an interest in contravention of subsection (1) will have no effect. Paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (2) make the exception to subsection (1) for the creation of leases in part-units which, by virtue of subsection (6), is made subject to the regulations on residential leases to be created under Clause 17. Subsection (7) provides that regulations may modify the application of provisions Of the Bill relating to the unit-holder or tenant where part of the unit is held under a lease so that wrinkles in day-to-day operation can be ironed out.
As to transfers of part-units, subsections (2)(c) and (8) provide that transfer of the freehold estate in part of a commonhold unit is possible where the commonhold association consents in writing, but that the commonhold association will only be able to consent to the transfer following a resolution with 75 per cent of those members voting in favour, as is the case under Clause 20(4).

691
I propose to go on to deal with subsections (9) and (10), but perhaps I may ask the House whether there will be any disagreement on the amendments. I can deal with them one by one, but it may be that the House does not need to be so troubled. I see everyone nodding. Therefore, can I take it that there is agreement in relation to all the amendments? In that case, I shall not tire the House further.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 5 to 11 en bloc.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I have no reason to dispute the amendments which my noble friend has put forward very eloquently and in great detail. However, will she accept that we are going through passages of the Bill which were not properly drafted in this House and have been redrafted as a result of changes by the revising Chamber, in this case another place? Will she also accept that, under the Bill as presently drafted, commonhold will not work? Will she then answer a question about Clause 172? When do the Government propose that Part 1 of this legislation should commence?
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, legislation works best when this House and another place do their work diligently with energy and direction. That is what has happened with this Bill. We work best when we work together. The two Houses have demonstrated a high degree of acumen and dedication on the Bill.
I do not accept that the scheme of commonhold and leasehold will not work. We have spent a great deal of time making sure that it is technically as perfect as we can make it. The consultation process has ensured that practitioners and those who have to implement the Bill will take all those matters fully into consideration. When concluded, this will be one of the finest Bills to go through both Houses. All those on all sides in both Houses who have participated in the debates on the Bill should be proud of the innovations that we will have brought into being after a period of more than 77 years. There are many who rejoice in the Bill and I am not ashamed to say that I count myself among them.
Commencement, the last issue, is not less than 12 months after Royal Assent.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, as the Minister knows, I am keen on the idea of commonhold. I was delighted to meet someone who is redeveloping a derelict mews who seemed interested in the idea. However, he asked me how on earth an ordinary small developer such as him would know about it. Will a simple guide be available so that it is not a nightmare for people to assess how to implement the proposals?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I am pleased that there are people ready to celebrate. When I was in the Caribbean doing the Lord Chancellor's business, I
692
was amazed that a number of people approached me about the Bill and told me how anxious they were about the coming into force of the enfranchised leasehold provisions and the commonhold provisions. I join the noble Baroness in that regard.
Of course we shall take account of the need for guidance. The noble Baroness will know that the Legal Services Commission, through the Community Legal Service partnership, has issued a number of documents in relation to housing. Once the Bill is passed, this may be a proper subject for another such leaflet to let people know how the scheme is supposed to work in practice.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
12 After Clause 60, insert the following new clause—
"Advice
(1) The Lord Chancellor may give financial assistance to a person in relation to the provision by that person of general advice about an aspect of the law of commonhold land, so far as relating to residential matters.
(2) Financial assistance under this section may be given in such form and on such terms as the Lord Chancellor thinks appropriate.
(3) The terms may, in particular, require repayment in specified circumstances."
13 Clause 62, page 29, line 15, leave out from beginning to "by" in line 17
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 12 and 13.
Amendment No. 12 introduces a new clause to allow the Lord Chancellor to fund the provision of advice on commonhold. Amendment No. 75 removes paragraph 9 of Schedule 5. There are also consequential amendments. Amendment No. 13 replaces a joint regulation-making power in Clause 62 relating to compulsory purchase powers with a power for the Lord Chancellor to act alone. Amendment No. 23 adds an entry for residential commonhold units to Clause 68. If those amendments are uncontentious, I shall say no more.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 12 and 13.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, how much money has the Lord Chancellor set aside to help these people? Is the intention to help individuals or to help, for example, the RICS to pass on advice to its members?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I am not able to say precisely how much money is set aside. I shall write to the noble Earl on the two matters that he has raised, because I am not able to give him precise details at the moment, although I am sure that I would be able to give him an answer if I stayed on my feet long enough.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
14 Clause 63, page 29, line 32, leave out from "as" to end of line 34 and insert "land registration rules within the meaning of the Land Registration Act 2002,"
15 Page 29, line 36, leave out "rules under section 144" and insert "land registration rules"
16 Page 29, line 37, leave out "rules under section 144" and insert "land registration rules"
17 Page 30, line 2, leave out paragraph (b)
18 Page 30, line 24, leave out "145 of the Land Registration Act 1925 (c. 21)" and insert "102 of the Land Registration Act 2002"
19 Page 30, line 30, leave out "1925" and insert "2002"
20 Clause 65, page 30, line 45, leave out "1925" and insert "2002"
21 Page 31, line 12. leave out subsection (6)
22 Clause 67, page 31, line 30, leave out from "(c. 20)," to "defining" in line 31 and insert "the Companies Act 1985 or the Land Registration Act 2002"
23 Clause 68, page 32, line 23, at end insert—
"Residential commonhold unit Section 17"
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 14 to 23.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 14 to 23.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
24 Clause 78, page 38, line 41, leave out "one month" and insert "three months"
25 Clause 88, page 44, line 22, leave out "one month" and insert "1hree months"
26 Page 44, line 25, leave out "one month" and insert "three months"
27 Clause 91, page 47, line 9, leave out from first "date" to end of line 10
28 Clause 92, page 47, line 34, leave out from beginning to "must" in line 37 and insert "The duty imposed by this section"
29 Clause 96, page 49, line 8, at end insert "; but nothing in this section or section 97 applies in relation to an approval concerning only a part of the premises consisting of a flat or other unit not held under a lease by a qualifying tenant."
30 Page 49, line 37, at end insert "; and an approval required to be obtained by virtue of a restriction entered on the register of title kept by the Chief Land Registrar is, so far as relating to a long lease of the whole or any part of any premises, to be treated for the purposes of this Chapter as an approval under the lease."
31 Clause 100, page 51, line 18, after "leases" insert "(including enactments contained in this Act or any Act passed after this Act)"
32 Clause 109, page 55, line 6, at end insert "or"
33 Page 55, line 10, leave out from "rent)" to end of line 12
The Minister of State, Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 24 to 33.
694
The amendments deal with various aspects of the right to manage. Amendments Nos. 24 to 28 increase from one month to three months the period that elapses between a determination that the right-to-manage company is entitled to exercise the right to manage and the acquisition of that right. Noble Lords will no doubt recall the discussion about that in this Chamber. I gave an undertaking on Report that we would consult. The procedures as originally drafted would have allowed leaseholders to take over the management of their block without necessarily having all the supporting information and access to funds. Concerns have been expressed about that. After consulting interested parties and listening to their concerns, we have brought forward these amendments, the critical aspect of which is the extension from one month to three months.
The aim of Amendment No. 29 is to clarify the existing provisions relating to approvals once the right to manage has been exercised. Concerns have been expressed that under the current drafting it could he argued that the RTM company would have functicns relating to approvals in relation to commercial tenancies under Clauses 96 and 97. That has never been our intention. This technical amendment is intended to ensure that the right-to-manage company only has functions relating to approvals for premises held under a long residential lease by a qualifying tenant.
Amendment No. 30 is another technical amendment that will prevent an anomaly highlighted by the Land Registry in the approvals regime. Amendment No. 31 is a technical amendment that makes it clear that the power in Clause 100(2) applies to subsequent Acts of Parliament and to the provisions in the Bill. Amendments Nos. 32 and 33 are technical amendments that will remove an inconsistency in Clause 109, which, as noble Lords will all know, deals with notices in relation to the right to manage.
I have gone through the amendments after Amendment No. 28 quite cursorily, but I shall be happy to answer any questions.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 24 to 33.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I thank the Government for carrying out a consultation exercise, which has led to a slight change of heart. The noble and learned Lord will be aware that this part of the Bill is not as welcomed as the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, thinks the first part of the Bill is welcomed throughout the country. I am rather surprised that the noble and learned Lord has brought it forward. On 27th February, in a debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Best, the noble and learned Lord said:
"The lower the political risk in relation to the private rented sector, the more a landscape will be created for investment by both smaller landlords and institutional investors. The private rented sector is sensitive to changes in regulation".

695
He went on:
"the Government have no intention of changing the regulatory framework covering the private rented sector".—[Official Report, 27/2/02; cols. 1473–74.]
However, the Bill does that. The noble and learned Lord knows that most people in the rented sector are unhappy with the Bill. I received briefings yesterday from two sources, both of which said that there would be a need for further legislation. The Bill is rather contrary to what people outside think is going to happen.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the noble Earl has effectively again raised the issue of various aspects of the Bill about which there has been debate. I do not complain about that, but it is not quite germane to the specific detailed proposals which I am proposing in this group of Commons amendments. I do not believe that there is any inconsistency between what I said in that debate on the private rented sector and this Bill—which is effectively and primarily all about long leasehold arrangements. I believe it was clear to everyone in that debate that the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill was being considered by Parliament and that we were talking about what people would understand as the shorter-term rental sector. That is what that debate was about.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
34 Clause 114, page 58, line 17, at end insert—
"(2)In section 69(1)(b) of the 1993 Act (estate management schemes), for "by virtue of the amendments of that Chapter made by paragraph 3 of Schedule 9 to the Housing Act 1996 (c. 52)" substitute "in circumstances in which, but for section 114(1) of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 and the repeal by that Act of paragraph 3 of Schedule 9 to the Housing Act 1996 (c. 52), they would have been entitled to acquire it by virtue of the amendments of that Chapter made by that paragraph"."
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 34. With your Lordships' leave, I shall also speak to Amendment No. 60.
Noble Lords will no doubt recall that during previous debates on this Bill, primarily in response to issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, I gave an undertaking that the Government would bring forward an amendment on estate management schemes if possible. That is what we have done in this group of amendments.
Since estate management schemes were first permitted under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967, Parliament has legislated to provide protection for tenants in respect of service charge payments. As noble Lords are aware, leaseholders who pay service charges have rights and safeguards to protect them against unreasonable charges. This Bill will improve and extend those rights and introduce similar rights in respect of administration charges made under a lease. Currently there are no such rights in respect of charges made under estate management schemes. At present, anyone who enfranchises and is subject to a scheme
696
will lose the protection against unreasonable charges that they had under their lease. That seemed to us to be an anomaly.
We have brought forward Amendment No. 60 in order to remedy that anomaly. It will provide that charges under estate management schemes should be payable only to the extent that they are reasonable and that the LVT has the power to determine the extent to which such charges are reasonable. They will also be able to determine whether a person subject to an estate management scheme is liable for such a charge.
Amendment No. 34 is intended to ensure that it continues to be possible to request consent for the making of an application for the approval of an estate management scheme in connection with acquisitions under Chapter 1 of Part 1 of the 1993 Act. It has come to our attention that once Clause 114 of the Bill comes into force, we would be removing an existing right to make an application for an estate management scheme under section 69 of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993. That is not our intention, and the amendment will preserve that existing right. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 34.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank the Minister for the amendment, which I think is a very good one to include in the Bill. It has been a very contentious issue, but he has been very supportive in helping to resolve it.
Rather than hopping up as we reach each group of amendments, I should like to ask the Minister a couple of questions on later amendments now. We have discussed whether the Government have accidentally created a situation whereby head lessees are able to benefit greatly from the Bill to the disadvantage of leaseholders. There was great discussion on the issue when it was raised by, I think, the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. I am not sure whether any of the amendments address that issue.
I also thank the Minister for Amendment No. 40, which is in the next group. It seems to be the amendment—if I have read it correctly—that will ensure that those who are in an estate management scheme are so informed prior to purchasing their freehold. However, I may have misunderstood him on that point and the issue may be addressed in another amendment. Nevertheless, I am most grateful that the estate management issues have been fully considered.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I believe that the head lessee point is dealt with in Commons Amendment No. 44, to which I shall return. However, the summary which I have of Commons Amendment No. 40 states that it is,
"a consequential amendment which changes the time at which the right-to-enfranchise company must notify the landlord of any side deal with persons other than participating members".

697
So Amendment No. 40 does not seem to address that specific issue.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
3.45 p.m.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
35 Clause 119, page 60, line 21, after "notice" insert "to the company"
36 Page 60, line 28, leave out from "if" to end of line 30 and insert "he has given a participation notice to the company within the period beginning with the date of the assignment and ending 28 days later (or, if earlier, on the execution of a relevant conveyance to the company)."
37 Page 60, line 32, leave out from "if" to end of line 33 and insert "they have given a participation notice to the company at any time (before the execution of a relevant conveyance to the company)."
38 Page 60, line 34, leave out second "a" and insert "the"
39 Page 60, line 36, at end insert—
"(7A) For the purposes of this section a participation notice given to the company during the period—

(a) beginning with the date when the company gives a notice under section 13, and

(b) ending immediately before a binding contract is entered into in pursuance of the notice under section 13, is of no effect unless a copy of the participation notice has been given during that period to the person who (in accordance with section 9) is the reversioner in respect of the premises."

40 Clause 123, page 63, line 4, at end insert—"
"(2)In section 18(1) of the 1993 Act (duty to disclose existence of agreements affecting premises etc.), for "valuation date for the purposes of Schedule C, substitute "time when a binding contract is entered into in pursuance of the initial notice"."
41 Clause 125, page 63, line 14, leave out from first "of" to end of line 16 and insert "the lease held by any of those participating members exceeds eighty years, any increase in the value of the freehold or any intermediate leasehold interest in the specified premises which is attributable to his potential ability to have a new lease granted to him as mentioned in sub-paragraph (2)(a) is to be ignored."
42 Clause 128, page 63, line 31, leave out "1" and insert "2"
43 Clause 129, page 64, line 14, leave out "one year" and insert "two years"
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 35 to 43. With the leave of the House, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 49 and 76.
Amendments Nos. 35 to 40 and Amendment No. 76 are all consequential to the change to the valuation date for flats, as provided for in Clause 123 of the Bill. As noble Lords may recall from previous debates, under existing law, the valuation date for flats is the date on which the terms of acquisition are agreed or determined. The Bill would provide that, instead, the valuation date should be the date on which the right-to-enfranchise company serves its initial notice on the landlord. We have subsequently realised that this could have some unintended consequences, and these amendments are designed to rectify them.
First, under the proposals currently in the Bill, it could be argued that where the price to be paid for the freehold includes marriage value, it should be
698
calculated by reference to the number of participants at the time when the initial notice was served. That is plainly not what we had intended. Amendment No. 76 makes it clear that, although the property should be valued as at the date of the initial notice, the price to be paid will be based on the number of participants at the point when the landlord and the RTE company actually exchange contracts.
We of course also have to ensure that the landlord knows how many participants there are at that stage. When the initial notice is served, the landlord will be told how many leaseholders are participating at that point. Amendment No. 39 will ensure that the landlord is sent a copy of any participation notices given to the RTE company after that point. Amendments Nos. 35 to 38 are consequential. Amendments Nos. 36 and 37 specify the time by which assignees and personal representatives have to give notice to participate.
Secondly, existing law provides that the landlord must be notified of any agreements between the nominee purchaser and non-participating leaseholders which provide for the disposal of a relevant interest in relation to the enfranchisement. Amendment No. 40 would require the RTE company to notify the landlord of any such agreements entered into at any time before the exchange of contracts. I believe that that has nothing to do with estate management contracts.
On Amendment No. 41, as noble Lords will be aware, the Bill generally provides for rnarriage value to be disregarded in cases where the unexpired term of a lease exceeds 80 years. Our policy aim is to prevent potentially expensive debate over sums which would be, in any event, de minimis. However, in the case of collective enfranchisement, the Bill provides that marriage value should be disregarded only if the unexpired terms of all the leases of flats held by participating members of the RTE company exceed 80 years.
On reflection, we do not consider that this approach meets our policy objectives. We have derided, therefore, to provide that marriage value should be disregarded on any individual lease with more than 80 years left until its expiry. That is consistent with the approach taken for the individual rights of lease renewal and house enfranchisement, and would be a better way to meet our policy objective.
Amendment No. 42 corrects a purely technical error in the Bill, correcting an incorrect reference to Chapter 1 of the 1993 Act, which should instead refer to Chapter 2. Amendments Nos. 43 and 49 extend the period in which personal representatives could exercise their rights.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 35 to 43.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
44 Clause 135, page 65, line 20, at end insert—
"(IZB) Where a flat forming part of a house is let to a person who is a qualifying tenant of the flat for the purposes of Chapter

699
1 or 2 of Part 1 of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 (c. 28), a tenant of the house does not have any right under this Part of this Act unless, at the relevant time, he has been occupying the house, or any part of it, as his only or main residence (whether or not he has been using it for other purposes)—

(a) for the last two years; or

(b) for periods amounting to two years in the last ten years."

45 Clause 137, page 66, line 19, leave out "(IZA)" and insert "(IZB)"
46 Page 66, line 21, leave out "(IZB)" and insert "(IZC)"
47 Page 66, line 44, leave out "(IZC)" and insert "(IZD)"
48 Page 66, line 47, leave out "(IZB)" and insert "(IZC)"
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 44 to 48.
Amendment No. 44 is intended to address concerns about the enfranchisement of head leases which were raised in this House when we previously discussed this issue. Noble Lords will no doubt recall that the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, tabled an amendment on Third Reading to try to address the issue of enfranchisement of head leases. At that time, my noble friend Lord McIntosh undertook to consider the matter further and to introduce an amendment if appropriate. I am pleased to say that this amendment will, we hope, deal with the noble Earl's concerns.
Where there is a head lease of a building which can be regarded as a house, and parts of the building have been sublet on long leases, changes to the Bill would enable a non-resident head lessee, with possibly only a nominal interest in the building, to enfranchise the whole building under the 1967 Act. Such a head lessee would stand to make a windfall profit at the expense of the landlord if under-lessees subsequently collectively enfranchised or acquired new leases under the 1993 Act.
The amendment provides that when part of a house is sublet to a person who is a qualifying tenant for the purposes of the 1993 Act, the house cannot be enfranchised under the 1967 Act unless the head lessee has occupied the house, or any part of it, for the past two years or for periods totalling two years in the past 10. That will prevent any opportunity for non-resident head lessees to enfranchise and make windfall gains from subsequent enfranchisement or lease renewal under the 1993 Act. It will retain the existing right for resident head lessees to enfranchise in these circumstances. Amendments Nos. 45 to 48 make consequential changes.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 44 to 48.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for the amendment. It is certainly an improvement. Probably the best way of dealing with the matter was to go back to the residency test. I can assure the Minister that a number of
700
overseas companies were rubbing their hands with glee at the thought of getting hold of some useful profit, but they are no longer doing so.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I wonder whether I was confused because of the use of the word "house". I had thought when the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, raised the matter previously that we were concerned not only with individual houses, but with properties in general. I am concerned that the provision might apply to the head lessee of a major block of flats. Will the Minister assure me that that could not happen and that the head lessee of a block of flats would not have an automatic right to a long lease, an extension or the right to enfranchise? Is there no risk whatever of that and is that why the clause is restricted to a house only?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, my recollection is that the problem was raised by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, in the context of a house. I shall write to the noble Baroness about that, or perhaps I shall be able to answer her question during the debate. I cannot answer it immediately in the categorical terms that the noble Baroness seeks.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank the Minister. If I am right and there is a risk of a similar situation arising in a block of flats, what will happen after we have debated the Bill today? Is it too late to do anything about that?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, in this Bill the answer is almost certainly yes, but I should prefer to answer the question posed by the noble Baroness before we get into that difficulty.On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
49 Clause 139, page 67, line 33, leave out "one year" and insert "two years"
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 49.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 49.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
50 After Clause 141, insert the following new clause—
"PREMISES INCLUDING RAILWAY TRACK
In section 4 of the 1993 Act (premises in the case of which right does not apply) insert at the end—
"(5) This Chapter does not apply to premises falling within section 3(1) if the freehold of the premises includes track of an operational railway; and for the purposes of this subsection—

(a) "track" includes any land or other property comprising the permanent way of a railway (whether or not it is also used for other purposes) and includes any bridge, tunnel, culvert, retaining wall or other structure used for the support of, or otherwise in connection with, track,

701

(b) "operational" means not disused, and

(c) "railway" has the same meaning as in any provision of Part 1 of the Railways Act 1993 (c. 43) for the purposes of which that term is stated to have its wider meaning.""

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 50.
Before discussing the amendment, I have news for the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, and it is probably better if I deal with it now. The note that I have states that a head lessee cannot enfranchise under the 1993 Act, so the problem does not arise in respect of flats. It only refers to houses. I hope that that gives the noble Baroness the assurance that she seeks.
Turning to Amendment No. 50, we should like to make a minor amendment to it, which appears on the revised Marshalled List as Amendment No. 50B. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, has tabled Amendment No. 50A, which proposes that we disagree with the Commons amendment, so I shall deal with that in my speech.
Amendment No. 50 is the result of representations made rather late in the day on behalf of Railtrack plc and London Underground Limited. They discovered a flaw in the existing provisions of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993. Under that Act it would be possible for leaseholders living in a block of flats which was built over a railway bridge or tunnel who wished to buy their freehold to acquire, under certain circumstances, the freehold of the actual track of the operational railway. Moreover, while landlords have the right to take out 999-year leases on the commercial parts of a building when leaseholders buy their freehold, there is reason to doubt whether the right of lease-back would apply to land over which a railway runs, given that such land does not form part of the block itself.
Clearly, we need to amend the existing legislation. I think that all present would agree with the basic premise. We do not want people to start running railways as part of what they can do under this Bill or the 1993 Act. However, I know that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, would have preferred us to find a more sophisticated solution to the problem than that provided by a simple exemption, which is what the Commons amendment proposes in effect.
When the shortcomings of the 1993 Act were first brought to our attention we considered whether we could adequately deal with them by amending the existing commercial lease-back provisions. However, that would have created its own problems. For example, railway bridges and rafts built over railway tracks have a limited life span and many of them will require replacement or refurbishment in the not too distant future. We understand that London Underground Limited and Railtrack are always careful to ensure that any leases that they grant on property built above bridges and rafts will expire before those bridges and rafts require replacement.
If leaseholders subsequently extend their leases, Section 61 of the 1993 Act provides a process that can be used to terminate the lease at the time when it would
702
have originally expired if it is necessary for redevelopment purposes. That would not be possible where leaseholders had enfranchised. Moreover, enfranchisement would ordinarily transfer responsibility for the maintenance of such a bridge or raft to the leaseholders. I do not need to spell out our reasons for considering that that would be undesirable. We should also have to define precisely what the freeholder would and would not have the right to lease back, which would not he straightforward.
In view of those complications and in view of the relatively short time available to us to draft and table an amendment, we decided that it would be better to opt for a relatively straightforward exemption instead. As I said, however, it is not our intention to exempt property from the right to enfranchise merely because it happens to be built over a deep-bored tunnel.
The amendment limits the exemption to premises where
"the freehold of the premises includes track of an operational railway".
The exemption does not apply merely because a block has been built over the railway. Where tunnels have been deep bored we would expect London Underground or any other railway infrastructure operator to have only acquired rights to the subsoil through which that tunnel ran. As a result we would expect those rights to be quite independent from ownership of the freehold of the surface of the land above the tunnel. Therefore, the freehold of a block of flats built over such a tunnel would not include the track of an operational railway.
This is quite different from the situation which typically arises when property has been built on top of a bridge or over a tunnel built on a cut and cover basis. Here the railway will typically own the freehold of the land and will have leased the premises built over the operational railway to a third party, or directly to the leaseholders concerned. Therefore, an enfranchising group would become the owner of that part of the operational railway that fell beneath the block of flats as a result of the group's purchase of the freehold, which would clearly be undesirable.
Amendment No. 50 is necessary to provide a solution to the deficiencies of the 1993 Act. It may be possible to devise a more sophisticated solution, given more time to do so, and I would not rule out the possibility of making a further amendment to the 1993 Act at a later date, although noble Lords will appreciate that I am not in a position to make any promises about that now. However, I am sure that your Lordships will agree that the defect in the 1993 Act merits immediate action. We cannot allow leaseholders to compulsorily purchase parts of an operational railway.
Amendment No. 50B is a technical amendment. Amendment No. 50, as printed, would insert the new clause after Clause 141 of the Bill. That is an error; the new clause should he inserted after Clause 113. Amendment No. 50B would correct that error. I commend it to the House.
4 p.m.
50A Lord Goodhartrose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do agree with the Commons in their amendment, leave out "agree" and insert "disagree".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 50 was introduced into the House of Commons on Report and has nothing in common with any of the other Commons amendments. I read that Report stage in Hansard and it is plain that it did not receive proper scrutiny in that place. Most of the debate was taken up by a speech by the Conservative Shadow Attorney-General who spoke for some four-and-a-half columns of Hansard and whose speech, frankly, appears to have been as irrelevant as it was long-winded.
I wrote to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, before the Easter Recess. On 28th March I received a card saying that my letter was receiving attention. On 3rd April I received a further card saying that it was receiving attention and on 4th April I received three cards saying that it was receiving further attention. So it is quite clear that the noble and learned Lord's department has given my letter a good deal of attention.
There has been no opportunity for discussion of this amendment, but I was grateful for advance sight of the speaking notes prepared for the Minister. I see that serious problems arise. The first problem I raised was the fact that this amendment had been put in the wrong chapter of Part 2 of the Bill. That has now been dealt with and I am happy that Amendment No. 50B now appears in its right place.
However, I also had problems with the substance of the amendment, though what the noble and learned Lord said has given me some comfort in that regard. The effect of the amendment is to exclude what might be described as "railway property" from the right of collective enfranchisement. That does not simply apply to rights of collective enfranchisement which arise under this Bill. The effect of this amendment will be to remove existing rights of collective enfranchisement under the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993, though as far as I am aware no attempt has been made up until now to exercise any of those rights. However, the fact that we are taking away existing rights means that this requires further scrutiny.
The amendment removes the right of collective enfranchisement where "the premises" includes the track of the railway. In general "premises" includes not only a building, but the land beneath the building if it is in the same freehold ownership of the building itself as would normally be the case. "Track", of course, in this case expressly includes tunnels.
I am concerned with the situation in London. As the noble and learned Lord said, there are two types of tunnel; one is cut and cover and the other deep bored. I happen to live near Baker Street station. I say immediately that I do not have any personal interest to declare on this matter; my flat is not enfranchisable anyway. But Baker Street station is provided with both kinds of tunnel and there are certainly two or three
704
large blocks of flats which are above the station or the station approaches and which will therefore be affected by this amendment.
I can see the problems with the cut and cover lines, where the lessees will not want to be saddled with the ownership of the railway track and tunnel, and the track authority will of course need access for maintenance and reconstruction. But it is unfair that a group of leaseholders should be excluded from the right of collective enfranchisement unless it is absolutely necessary. Given time, it should not be impossible to come up with a solution which would give leaseholders the right to collective enfranchisement subject to some restrictions, and would give track authorities access to the track and tunnels which they need. No problems in fact seem to have arisen since 1993 and I cannot imagine that any leaseholder would want to enfranchise if they would be saddled with the track ownership, so Amendment No. 50 is unnecessary.
Deep bored tunnels are another matter. There is no interaction between the block and the surface and the tunnel beneath in general. In London there are many blocks which must have been erected above deep-bored tunnels where the leaseholders do not know, or normally care, whether or not they are above a tunnel except perhaps from hearing the occasional rumble coming from far down below.
As I say, "premises" would normally include the ground under the building if it is in the same ownership. But if the railway authority owns the freehold of the tunnel as distinct from the ownership of the land above and around the tunnel, then the tunnel is not part of the premises and there would be no problem with collective enfranchisement. I agree with the Minister that that is likely to be so in the case of many blocks. Indeed, I noted that under the Transport and Works (Model Clauses for Railways and Tramways) Order 1992, a railway authority in fact is only allowed to acquire the subsoil if the works are to be carried out at a depth of more than nine metres below the surface. But of course model clauses may not always apply; the rules may have been different in past times; and there may be problems in some cases.
Have the Government any idea how many blocks of flats are in fact affected by this amendment? How many are above cut and cover tunnels and how many above deep bored tunnels? Has any consultation been carried out with leaseholders in blocks that might be affected? It is unfortunate that this significant amendment was introduced at short notice without proper investigation of the facts or consultation with the people affected. I beg to move.
Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do agree with the Commons in their amendment, leave out "agree" and insert "disagree".—(Lord Goodhart.)
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, can the noble and learned Lord say whether there is any problem in regard to roads? If there is a cut and cover tunnel under a road—I was thinking of Hatfield where they have

705
certainly built on cut and cover tunnels—will problems arise? My mind then turned to developments over canals which may be affected. Is this just the opening of a Pandora's Box which needs more attention, as the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, first, dealing with the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Good hart. We are grateful to him for his support for Amendment No. 50B. It was his letter that drew attention to the wrong placing in the Bill.
Subject to one matter, I do not believe that our legal or factual analysis differs. That one point of disagreement is that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said that the problem that impliedly exists in the 1993 Act —that rightly identifies where the problem lies—has not yet caused any difficulty. Therefore he says that there is no need to make this amendment. The obverse of that is that by making this amendment we will avoid the right to enfranchised or managed companies getting control of the operational railway. The noble Lord acknowledges that that is the real problem. I t has not yet arisen as a difficulty and therefore making it clear that that will not be allowed to happen equally will not cause any difficulty.
We are both on slightly uncharted territory because any conclusion can be drawn, in the face of the fact that the problem has not yet caused any difficulty, as to what is the right course. I am sure everybody in the House will agree that we need to have a situation where leaseholders do not end up having control over the operational railway; any other course is not sensible. This is the most effective way of dealing with it.
The noble Lord, Lord, Lord Goodhart, did not put forward any other alternative way of dealing with the issue. We believe that we have taken the right course. As regards the questions from the noble Earl, having given the opportunity, we have received no representations from either road or canal bodies that a problem is caused to them whereas we have received representations, which we have considered, in relation to Railtrack and London Underground. We have investigated them. I cannot give answers to the questions about how many blocks of flats are on top of cut and cover tunnels and how many are on top of deep-bore tunnels. But as the noble Lord said, we can see that there are some above cut and cover tunnels, but I am unable to say what is the scale of the problem. We believe that we have taken the right and sensible course, but we shall obviously keep the matter under review.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for what he said. I take some comfort from what was not an undertaking on his part, but he said that his department would consider whether it might look at this matter again with a view to introducing legislation next time we have another leasehold Bill to enable leaseholders in railway flats, if I may call them that, to have the right of enfranchisement or something equivalent to it. Having said that, this is obviously not a matter on which I would wish to divide the House. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
706
Amendment No. 50A, as an amendment to the Motion, by leave withdrawn.
50B Lord Falconer of Thorotonrose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do agree with the Commons in their amendment, at the end insert "and do propose the following consequential amendment to the Bill—
Transpose new Clause (Premises including railway track) from after Clause 141 to after Clause 113."
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment earlier.
Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do agree with the Commons in their amendment, at the end insert "and do propose the following consequential amendment to the Bill—
Transpose new Clause (Premises including railway track) from after Clause 141 to after Clause 113.".—(Lord Falconer of Thornton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
51 After Clause 147, insert the following new Clause—
"Consultation about service charges
For section 20 of the 1985 Act (limitation of service charges: estimates and consultation) substitute—
"20 Limitation of service charges: consultation requirements
(1) Where this section applies to any qualifying works or qualifying long term agreement, the relevant contributions of tenants are limited in accordance with subsection (6) or (7) (or both) unless the consultation requirements have been either—

(a) complied with in relation to the works or agreement, or

(b) dispensed with in relation to the works or agreement by (or on appeal from) a leasehold valuation tribunal.

(2) In this section "relevant contribution'", in relation to a tenant and any works or agreement, is the amount which he may be required under the terms of his lease to contribute (by the payment of service charges) to relevant costs incurred on carrying out the works or under the agreement.
(3) This section applies to qualifying works if relevant costs incurred on carrying out the works exceed an appropriate amount.
(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide that this section applies to a qualifying long term agreement-

(a) if relevant costs incurred under the agreement exceed an appropriate amount, or

(b) if relevant costs incurred under the agreement during a period prescribed by the regulations exceed an appropriate amount.

(5) An appropriate amount is an amount set by regulations made by the Secretary of State; and the regulations may make provision for either or both of the following to be an appropriate amount—

(a) an amount prescribed by, or determined in accordance with, the regulations, and

(b) an amount which results in the relevant contribution of any one or more tenants being an amount prescribed by, or determined in accordance with, the regulations.

(6) Where an appropriate amount is set by virtue of paragraph
(a) of subsection (5), the amount of the relevant costs incurred on carrying out the works or under the agreement which may be taken into account in determining the relevant contributions of tenants is limited to the appropriate amount.
(7) Where an appropriate amount is set by virtue of paragraph (b) of that subsection, the amount of the relevant contribution of the tenant, or each of the tenants, whose relevant contribution

707
would otherwise exceed the amount prescribed by, or determined in accordance with, the regulations is limited to the amount so prescribed or determined.
20ZA Consultation requirements: supplementary
(1) Where an application is made to a leasehold valuation tribunal for a determination to dispense with all or any of the consultation requirements in relation to any qualifying works or qualifying long term agreement, the tribunal may make the determination if satisfied that it is reasonable to dispense with the requirements.
(2) In section 20 and this section—
"qualifying works" means works on a building or any other premises, and
"qualifying long term agreement" means (subject to subsection (3)) an agreement entered into, by or on behalf of the landlord or a superior landlord, for a term of more than twelve months.
(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide that an agreement is not a qualifying long term agreement—

(a) if it is an agreement of a description prescribed by the regulations, or

(b) in any circumstances so prescribed.

(4) In section 20 and this section the consultation requirements" means requirements prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State.
(5) Regulations under subsection (4) may in particular include provision requiring the landlord—

(a) to provide details of proposed works or agreements to tenants or the recognised tenants' association representing them,

(b) to obtain estimates for proposed works or agreements,

(c) to invite tenants or the recognised tenants' association to propose the names of persons from whom the landlord should try to obtain other estimates,

(d) to have regard to observations made by tenants or the recognised tenants' association in relation to proposed works or agreements and, estimates, and

(e) to give reasons in prescribed circumstances for carrying out works or entering into agreements.

(6) Regulations under section 20 or this section—

(a) may make provision generally or only in relation to specific cases, and

(b) may make different provision for different purposes.

(7) Regulations under section 20 or this section shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."
52 Clause 148, leave out Clause 148.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 51 and 52.
The new clause created by Amendment No. 51 replaces, with modifications, the existing Clause 148 of the Bill which inserts a new Section 20 into the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. Although the revised clause looks complex, the changes made to the existing clause are relatively straightforward.
As regards long-term contracts, the existing clause introduces a new requirement of landlords to consult leaseholders before entering into any contract for the provision of works or services lasting for more than 12 months. Consultation would be required before entering into such a long-term contract regardless of
708
its value. Furthermore, where the consultation requirements are not complied with, the landlord would be prevented from recovering any costs under that contract from the leaseholders.
Respondents to the discussion paper were firmly of the view that we should set a de minimis limit for long-term contracts so that long-term contracts for less than that limit would not have to comply with the consultation requirements. We accept that such a change is necessary to ensure that landlords do not need to consult leaseholders over long-term contracts that would have minimal cost to the leaseholder.
For example, some local authorities apportion running costs of their housing departments to leaseholders. Private sector landlords may also apportion administration costs in this way. This could mean that a landlord would have to consult leaseholders before entering into a long-term contract for the provision of stationery. The cost to the individual leaseholder would be very little and leaseholders would be very unlikely to be interested in such contracts.
The new clause therefore provides that consultation on long-term contracts will be necessary only if the cost to the leaseholder is above a prescribed amount. It follows the precedent set by the existing consultation requirements for specific works. We will of course consult on what the prescribed amount should be. Subsections (4) and (5) of the revised Section 20 are intended to provide the maximum flexibility in determining the prescribed amount.
We envisage occasions where a landlord does not consult because the estimated costs are less than the prescribed amount. However, if the cost subsequently increases above the prescribed amount, we believe it is unfair to put the whole amount of the cost incurred at risk. Therefore, the revised Section 20 provides that only the excess above the prescribed amount would be irrecoverable. Again, this is in line with the existing approach for consulting on specific work. Where the prescribed amount is based on the cost to individual service charge payers, only monies due from individuals in excess of the prescribed amount would be irrecoverable.
The existing requirement to consult leaseholders on specific works costing more than a prescribed amount would be retained. This would apply in addition to any requirement to consult under a long-term contract. As with consultation on long-term contracts, subsections (3) and (5) of the new Section 20 will provide flexibility over the way in which the amount is determined.
Existing Clause 148 provides that a leasehold valuation tribunal may, in a particular case, grant dispensation from all or any of the consultation requirements. This is intended to ensure that landlords are not penalised for technical infringements which do not disadvantage leaseholders or it is not practical in the circumstances to consult fully or at all; for example, where work needs to be carried out in an emergency. As drafted, it is arguable that Clause 148 allows such dispensation to be sought only after the event.

709
Concern has been expressed that where full compliance with the consultation requirement is not practical, the landlord may be placed in a difficult position; for example, for some specialised services there may be only one supplier. The consultation requirements will require that at least two estimates be obtained. If the contract is entered into or the works are carried out without full compliance with the consultation requirements, there is a risk of not being able to recover the costs if the LVT should refuse to grant a dispensation. This new clause therefore makes it clear that a landlord may apply to an LVT for a dispensation of the requirement to consult before the works are carried out.
Amendment No. 52 is consequential and deletes the existing Clause 148.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 51 and 52. —(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
4.15 p.m.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
53 Clause 149, page 72, line 44, at end insert—
"required to be supplied under this section."
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 53. I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 72 and 84. This is a small group of technical amendments. Amendment No. 53 is a minor consequential amendment made in the light of the new clause to be created by Amendment No. 54. Amendment No. 72 removes from the Bill subsection (2) of Clause 174. Amendment No. 84 corrects an error in the drafting of Schedule 14.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 53.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
54 After Clause 149, insert the following new Clause—
"Notice to accompany demands for service charges
After section 21A of the 1985 Act (inserted by section 149) insert—
"21B Notice to accompany demands for service charges
(1) A demand for the payment of a service charge must be accompanied by a summary of the rights and obligations of tenants of dwellings in relation to service charges.
(2) The Secretary of State may make regulations prescribing requirements as to the form and content of such summaries of rights and obligations.
(3) A tenant may withhold payment of a service charge which has been demanded from him if subsection (1) is not complied with in relation to the demand.
(4) Where a tenant withholds a service charge under this section, any provisions of the lease relating to non-payment or late payment of service charges do not have effect in relation to the period for which he so withholds it.
(5) Regulations under subsection (2) may make different provision for different purposes.
710
(6) Regulations under subsection (2) shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance cf a resolution of either House of Parliament.""
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 54. I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 63, 64, 66, 68 and 78. The amendments all relate to forfeiture and are perhaps of more interest than previous amendments about forfeiture.
The Government fully accept the widespread concerns about the forfeiture system. Forfeiture is a draconian penalty and many people feel that it is unfair that a leaseholder can lose their home, possibly for the non-payment of a relatively modest debt, while the landlord obtains a large windfall profit. It has to be stressed, however, that the courts do lean towards relief from forfeiture although we accept that this requires an application for such relief to be made.
Following the Government's consultation paper on residential leasehold reform in 1998, we announced in December 1999 in a document entitled Leasehold Reform, the Way Forward that we intended to replace forfeiture with a fairer regime. In particular, we proposed that where the landlord obtained possession, the leaseholder should be compensated for the loss of the leasehold interest after deducting moneys owed to the landlord. This remains our long-term aim.
Although the concept may seem a relatively simple one, legally and practically the matter is very complex. When we were drawing up our draft of this Bill we considered the issue very carefully, but reluctantly came to the conclusion that we could not resolve all the complexities without delaying the introduction of the Bill.
Instead, we decided to focus our attention on the main abuses associated with forfeiture. These include the use of forfeiture as a threat to extract payment, and also for leaseholders to challenge unreasonable charges or breaches of convenants that are unfounded. As noble Lords will know, there are a number of provisions already in the Bill which address these abuses.
In the other place the Government undertook to consider carefully the strength of feeling on this important issue and the desire for further measures in this Bill to deliver protection for leaseholders. That is why we have come forward with further safeguard; for leaseholders.
I want to explain the additional safeguards. Amendment No. 63 is intended to prevent the use of forfeiture for small amounts. Forfeiture proceedings would be prohibited unless the amount outstanding exceeded a prescribed sum or the amount, or any part of it, had been outstanding for more than a prescribed period. On the face of the Bill the prescribed sum is set at £500. The level at which it was introduced would be set by regulation, and we would consult on that, although our current thinking is that it should be introduced at a level of £350 in the first instance. We would expect to set the prescribed period at three years. That would make forfeiture unavailable for small amounts of less than £350, unless they have been outstanding more than three years.

711
Regulations made under the power would be subject to the affirmative procedure by virtue of Amendment No. 68. Administration charges and penalties for non-payment of an outstanding amount will not be taken into account in determining whether the prescribed sum has been exceeded. That would prevent landlords trying to evade the provision by adding further charges to push the total above the prescribed sum.
Amendment No. 64 is intended to protect vulnerable leaseholders, such as the mentally ill, who are unable to respond to the various warning notices required under existing legislation or other provisions of the Bill. We propose to require landlords to take reasonable additional or alternative steps when there is no response to demands or notices. We will consult on what steps would be appropriate, practicable and reasonable. That may include a duty to investigate the leaseholder's circumstances.
I should point out that the power would not apply in relation to properties subject to a mortgage. This is because mortgagees are normally informed of forfeiture proceedings, and have a right to seek relief— invariably they do so—to protect their security. So it is the leaseholders who do not have mortgages—for example, the elderly whose mortgages have been paid off—who would be protected by this measure. Regulations made under this power would also be subject to the affirmative procedure.
Amendment No. 54 is intended to ensure that leaseholders are aware of their rights and obligations by providing a power to require certain information to be provided with service charge demands. And it should also help to prevent forfeiture being used as a threat by unscrupulous landlords. The form and content of these notices would be prescribed. It would set out leaseholders' rights to challenge service charges which they consider to be unreasonable and the restrictions on forfeiture. But it would also point out the possible serious consequences of non-payment of service charges, the dangers of ignoring demands and suggest that leaseholders take advice.
Amendment No. 78 provides a similar power in relation to demands for administration charges.
Amendment No. 66 provides that the new clauses introduced by Amendments Nos. 63 and 64 would be binding on the Crown (the other changes already apply to the Crown by virtue of Clause 163). We believe that it will be important to improve awareness among leaseholders and landlords of their rights and obligations in this somewhat complex area. It is therefore also our intention to produce a guide that will summarise, in plain English, all the relevant provisions concerning forfeiture proceedings.
To conclude, those additional measures, together with the provisions that are already in the Bill, should go a long way towards preventing abuses associated with the existing forfeiture procedures.
712
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 54.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, the right of forfeiture is an archaic right. It is a draconian penalty for breach of what is, in effect, a contractual term. It requires a person against whom forfeiture is sought to seek relief from the courts. In those cases where, because relief is not sought or for any other reason, forfeiture takes effect, it can operate unfairly and can deprive the leaseholder whose interest is forfeited of an asset of considerable value that may well exceed substantially any amount that is due.
In those circumstances, I am glad that the Minister has accepted that there is wide pressure for the replacement of forfeiture altogether by a system that is less unfair and more suited to modern times. I regret that the Government did not introduce a proper replacement for the existing forfeiture system in this Bill. We welcome the amendments that have been made. They are moves in the right direction, but they do not go far enough.
The consideration of Commons amendments is not the right time to replace a forfeiture system by a new, modernised and fairer system. For that reason I have not sought to table any amendment to this group of government amendments. Nevertheless, I hope that the Government will persevere and will return as soon as possible with new legislation that will remove the remedy of forfeiture from the hands of landlords, thus preventing the abuse to which the power of forfeiture has, not infrequently, led, and that they will replace forfeiture with a more appropriate remedy.
As this is not the time or place to introduce a wholly new system, I do not oppose the amendment, but I hope that the Government will take notice and will proceed as rapidly as possible with new legislation.
Lord Jacobs: My Lords, I support my noble friend. I cannot recall there being a significant debate in the House on this subject. I recall that an amendment was tabled, but I am sure that it was not moved, to abolish forfeiture. Having read Commons Hansard thoroughly, I have seen that there was a vigorous debate in the other place on 24th January. The more one reads about it and the more one listens to the Minister today, the more one realises that we are quietly putting up with a serious injustice.
If, for example, cars were to be subject to government forfeiture in the event of non-payment of road tax, one would expect the Government to take one's car, to sell it and subsequently to recover the road tax and associated costs and return the rest of the money, which would clearly be your due. Unfortunately, as we know, that does not happen with properties. In regard to one's home, if granted by the court, not only can the landlord recoup the amount of money and associated expenses that he is due, but he can also retain the rest of the money from your home. That is obviously unfair.
The Government may have responded—they did not—by saying that in 1985 the Law Commission started to consider the matter but has not yet arrived at any

713
definite conclusions. We could wait another year or two and the Law Commission may come up with some findings. Meanwhile, what do we do about this problem?
Earlier my noble friend raised a more complex issue about housing situated over railways. Clearly that is a technical issue to which it would be difficult to find any easy alleviation. The Government have made an attempt that, in some way, deals with it.
What can we do about this issue? I regret that we did not table an amendment, although I am not sure that it would have helped at this stage. There is one simple way in which we could alleviate the situation immediately: instead of having a footling—if one may use that word—sum as a level above which a landlord can seek forfeiture, one could have made the sum a significant one. Instead of £500, the amount could have been £5,000 or even £50,000. If that were the case, we know that for the time being at least the number of possible cases where forfeiture will be threatened—that is the important point—or sought from the courts, would be few and unlikely to trouble many people.
In this House we have failed—I accept full responsibility on my own behalf—to recognise the situation and to do something about it. It may not be possible to deal with the matter in this Bill, but I would like the Government to consider some temporary protection. I do not believe that raising the level above £500 is significant protection. I hope that the Government will consider a larger sum. If such a provision cannot be brought in at this stage, perhaps something can be done at a later date. Unfortunately I, and no doubt two million other leaseholders, recognise that there will be another commonhold and freehold Bill. It is to be hoped that that Bill will change the position on tenure, deal with forfeiture once and for all, and perhaps bring an end to the system of tenure of leasehold which, as has been said, is unsuited to the 20th century let alone the 21st century. I am sure the Government will recognise those words.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I fully recognise those words. I accept that forfeiture is a draconian penalty. Many feel that it is unfair. I take the noble Lord's point that when one forfeits the lease one does not get back the value of the lease after repayment of the outstanding debt. The issue needs to be considered. It was looked at very carefully before the Bill was proposed. It is more complex to remove the right than was thought. The choice was whether to delay the Bill to deal with those points or to bring it forward as drafted. The latter choice was made. I note the point about increasing the figure in order to make it meaningful. However, the choice was made: rather than seeking to get rid of forfeiture in an indirect way, the provision ensures that the power is not used to deal with small sums.
714
I note what all noble Lords said. As the noble Lord, Lord Jacobs, said, it found an echo in another place when the matter was properly debated. I hope that in time a new Bill will deal with the problem head on.
Lord Jacobs: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, perhaps I may say that if it is impossible to put an injustice right, totally and absolutely, one could at least go some way to alleviate the injustice. There is not a Member of your Lordships' House who does not believe that there is an injustice. Could not some more effective temporary remedy be given? It may be inadequate, but less justice is better than no justice.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the amendments introduced in the Commons seek to do that. I realise that some may not believe that they are adequate but they are steps in the direction the noble Lord seeks.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
55 Clause 151, page 75, line 30, leave out from beginning to second "an"
56 Page 75, line 32, leave out "or not any amount is so" and insert "a service charge is"
57 Page 75, line 38, at end insert—
"(1A) Subsection (1) applies whether or not any payment has been made."
58 Page 76, line 13, leave out from "having" to end of line 14 and insert "Made any payment."
59 Clause 152, page 77, line 38, at end insert—
"(9A) Nothing in this section applies to the payee if the circumstances are such as are specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State."
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 55 to 59 en bloc. I wish also to speak to Amendments Nos. 77 and 79 to 82.
Amendments Nos. 55 to 58 and 79 to 82 are being made as a consequence of a recent Court of Appeal decision, Daejan Properties Limited v London Leasehold Valuation Tribunal, in which the court ruled that leasehold valuation tribunals have the jurisdiction only to decide the reasonableness of disputed service charges that are still unpaid except under certain very limited circumstances.
We consider this decision to be most unfortunate both from the viewpoint of leaseholders and landlords. As leaseholders become aware of its effect they may be inclined to withhold service charges until they are certain that those charges are reasonable because it may otherwise prove very difficult for them to launch any challenge.
In the light of that development, we decided to amend the Bill to make it as clear as possible that the power of leasehold valuation tribunals to determine reasonableness and liability to pay service charges includes service charges that have already been paid. Amendments Nos. 55 to 58 are the result. Moreover,

715
exactly the same considerations also apply to administration charges and, therefore, we need to make equivalent changes to Schedule 11 to the Bill. Amendments Nos. 79 to 82 would do so.
Amendment No. 59 would create a new power to exempt managers by regulation from the requirement to use separate accounts for separate groups of service charge payers. Clause 152 of the Bill introduces a new requirement for managers to use separate accounts. We have received representations from managers who claim that this would be unduly expensive. We remain sceptical about such claims. Managers who already operate separate accounts say that the additional costs of doing so are relatively small, and certain banks have already designed packages to minimise the inconvenience involved and to avoid the necessity of, for example, keeping separate cheque books for separate accounts.
None the less, we are anxious to ensure that the costs of operating separate accounts do not outweigh the benefits. These costs will, after all, inevitably be passed on to leaseholders in the form of higher service charges. We have decided, therefore, that it would be sensible to include a power in the Bill to exempt managers from the requirement to use separate bank accounts under certain circumstances. This would allow us to respond to any changes in the services provided by financial institutions, or in their charges, which might increase the costs of maintaining separate accounts to the point where it becomes unduly expensive.
Amendment No. 77 makes a change to the way in which the Bill is drafted. Schedule 11 currently contains a definition of a fixed administration charge. However, the only place where the term "fixed administration charge" is used in the Bill is in the definition of a "variable administration charge". Therefore, this amendment would replace these definitions with a new definition of a variable service charge, thus simplifying the provision.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments No. 55 to 59.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I am delighted with Amendments Nos. 57 and 58—and, to a lesser extent, Amendment No. 59. They are practical. The points made about expense could be relevant. No doubt the regulations would cover checking fully on the reliability of anyone who was so designated. Amendments Nos. 57 and 58 are good progress.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
60 After Clause 154, insert the following new clause—
Charges under estate management schemes
(1) This section applies where a scheme under—

(a) section 19 of the 1967 Act (estate management schemes in connection with enfranchisement under that Act),

(b) Chapter 4 of Part 1 of the 1993 Act (estate management schemes in connection with enfranchisement under the 1967 Act or Chapter 1 of Part 1 of the 1993 Act), or

716

(c) section 94(6) of the 1993 Act (corresponding schemes in relation to areas occupied under leases from Crown), includes provision imposing on persons occupying or interested in property an obligation to make payments ("estate charges").

(2) A variable estate charge is payable only to the extent that the amount of the charge is reasonable; and "variable estate charge" means an estate charge which is neither—

(a) specified in the scheme, nor

(b) calculated in accordance with a formula specified in the scheme.

(3) Any person on whom an obligation to pay an estate charge is imposed by the scheme may apply to a leasehold valuation tribunal for an order varying the scheme in such manner as is specified in the application on the grounds that—

(a) any estate charge specified in the scheme is unreasonable, or

(b) any formula specified in the scheme in accordance with which any estate charge is calculated is unreasonable.

(4) If the grounds on which the application was made are established to the satisfaction of the tribunal, it may make an order varying the scheme in such manner as is specified in the order.
(5) The variation specified in the order may be—

(a) the variation specified in the application, or

(b) such other variation as the tribunal thinks fit.

(6) An application may be made to a leasehold valuation tribunal for a determination whether an estate charge is payable by a person and, if it is, as to—

(a) the person by whom it is payable,

(b) the person to whom it is payable,

(c) the amount which is payable,

(d) the date at or by which it is payable, and

(e) the manner in which it is payable.

(7) Subsection (6) applies whether or not any payment has been made.
(8) The jurisdiction conferred on a leasehold valuation tribunal in respect of any matter by virtue of subsection (6) is in addition to any jurisdiction of a court in respect of the matter.
(9) No application under subsection (6) may be made in respect of a matter which—

(a) has been agreed or admitted by the person concerned,

(b) has been, or is to be, referred to arbitration pursuant to a post-dispute arbitration agreement to which that person is a party,

(c) has been the subject of determination by a court, or

(d) has been the subject of determination by an arbitral tribunal pursuant to a post-dispute arbitration agreement.

(10) But the person is not to be taken to have agreed or admitted any matter by reason only of having made any payment.
(11) An agreement (other than a post-dispute arbitration agreement) is void in so far as it purports to provide for a determination—

(a) in a particular manner, or

(b) on particular evidence, of any question which may be the subject matter of an application under subsection (6).

(12) In this section—
"post-dispute arbitration agreement", in relation to any matter, means an arbitration agreement made after a dispute about the matter has arisen, and "arbitration agreement" and "arbitral tribunal" have the same meanings as in Part 1 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (c. 23)."
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 60.

717
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 60.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
61 After Clause 158, insert the following new clause—
"INSURANCE OTHERWISE THAN WITH LANDLORD'S INSURER
(1) This section applies where a long lease of a house requires the tenant to insure the house with an insurer nominated or approved by the landlord ("the landlord's insurer").
(2) The tenant is not required to effect the insurance with the landlord's insurer if—

(a) the house is insured under a policy of insurance issued by an authorised insurer,

(b) the policy covers the interests of both the landlord and the tenant,

(c) the policy covers all the risks which the lease requires be covered by insurance provided by the landlord's insurer,

(d) the amount of the cover is not less than that which the lease requires to be provided by such insurance, and

15
(e)
the tenant satisfies subsection (3).
(3) To satisfy this subsection the tenant—

(a) must have given a notice of cover to the landlord before the end of the period of fourteen days beginning with the relevant date, and

(b) if (after that date) he has been requested to do so by a new landlord, must have given a notice of cover to him within the period of fourteen days beginning with the day on which the request was given.

(4) For the purposes of subsection (3)—

(a) if the policy has not been renewed the relevant date is the day on which it took effect and if it has been renewed it is the day from which it was last renewed, and

(b) a person is a new landlord on any day if he acquired the interest of the previous landlord under the lease on a disposal made by him during the period of one month ending with that day.

(5) A notice of cover is a notice specifying—

(a) the name of the insurer,

(b) the risks covered by the policy,

(c) the amount and period of the cover, and

(d) such further information as may be prescribed.

(6) A notice of cover—

(a) must be in the prescribed form, and

(b) may be sent by post.

(7) If a notice of cover is sent by post, it may be addressed to the landlord at the address specified in subsection (8).
(8) That address is—

(a) the address last furnished to the tenant as the landlord's address for service in accordance with section 48 of the 1987 Act (notification of address for service of notices on landlord), or

(b) if no such address has been so furnished, the address last furnished to the tenant as the landlord's address in accordance with section 47 of the 1987 Act (landlord's name and address to be contained in demands for rent).

51
(9)
718
But the tenant may not give a notice of cover to the landlord at the address specified in subsection (8) if he has been notified by the landlord of a different address in England and Wales at which he wishes to be given any such notice.
(10) In this section—
"authorised insurer", in relation to a policy of insurance, means a person who may carry on in the United Kingdom the business of effecting or carrying out contracts of insurance of the sort provided under the policy without contravening the prohibition imposed by section 19 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (c. 8),
"house" has the same meaning as for the purposes of Part I of the 1967 Act,
"landlord" and "tenant" have the same meanings as in Chapter 1 of this Part,
"long lease" has the meaning given by sections 74 and 75 of this Act, and
"prescribed" means prescribed by regulations made by the appropriate national authority."
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 61. I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 65
Amendment No. 61 is intended to deal with the problem of provisions in leases of houses which require the leaseholder to insure the property with an insurer nominated by the landlord. This problem was raised by many Members in the other place. The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, tabled an amendment during the first Committee stage on 22nd March 2001 on nominated insurers, an amendment which was supported by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and others. My noble friend Lord Whitty undertook to consider the matter further. I am pleased to inform the House that we have been able to deal with this problem.
We believe that it is wrong for landlords to exploit a monopoly over the provision of insurance in order to gain higher commission. At the same time we recognise that landlords have a legitimate interest in ensuring that leasehold property is insured. The new clause will allow leaseholders the opportunity to shop around for the best deal while providing protection for the landlord's interest.
It provides that any clause in a lease requiring the leaseholder to insure with an insurer nominated by the landlord will be deemed to be satisfied if certain conditions are met. In short, these conditions are that the leaseholder must insure the property with an insurer authorised to carry on business in the UK. The policy must note the interests of both the landlord and the leaseholder. It must cover the risks that are required to be covered in the lease and the amount of cover must not be less than that required by the lease. The leaseholder must provide the landlord with evidence of cover or renewal within 14 days of insurance being taken out or renewed. This should provide an effective remedy to the widespread abuses Amendment No. 62 is a technical amendment intended to strengthen these provisions.
Amendment No. 65 will ensure that the new clause created by Amendment No. 61 on nominated insurers applies to Crown land.

719
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 61.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
AS AN AMENDMENT TO COMMONS AMENDMENT NO. 61
61A Line 16, at end of inserted subsection (2)(e) insert "or (9A)".
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 61A, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 61, and speak also to Amendment No. 61B. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, indicated, on 22nd March 2001 my noble friend Lady Hanham introduced an amendment giving the freedom to long lessees of dwellinghouses to insure with a company of their choice. It was withdrawn despite attracting much cross-party support. In Committee in another place, the Government introduced a like amendment for which we are grateful.
However, both our amendment and the Government's failed to deal with the situation, to which their attention was drawn in another place, in which a lessor covenants to insure a dwellinghouse and then recovers the cost from the lessee through additional ground rent or other means—in effect obliging the lessee to insure with the lessor's nominated company.
In another place, the Minister was unprepared to accept that addition because where houses are on an estate with communal parts there may be advantages in having a single insurance policy. That may be so, or not so. Where it is so there is nothing to prevent lessees clubbing together to that effect. But there is no logical reason why such an arrangement should always be desirable. In circumstances where it is not, house owners should be free to make their own insurance arrangements. I beg to move.
Moved, That Amendment No. 61A, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 61, be agreed to.—(Lord Kingsland.)
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I support the amendment. It raises an almost identical problem to that where the lessee is required to insure with a nominated or approved insurer. I express my gratitude to a Birmingham solicitor, Mr David Henson, who has been highly active in raising the issue, as the noble and learned Lord will know. It is not uncommon practice to find leases in that form.
The problem is that a landlord who requires a lessee to insure with a particular insurer effectively deprives the lessee of the opportunity to look for a cheaper insurance policy. He is also in a position to derive a substantial benefit from commission from the insurer. The same situation arises where the landlord insures but is entitled to recover the cost from the lessee.
It is highly desirable that the lessee should insure under the lease and that lessees wanting to take over responsibility for insurance from the landlord should be entitled on giving notice to do so. It is obviously not
720
appropriate for blocks of flats where the landlord has a substantial interest in insuring the structure, particularly as in many cases it is his responsibility to maintain that structure.
I hope that the Government will look at the issue and deal with it to enable lessees who have to reimburse their landlords for insurance to obtain the same benefits available to lessees under obligation to insure the house themselves.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, that is an important point. It deals with where the lease requires the landlord to insure a house and recover the costs through service charges. The amendments attempt to provide the transfer of responsibility for insurance to the leaseholder. What underlies the argument is that this could be a way of getting around the matter dealt with in the previous amendments.
I have sympathy for the motive behind the amendments, but it would not be right to make such changes without properly consulting those who may be affected. In any event, there are problems with the amendment, which the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, touched on. It is our understanding that most house leases place the duty to insure on the leaseholders. While there are exceptions, there are usually good reasons for them. For example, where houses on an estate are interdependent structures with communal parts there may be advantages—as the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, acknowledged and as in the case of blocks of flats—in having a single policy covering the whole complex. Failure to insure properly by one lessee may have knock-on effects for other parts of the estate.
In such cases, we would not want arrangements whereby a landlord or residents' management company insured the whole complex to be disrupted. The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, referred to tenants clubbing together on a voluntary basis. That is fine so long as everyone agrees. But what if one person does not?
On a more practical level, the application of the amendment to such a situation is unlikely to work or achieve the desired result as the lessee could not simply replace the lessor in an insurer covenant which covered the whole estate. The amendments effectively seek to insert the word "lessee" for the word "lessor". That will not work where the obligation covers the whole estate. That illustrates another difficulty with the amendments. We cannot anticipate the type of insurer covenants in a lease, and the simple replacement of "lessor" for "lessee" while retaining the terms of the covenant may not be practical or effective in every case.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. Surely such a situation arises anyway when there is an enfranchisement of a house under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967? In such a case the lessee acquires the freehold. Unless there is an estate management scheme under which the insurance

721
remains the responsibility of the landlord, surely the former lessee, now the freeholder, will be in a position to decide with whom he will insure and what insurance is needed?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, there is an existing remedy. It is open to the lessee to apply for a variation of a lease. The existing lessee can apply to vary the lease and replace "lessor" with the word "lessee" in the hypothesis advanced by noble Lords supporting the application. The Bill will simplify and extend the arrangements for such variations. The proposal may cause difficulties and may not be in the interests of the lessee.
More fundamentally, as I said, we do not feel that it would be right to transfer responsibilities under a lease from one party to another without properly consulting those who would be affected and, at this stage in the proceedings, we would not want to delay the passage of this important Bill while we undertook such consultation.
Where a lease provides for the landlord to insure, leaseholders can challenge the reasonableness of the insurance premium at a leasehold valuation tribunal under the provisions of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 relating to service charges. Leaseholders' rights in relation to service charges have been strengthened by other parts of the Bill and it is our intention to reduce the minimum fee for LVT applications to make it more cost-effective to challenge small amounts.
There appears to be a difficulty that the amendment may, in part, solve; but it may also cause other problems. However, just as there are other matters left over from the Bill, this is another issue that we should take note of and consider carefully because it is a legitimate point. In those circumstances, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I shall certainly not press the amendment. I am grateful to the Minister for his ingenious response to my remarks. I accept that the amendment could be improved. I also accept that there are certain circumstances in which the problem may be overcome by different routes; for example, by applications for variation.
Nevertheless, there remains a real possibility that the current situation could lead to unfairness. I hope that the Minister and his team will keep the matter under close supervision in the years that intervene between this Bill being enacted and the next amending legislation—which may not be so very far away. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment No. 61A, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 61, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 61B, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 61, not moved.]
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
62 After Clause 158, insert the following new clause—
"Extension of right to challenge landlord's choice of insurer
722
(1) Paragraph 8 of the Schedule to the 1985 Act (right to challenge landlord's nomination of insurer) is amended as follows.
In sub-paragraphs (1) and (2), after "nominated" insert "or approved".
(3) In sub-paragraph (4), after "nominate" (in both places) insert "or approve"."
63 Before Clause 160, insert the following new clause—
"Failure to pay small amount for short period
(1) A landlord under a long lease of a dwelling may not exercise a fight of re-entry or forfeiture for failure by a tenant to pay ail amount consisting of rent, service charges or administration charges (or a combination of them) ("the unpaid amount") unless the unpaid amount—

(a) exceeds the prescribed sum, or

(b) consists of or includes an amount which has been payable for more than a prescribed period.

(2) The sum prescribed under subsection (1)(a) must not exceed £500.
(3) If the unpaid amount includes a default charge, it is to be treated for the purposes of subsection (1)(a) as reduced by the amount of the charge; and for this purpose "default charge" means an administration charge payable in respect of the tentant's failure to pay any part of the unpaid amount.
(4) In this section "long lease of a dwelling" does not include

(a) a tenancy to which Part 2 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (c. 56) (business tenancies) applies,

(c) a tenancy of an agricultural holding within the meaning of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 (c. 5) in relation to which that Act applies, or

(d) a farm business tenancy within the meaning of the Agricultural Tenancies Act 1995 (c. 8).

(5) In this section—
"administration charge" has the same meaning as in Part 1 of Schedule 11,
"dwelling" has the same meaning as in the 1985 Act,
"landlord" and "tenant" have the same meaning as in Chapter 1 of this Part,
"long lease" has the meaning given by sections 74 and 75 of this Act, except that a shared ownership lease is a long lease whatever the tenant's total share,
"prescribed" means prescribed by regulations made by the appropriate national authority, and
"service charge" has the meaning given by section 18(1) of the 1985 Act."
64 After Clause 162, insert the following new clause—
"Power to prescribe additional or different requirements
(1) The appropriate national authority may by regulations prescribe requirements which must be met before a right of re-entry or forfeiture may be exercised in relation to a breach of a covenant or condition in a long lease of an unmortgaged dwelling.
(2) The regulations may specify that the requirements are to be in addition to, or instead of, requirements imposed otherwise than by the regulations.
(3) In this section long lease of a dwelling" does not include—

(a) a tenancy to which Part 2 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (c. 56) (business tenancies) applies,

(e) a tenancy of an agricultural holding within the meaning of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 (c. 5) in relation to which that Act applies, or

(f) a farm business tenancy within the meaning of the Agricultural Tenancies Act 1995 (c. 8).

(4) For the purposes of this section a dwelling is unmortgaged if it is not subject to a mortgage, charge or lien.

723
(5) In this section—
"dwelling" has the same meaning as in the 1985 Act, and
"long lease" has the meaning given by sections 74 and 75 of this Act, except that a shared ownership lease is a long lease whatever the tenant's total share."
65 Clause 163, page 85, line 4, leave out "159" and insert "(Insurance otherwise than with landlord's insurer)"
66 Clause 163, page 85, line 4, at end insert "and sections (Failure to pay small amount for short period) and (Power to prescribe additional or different requirements)"
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 62 to 66.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 62 to 66.— (Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
67 Clause 166, page 86, line 9, at end insert—
"(5A) The Lands Tribunal may not order a party to the appeal to pay costs incurred by another party in connection with the appeal unless he has, in the opinion of the Lands Tribunal, acted frivolously, vexatiously, abusively, disruptively or otherwise unreasonably in connection with the appeal.
(5B) In such a case the amount he may be ordered to pay shall not exceed the maximum amount which a party to proceedings before a leasehold valuation tribunal may be ordered to pay in the proceedings under or by virtue of paragraph 10(3) of Schedule 12."
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 67. In doing so, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 83. Both amendments are linked to the award of costs. Amendment No. 67 would limit the power of the Lands Tribunal to award costs. When the Bill was previously before the House, the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, who, unfortunately, is not now in her place, argued most persuasively that the Lands Tribunal's unlimited power to award costs could discourage leaseholders from exercising their rights. We promised then that we would explore the scope for amending the Bill in the other place in order to address the concerns expressed by the noble Baroness. Amendment No. 67 is a result of that exploration.
Where a case involves an appeal against a decision made by a leasehold valuation tribunal, the Lands Tribunal cannot award costs unless a party has acted frivolously, vexatiously, abusively, disruptively, or otherwise unreasonably, in connection with the appeal. Moreover the maximum costs will be limited to £500, or such other amount as may be specified in regulation. This will provide leaseholders with far greater certainty and, thus, encourage them to exercise the rights that Parliament has granted to them. I see that the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, has just returned to the Chamber. I hope that she will agree that this amendment meets her concerns.
Amendment No. 83 is a technical amendment, which makes it clear that the £500 limitation on the ward of costs applies only to costs awarded under paragraph 10 of Schedule 12.
724
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 67.— (Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I should just like to express my thanks to the Minister. I received a message on my pager regarding an urgent phone call; otherwise I should have been present to hear the Minister's opening remarks. I shall, of course, read his introduction in Hansard.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
68 Clause 169, page 86, line 36, after "under" insert "section (Failure to pay small amount for short period) or (Power to prescribe additional or different requirements) or"
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 68.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 68.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
69 Clause 172, page 87, line 19, at beginning insert "Apart from section 102 and sections 168 to 170,"
70 Page 87, line 27, after "1" insert "or section 171 and Schedule 14 so far as relating to section 102"
71 Page 87, line 28, after "14" insert "so far as otherwise relating"
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 69 to 71. I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 85. This group of technical amendments is intended to bring about the early commencement of Clause 102 and Clauses 168, 169 and 170, and subsequently to provide for the repeal of Clause 102.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 69 to 71.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
72 Clause 174, page 87, line 35, leave out subsection (2)
73 Schedule 5, page 95, line 6, leave out "(1) and (2)"
74 Page 96, line 25, leave out "section 21" and insert "Sections 21 and 22"
75 Page 96, leave out lines 27 to 32
76 Schedule 8, page 112, line 13, leave out from "tenants" to end of line 14 and insert ", as" substitute "persons who are participating members of the RTE company immediately before a binding contract is entered into in pursuance of the initial notice, as". and
(b) for "participating tenants, once" substitute "those participating members, once".
77 Schedule 11, page 121, line 23, leave out from "Schedule" to end of line 28 and insert ""variable administration charge" means an administration charge payable by a tenant which is neither—

(a) specified in his lease, nor

725

(b) calculated in accordance with a formula specified in his lease."

78 Page 122, line 12, at end insert—
"Notice in connection with demands for administration charges
3A (1) A demand for the payment of an administration charge must be accompanied by a summary of the rights and obligations of tenants of dwellings in relation to administration charges.
The appropriate national authority may make regulations prescribing requirements as to the form and content of such summaries of rights and obligations.
(3) A tenant may withhold payment of an administration charge which has been demanded from him if sub-paragraph (1) is not complied with in relation to the demand.
Where a tenant withholds an administration charge under this paragraph, any provisions of the lease relating to non-payment or late payment of administration charges do not have effect in relation to the period for which he so withholds it."
79 Page 122, leave out line 14
80 Page 122, line 16, leave out "or not any amount is so" and insert "an administration charge is"
81 Page 122, line 21, at end insert—
"(1A) Sub-paragraph (1) applies whether or not any payment has been made."
82 Page 122, line 34, leave out from "having" to end of line 35 and insert "made any payment."
83 Schedule 12, page 126, line 21, after "proceedings" insert "by a determination under this paragraph"
84 Schedule 14, page 131, line 18, leave out first "and"
85 Page 134, line 39, at end insert—
"Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 Section 102".
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House to agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 72 to 85.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 72 to 85.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Police Reform Bill [H.L.]
4.54 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [National Policing Plan]:
Lord Dixon-Smithmoved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 6, at beginning insert "After consultation with relevant persons,"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, it is necessary to refer to the Bill "as drafted". We tabled these amendments not knowing what amendments the Government would bring forward. The Bill, as drafted, permitted the Secretary of State to put forward proposals for a plan without consulting anyone. We felt that that was wrong and that consultation should take place. Our amendments were designed to give effect to that aim. I am delighted to welcome the fact that the Government have seen the light on consultation and are introducing their own amendments, which are included in this grouping.
726
There is a further question wrapped up in this proposal as regards the timing with which these plans should be brought forward. The House will recall that, in Committee, we proposed the end of October. The Government have now tabled an amendment that would make the due date for the normal provision of these plans the end of November. That is a great move in the right direction—and, again, it is most welcome.
However, I am bound to point out that the six months' period was not suggested without regard to practicality: it was a valid point. It has just occurred to me that we shall now have a much greater degree of consultation on the preparation of such plans. Perhaps the consultations will take care of the extra months, so to speak, because everyone will know what is coming. I look forward to hearing the Minister's introductory remarks when he speaks to his amendments in this group. I beg to move.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Rooker): My Lords, I am grateful for the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. Given the amendments that we now bring forward on Report, I believe that I shall be able to show during this evening's proceedings that we have been the most open and the most listening government ever in respect of this Bill in that we took note of what was said in your Lordships' House in Committee. I mean that genuinely. Many issues were raised in Committee that required some thought. Indeed, because of the configuration of recesses, I also accept the fact that, when tabling amendments, it was necessary for the Opposition to set out their stall somewhat earlier without advance knowledge of what the Government proposed. I hope that I shall be able to satisfy noble Lords.
The Government have brought forward Amendments Nos. 3, 5, 8 and 10 in the light of the debates in Committee. Genuine questions about timing were raised as regards laying the plan before Parliament. In order to be able to take the national policing plan into account when developing local plans, we recognise that police authorities and chief officers need to have sight of it in good time. We believe that 30th November is sufficiently far in advance. I repeat the point I made in Committee. The drafting of the plan will have been discussed over a number of months. As such, police authorities will have plenty of warning in advance of the formal publication date of its likely content—not every dot and comma, but "its likely content".
In the amendments we have allowed for delayed publication in exceptional circumstances. This country has lost the habit of having October elections, which used to be the traditional time of the year for general elections. At least, that was so in my younger days. If a new administration is faced with different priorities for the police service, or, indeed, with a major incident like 11th September of last year, this may lead to a reassessment of policing priorities.
In developing the national policing plan, we made clear in the White Paper that we would consult widely with our tripartite partners, and other interested

727
bodies, via the national policing forum. Certain individual elements of the plan are also the subject of extensive consultation in their own right, as was made clear in Committee. For example, Section 37 of the Police Act 1996 requires the Home Secretary to consult on the national objectives for police authorities.
The national policing forum will be a non-statutory body to advise the Home Secretary on policing matters in general and, in particular, on the national policing plan. Its membership will include representatives of the Association of Police Authorities, the Association of Chief Police Officers and other police staff associations as well as victims' and ethnic minority groups.
To allow—so that there is no misunderstanding about the drafting—for the future flexibility in the membership and the role of the national policing forum, we do not propose to establish it by statute. But we are more than happy to confirm on the face of the Bill that in drawing up the annual plan there should be consultation with the tripartite partners, namely the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Association of Police Authorities.
Government Amendments Nos. 5 and 10 pick up on points made in Committee about the strategic nature of the national policing plan. In its briefing paper to Peers the Association of Police Authorities pointed out that the list of matters to be included in the plan made no mention of best value performance indicators set out in the Local Government Act 1999. We are happy to correct that omission and also to include any general performance targets set under Section 38 of the Police Act 1996. These additions reinforce the strategic nature of the national policing plan. We are emphatically not concerned here—unlike what the BBC alleged this morning—with the micro-management and the day-to-day management of police operations. We have said that repeatedly. I hope that, for the avoidance of doubt, the amendments make that abundantly clear.
I turn to Amendment No. 7. On the contents of the plan, the words that the noble Lords, Lord Dholakia and Lord Bradshaw, and the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, seek to delete allow flexibility for the contents of the plan to include matters not specifically mentioned elsewhere. The words should be retained.
The focus of the plan is on the 43 forces in England and Wales. New Section 36A(2) refers to the strategic policing priorities generally for the police forces maintained for police areas. The National Criminal Intelligence Service and the National Crime Squad are not police forces. They are governed by separate legislation and have different lines of accountability. They are national organisations and their priorities are, in effect, already national priorities. That means that it would be inappropriate to include the objectives set for NCIS and NCS in the national policing plan, as proposed by Amendment No. 6.
The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, mentioned the timing of the consultation. I hope that noble Lords will agree that the government amendments address what
728
were, I accept, genuine concerns raised by the Opposition Benches in Committee. Therefore, I hope that they will not press their amendments but will allow the government amendments to be inserted in the Bill.
5.3 p.m.
Baroness Harris of Richmond: My Lords, the Minister has anticipated our amendments. I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 4, 6 and 7. I apologise to the House for attaching myself so late to the Bill. I assure your Lordships that I have followed very closely its progress and the proceedings quite minutely. I have read every word that has been uttered. I am happy to join, although belatedly.
The Minister has addressed Amendment No. 4. We welcome the Government's recognition that the Bill should specify the date for the Home Secretary to publish the national policing plan. We wanted to make sure that the Government took a close look at its timing. In my experience—which is not little—by the end of November police authorities' local policing plans are well advanced in their preparation. They will not be able to use the national plan as a strategic framework. So, as the Minister said, it is important and extremely welcome that there is consultation on the national plan with the APA and the ACPO.
The Minister suggested that the consultation will mean that police authorities have a good idea of what might be in the national plan, long before it is published. I am sure that that will be the case. But until it is actually finalised, authorities will not be able to proceed with any certainty. It is not unknown for the ministerial priorities to change between conception, consultation and finalisation. In fact they did this year. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, asks for the national plan to be published by 30th September. The Government have gone for 30th November. Our amendment offers the House a sensible compromise—perhaps the third way. It is 31st October. What difference does a month make? At that stage in the planning it makes quite a lot.
Police authorities desperately want to work with the Government to ensure that local plans reflect both national and local needs.
I turn to Amendment No. 6. The Minister talked about the National Crime Squad and the NCIS. I hear what he says, but our amendment seeks to bring the two together. There must be a coherency between national and local efforts. The Home Secretary is responsible for setting the national policing priorities both for local police authorities and for NCIS and NCS. But there are two separate parallel exercises needed to do that. Indeed, this year the proposed priorities for them were not received for consultation until March. They were finalised only at the beginning of April. In order for the national plan to be effective, it should seek to draw those separate exercises together. The plan should set the strategic policing picture. I hope that the Minister will take that point away and rethink it.

729
Finally, I turn to Amendment No. 7. It seeks to leave out the words "plans and advice". They effectively would give the Government scope to include anything it wanted in the national plan. It is important that the Government think through more fully what that national plan needs to cover and to set that out precisely in legislation.
Lord Fowler: My Lords, I should like one point of clarification from the Minister. He was forthcoming so far as concerns the police forum. Can he state further the bodies that the Home Secretary will consult before setting out the national policing plan? One of the bodies which it would be sensible to consult is the Police Federation. It has vast experience. It represents rank and file officers in this country. It would be foolish to proceed without its input.
The Home Secretary's statement in February that the Police Federation had been,
"resisting change for decades",
does not exactly lead to confidence that its voice will be listened to. I personally do not agree with what the Home Secretary said; nor, I imagine, do many others. I can certainly believe that at times the Police Federation represents a view which is not in line with Home Office thinking; for example, on community support officers, which we come to later in the Bill, or on police recruiting. But, goodness knows, it is not alone in taking that view. So it would be absurd if the Police Federation were to be excluded. I hope that I can infer from what the Minister is saying that not only will the Government consult with a body that includes the Police Federation, but that there is no question of its view simply being cast to one side.
It was an unjust remark by the Home Secretary. I hope that the Minister will think again on the Government's attitude and will confirm that that view— perhaps put at a particular time—does not represent a disdainful view of the Police Federation's contribution to this debate.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I want to make a few comments. The noble Lord was dealing with the government amendments in the first group of amendments. There are two amendments to which I should like to draw attention. The first is Amendment No. 5, which states:
"the specification, under section 4 of the Local Government Act 1999 (performance indicators), of performance indicators (within the meaning of that section) for police authorities".
That is a fairly ghastly piece of drafting—ugly is a polite word to use about it—but I shall return to performance indicators in a moment. Amendment No. 10 raises a similar point. It states:
"'general direction' means a direction under section 38 establishing performance targets for all police authorities to which section 37 applies".
After some of the Minister's comments in Committee, I am absolutely sure that he will have done his best to push, influence, squeeze or press the Home Office, which is not always responsive to Ministers, into some sort of positive action. When amendments
730
deal with matters such as performance indicators and performance targets, I begin to shake in my shoes with fear and horror.
I should be grateful to the Minister if, when he replies, he could tell us in some detail what are meant by performance targets, how they are measured and what are the indicators that will show whether the targets have been reached. One could easily joke about the matter, but performance indicators and performance targets, when applied to the immense complexities of operations such as that of the police in the difficult climate of crime with which they must contend today, are likely to prove unhelpful rather than the reverse. I hope that the noble Lord will do his best to set at rest my real doubts about those two matters.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, when the Minister is trying to put at rest the doubts of my noble friend Lord Peyton, perhaps he may also put my doubts to rest. I have a great deal of sympathy for what my noble friend has said. Nowadays, everything is about setting targets. Targets must be set for people to achieve. In the case of policing, that is difficult, as it is in the case of the National Health Service. People end up trying to chase the target and ensure that they achieve it. That becomes the pre-eminent factor, whereas the people being served are secondary.
I remember when one of the targets was the number of cases resolved. The police have been known to go to people in prison to ask if they did this or that. If they said yes, the number of cases solved rose and the target was achieved. That is not the right way to proceed. I am concerned that the police will find themselves fettered by the targets and that all their efforts will go to achieving them, as opposed to achieving better policing. I hope that the Minister will give a great deal of thought to that.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, I am not sure that I share the anxieties and concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, and the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, about performance indicators or performance targets, which may be just as good for policemen as they are for other parts of the public sector—and, indeed, the private sector.
I wonder whether one of the objections of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, to Amendment No. 5 was the sheer duplication of the phrase "performance indicators". First, we are told in parentheses that that is what Section 4 of the 1999 Act is all about; we are then told that the words "performance indicators" are to be understood within the meaning of that section. There seems to be a duplication there, which I hope can be avoided.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I have much sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, for asking precisely what the Home Office has in mind for performance targets. I chaired a group called Policing for London,

731
which published its report only last week, and on which both the Home Office and the police were represented. A key finding of the report stated:
"The current emphasis on narrow numerical performance measures in police management is distorting performance and reducing the quality of service".
That is the most recent research in which the Home Office has participated. Will the Minister therefore elaborate on what is likely to happen about performance indicators?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, tempted though I am by noble Lords who may want to change the basis of the debate, I shall not go into detail about the indicators.
Perhaps I may deal first with the important point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Fowler. I listed the representatives on the National Policing Forum, but may have omitted some in the interests of brevity. They include the Association of Police Authorities, the Association of Chief Police Officers, other police staff associations—namely, the Police Federation and other bodies such as the Police Superintendents' Association—representatives of victims and of ethnic minorities. I might add Unison, the trade union for civilian staff. So no battle lines have been drawn, as it were. It is quite unfair of the noble Lord, Lord Fowler to drag up things that were said in February; it is now April and we have moved on a little since then.
The noble Lord, Lord Peyton, picked on Amendment No. 5 because he thought that its drafting was ugly. I am sucking up to everyone to get this Bill through. The parliamentary draftsman has done an excellent job and your Lordships' House has done an excellent job of scrutiny of his original drafting. Not having the Local Government Act 1999 in front of me, I should imagine that the words that appear to be duplicated are not effectively so, it is just legalese. Reference is made to Section 4, which must have a side title, "performance indicators", which I suspect is given for declaratory purposes.
I am not sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, was in the Chamber—he may have been arriving at his seat—when I made the point that the provision is being added to the Bill now, having been omitted from the first draft, because the Association of Police Authorities, which, I have discovered, is well represented in this House, drew to our attention during Committee that we had not mentioned best value performance indicators in the Bill. The amendment is to correct that omission, because they concern general, strategic matters.
The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, is quite right: if one does not manage properly, one can be obsessed with the indicators to the point of failing at the main job. That means that we must be careful how we set the indicators. During my time at the Home Office, we have drastically reduced the number of best value indicators. I know that because I was discussing one indicator relating to the Immigration Service with my ministerial colleagues. It was thought that it was not strictly necessary. We were trying to cut down on indicators so that those responsible could agree targets
732
and indicators and have a number of them such that their management did not become an obsession to the extent of falling down on the main job.
Noble Lords have given an important warning about the issue, but, on the other hand, no private sector company, in the marketplace or anywhere else, that wants to deliver quality services to its customers and use quality staff will do so without some measure of performance as it goes along. It will not wait until it discovers that it has a failure on its hands and say, "We didn't measure what we were doing at the time". Most firms will set a budget; this is like a budget for management.
The performance indicators are subject to consultation with the Association of Police Authorities and the Association of Chief Police Officers before publication. Examples include a 25 per cent reduction in burglaries per thousand households; a 30 per cent reduction in vehicle crime per thousand of population; and a 14 per cent reduction in robberies by 2005 in five of the major metropolitan areas. Those are generalised; they are not micro-management indicators. It would be difficult for anyone to argue against them, although they might argue about the actual figures. It is useful to have a target.
I hope that I have answered the question about duplication, perhaps not to the total satisfaction of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, as he is, I think, about to point out.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, the Minister is completely correct. He said that I was not present for the beginning of his remarks. That is possible; I was elsewhere when he first started, waiting while that weary measure wound its awful, lengthy way through your Lordships' House. I must say that I was slightly surprised when, eventually, we actually got to the Bill that we were meant to have started on an hour and a half before.
I hope that the Minister will not spend too much time on the ugliness of the drafting; I put that in by the way. The point that I am dealing with is the supreme unreality of applying performance indicators and having performance targets for anything as complicated and varied as a police operation. Fixing them will be a matter of great grief. I am pleased to hear that it will be a matter for consultation, but those consultations will be either sour or infinitely drawn-out.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, the best answer that I can give to the noble Lord is that we are not inventing the wheel. The Bill does not introduce performance targets or indicators—I must make that abundantly clear. They are already in operation. It is not new. What we have done, for setting the National Policing Plan, is correct an omission that was drawn to our attention by the Association of Police Authorities in respect of a generalised statement about performance indicators.

733
The indicators are already in place, with the co-operation of and in consultation with the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Association of Police Authorities.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I have no doubt that we could argue about the detail for a long time, but it would not carry us much further forward. This part of the Bill is, in fact, considerably improved from what it was when we first saw it. That is a compliment to the work of all Members of the House and to the Government. We have done something useful.
It may be that, on further study, we shall wish to return to the matter. For now, however, we have taken it as far as we can. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne): My Lords, in calling Amendment No. 3, I should point out that, if this government amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 4, owing to pre-emption.
Lord Rookermoved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 8, leave out from "year" to end of line 9 and insert—
"(1A) The Secretary of State shall lay the National Policing Plan for a financial year before Parliament.
(1B) Subject to subsection (1C), any such plan must be laid before Parliament not later than 30th November in the preceding financial year.
(1C) If there are exceptional circumstances, any such plan may be laid before Parliament after the date mentioned in subsection (1B); but it must be so laid before the beginning of the financial year to which it relates.
(1D) If a plan is laid before Parliament after the date mentioned in subsection (1B), the plan must contain a statement of the exceptional circumstances that gave rise to its being so laid."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 4 not moved.]
Lord Rookermoved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, line 4, at end insert "and the giving of general directions in relation to any objective so set;
(ia) the specification, under section 4 of the Local Government Act 1999 (performance indicators), of performance indicators (within the meaning of that section) for police authorities;"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 not moved.]
Lord Rookermoved Amendment No. 8:
Page 2, line 16, at end insert—
"() Before laying the National Policing Plan for a financial year, before Parliament, the Secretary of State shall consult with—

(a) persons whom he considers to represent the interests of police authorities;

(b) persons whom he considers to represent the interests of chief officers of police; and

(c) such other persons as he thinks fit."

On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 9 not moved.]
Lord Rookermoved Amendment No. 10:
Page 2, line 18, at end inset"; and
`general direction' means a direction under section 38 establishing performance targets for all police authorities to which section 37 applies."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 2 [Codes of practice for chief officers]:
Lord Dixon-Smithmoved Amendment No. 11:
Page 2, line 27, at end insert "relating to those matters that are not appropriate to be in the public domain"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, these amendments were put down in advance of our seeing what the Government intended. They reveal a slight difference of opinion as to how such matters should be taken forward. On principle, I think that matters that are suitable to the public domain should go to the chief officers through the police authority.
The Government have, again, brought forward amendments that will greatly improve the situation and for which I am grateful. This is essentially a probing amendment, designed to move matters forward. I beg to move.
Baroness Harris of Richmond: My Lords, I speak to Amendment No. 12. We welcome the Government's amendments to Clause 2. The codes will rightly be laid before Parliament, and the CPTDA will be required to consult APA and ACPO. We are delighted that the Government have seen the light and been converted into enthusiastic proponents of consultation, not just on that issue but throughout the Bill.
Although we do not wish to appear ungrateful, we still believe that it is necessary to pursue the amendment that we tabled. There is a significant difference between it and that tabled by the Government. The Government's amendments put the obligation on the CPTDA to consult APA and ACPO. The CPTDA will draft the codes, so that consultation is likely to be about the content or details of what might go in any given code. Our amendment would place on the Home Secretary an obligation to consult the APA and ACPO. That is still necessary because that consultation would be rather different. It would be consultation about whether a code is needed or a particular issue and the general nature of that code. The Government have recognised the significance of that point in their proposed amendments to Clause 7. We shall discuss those later, but I simply draw the House's attention to the fact that the Government's amendments to that clause provide for consultation with the APA and ACPO by both the Home Secretary and by the CPTDA at appropriate stages in the process.
We do not wish to build in unnecessary consultation processes or bureaucratic procedures. We assume— perhaps the Minister can confirm it—that there is unlikely to be more than a handful of codes in total, so that what we propose should not be too onerous. We seek to ensure that, in deciding how and to what extent to make use of the considerable new powers that he

735
will have under the provision, the Home Secretary consults the tripartite partners and listens to their views.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I am grateful for the response to the government amendments. If the theme of our debate is to be that the Government have seen the light, I am happy with that. I should say that this is my best effort; there is no way that I can now go back to the Home Secretary. I have done my best.
From this group of amendments, by and large—I shall put it no more strongly than that—we can see that there is a broad consensus between us on the codes of practice and the requirements for laying codes of practice before Parliament. However, the amendments are not identical. Perhaps I may dwell on the similarities rather than on the differences.
On the question of consultation, Amendments Nos. 14, 53 and 56 tabled in my name require the Central Police Training and Development Authority—I still do not have a decent acronym for that body—to consult persons whom it considers to represent the interests of chief officers and police authorities and such other persons as it thinks fit. This will ensure that there is always a duty to consult the representatives of chief officers and police authorities, whatever they may be called and however they are constituted. That is the reason why that form of words has been used throughout the amendments and is the reason why we have not used the titles of the two organisations.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt the Minister for a moment. I hope that he will not spend too much time exerting himself in trying to find an acronym for the body he has just named. If we have an acronym, no one will understand it. At least one can understand the Minister when he speaks English.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Earl. I always try to avoid using acronyms. Earlier I used the acronym NCIS. I used it once, but then I spelt it out because it looks bad to those outside who follow our proceedings.
I turn to Amendment No. 13, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. The noble Lord made the point that the amendment was tabled before the government amendments, but broadly speaking it seeks to achieve the same end.
Amendment No. 12, spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, would place a duty on the Secretary of State to consult bodies representing chief officers and police authorities, but the effect would be to introduce a further round of consultation with the same people who had already been consulted by the Central Police Training and Development Authority. That would add an unnecessary stage to the process of drawing up the codes of practice. Consultation would be most relevant and appropriate at the point at which the Central Police Training and Development Authority was drawing up a draft code. Therefore the duty to consult properly rests with that authority.
736
With regard to the publication of any codes of practice, government Amendments Nos. 15, 54 and 57 provide for codes to be laid before Parliament, subject to a sensitivity test. A code, or the relevant parts of a code, would not be laid before Parliament where to do so would compromise national security, would hamper the tackling of crime or would endanger individuals' personal safety.
Amendments Nos. 16, 55 and 58, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, are in a similar vein, albeit that they do not contain a sensitivity test. I am perfectly prepared to discuss in detail why some of the probing amendments do not quite fit, but since they are probing it would be futile to go over them, for the reasons already given by the noble Lord. However, I ought to make it clear that Amendment No. 16, which would introduce a requirement to lay the codes before Parliament, if codes cover only issues not appropriate to be in the public domain, we have to ask what would be the purpose of setting down a requirement that they should be placed in the public domain.
It does not make sense for codes of practice only to cover areas of policing that ought to be kept out of the public domain. The purpose of such codes is to spread good practice in policing and to assist all forces to achieve the standards of the best by using tried and tested methods of policing.
There will be codes, or parts of codes, which can be placed in the public domain. Therefore we are prepared to lay those codes before Parliament. We see no sense in restricting the making of codes to restricted areas of policing. Obviously there is a need to keep certain sensitive matters out of the public domain. That is readily acknowledged in the existing Police Act 1996. Section 55 of that Act, which relates to the publication of reports by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary, exempts from the duty to publish any part of a report where the publication would be against the interests of national security or jeopardise the safety of any person. That is the precedent on which I rely for the sensitivity test set out in the government amendments.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for explaining his amendments and, to a certain extent, for his marginal demolition of ours, which was only to be expected. Again, the Bill has been improved and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 not moved.]
Lord Rookermoved Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 en bloc:
Page 2, line 38, leave out "such" and insert "—

(a) persons whom it considers to represent the interests of police authorities;

(b) persons whom it considers to represent the interests of chief officers of police; and

(c) such other"

Page 2, line 38, at end insert—
"(4A) The Secretary of State shall lay any code of practice issued by him under this section, and any revision of any such code, before Parliament.

737
(4B) The Secretary of State shall not be required by subsection (4A) to lay before Parliament, or may exclude from what he does so lay, anything the publication of which, in his opinion—

(a) would be against the interests of national security;

(b) could prejudice the prevention or detection of crime or the apprehension or prosecution of offenders; or

(c) could jeopardise the safety of any person."

On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 not moved.]
Clause 3 [Powers to require inspection and report]:
[Amendment No. 18 not moved.]
Clause 4 [Directions to police authorities]:
Lord Dixon-Smithmoved Amendment No. 19:
Page 3, line 35, leave out "the whole or any part of"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, here we come to the wretched words on the face of the Bill which deal with the "whole or any part of a force" and "whether generally or in particular". It seems to me that these words are unnecessary. If a part of a force is inefficient then the force is inefficient. We believe that in this part of the Bill a great many words are superfluous.
A further problem with this part of the Bill is that, as drafted, it confers too wide a possibility for the Secretary of State to direct police authorities. However, if I have understood it correctly, then I am delighted to note that government Amendment No. 23 confines actions taken under this clause to remedial actions as a result of a report. That being the case, once again I welcome the fact that this improvement—this limitation—is being made in acknowledgement of points that were raised in this House during our debates in Committee. Again, in Clause 24, the Secretary of State will be confined to reports or relevant matters.
Amendments Nos. 30 to 34 apply the same deletions to the wording used in Clause 5. Amendments Nos. 75, 76 and 86 again apply the same deletions both to the National Criminal Intelligence Service and the National Crime Squad. Here I shall follow the good practice of the Minister and set out the names in full, even if it takes a moment longer.
I accept that those bodies have a different status and therefore they act under different legislation, but I wonder whether, even though that is the case, we should not try to keep in place similar principles throughout the Bill. That is the reasoning behind Amendments Nos. 75, 76 and 86. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, has made clear, these amendments seek to remove all reference to under-performance being confined to part of a force or in any particular respect rather than in general. They would cover Clauses 4 and 5.
We take a different view from the noble Lord. As we see it, there is no good reason why the Secretary of State should not be able to require remedial measures—that is what we are referring to here—to be taken in relation to under-performance in a part of a force or in relation to a particular aspect of its work or functions.
738
Where under-performance has been identified in a geographical area, such as in a basic command unit or in one particular area of policing—for example, the reduction of burglary—the Home Secretary should be able to stop the rot before it spreads. He should be able to require early and effective remedial action to be taken rather than have to sit back powerless while the performance of the force as a whole begins to suffer.
This is particularly true of the larger forces. I am sure that the noble Lord will appreciate that in the Met the basic command units can be bigger than some of the smaller forces across England and Wales. Certainly there will be problems in basic command units in London which will affect local service provision, but which will never spread to cause the entire force to be inefficient or ineffective.
We have to accept that variations exist in large forces. For example, one of the large metropolitan forces saw an overall reduction in crime of 2.2 per cent in the 12 months to March 2001, as well as very welcome reductions in burglary of 13 per cent and in vehicle crime of 4 per cent. Over that same period of time, one of the basic command units within that force saw burglary rise by 2.8 per cent, theft from vehicles rise by 2.9 per cent and the theft of vehicles rise by 16.3 per cent. Those are not impressive statistics. In that force, robbery rose by 13 per cent over the previous year, but in the particular basic command unit it went up by nearly 20 per cent.
Our argument is simple: the Secretary of State should be able to suggest that that basic command unit be looked at to see what problems exist within it which are particular to its area and not shared across the force. Why should he not be able to insist that remedial action be taken within that area? It compares to using an Armalite where otherwise the Secretary of State would have to use a blunderbuss, which would be entirely inappropriate. Local people in that under-performing area would wish to see—they have a right to see—the very highest standards of policing.
In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, made the point that the Secretary of State was taking this power unto himself simply for the sake of it. That is not the case. We want to ensure that there is a speedy and effective way of making an early intervention in particular areas without disrupting the activities of a whole force. That is what we seek to achieve. It is appropriate, proportionate, targeted and focused, and it enables close attention to be paid to the particular problems of a small part of a larger force. That is the rationale behind our position.
I accept that it differs from the position of the noble Lord, but if we were to follow the route he suggests we would end up looking at a whole force area where tie problem persists only in a small part of it. That would not be a sensible use of time in trying to put matters right. In view of that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will reconsider the matter and withdraw his amendment.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, as I understand it, if something is going wrong in a police service, the

739
Secretary of State can say that it is happening in a particular area and that action should be taken. Is that not the responsibility of the police authority? Why should not the police authority do that as opposed to the Home Secretary? The Government seem to be gathering more power unto themselves.
It is particularly pertinent that I should ask this because I was responsible for taking the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill through the House in 1994. We then had a problem in regard to making the police authorities bigger and deciding whether their members should consist of elected or appointed people. There was an appalling row about it. People said that the Government had got it wrong and that the Home Secretary was taking powers unto himself and overriding the elected people. One noble Lord said:
"all this is part of the continuing destruction of local authorities. It is all part of gathering more power, whatever may be said by the Government about their intentions, into the hands of Whitehall and of Ministers who at the moment will be Conservative but who very shortly, I think, are likely to be Labour. That is an argument that ought to appeal to noble Lords opposite, if nothing else does".—[Official Report, 15/2/94; col. 120.]
The person who spoke those words was the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan of Cardiff. I was at the butt end of those remarks, which was, in its way, painful.
The Government are now seeking to do exactly the same. They are gathering unto the Home Secretary the power to tell police services what they should do and why they themselves have not done it. That is a dangerous road down which to go.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am interested that the noble Earl is now gathering support behind something with which he disagreed some time ago when the argument was put by the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan.
Let me deal with the noble Earl's point. Yes, we are seeking to ensure that the Secretary of State can make an effective remedial intervention. But, rather than trying to create a wide power to enable the Secretary of State to come in and look only at the whole of a force with the overall objective of looking at a small part of it, we are seeking a narrower provision to enable attention to be paid to a specific part of under-performance in a geographical force area or in a particular service so that the whole force is not disrupted when measures to put right something which is clearly not working are sought.
We have to look at this problem through the mind's eye of the public. They want to see something which is patently failing put right. How that is achieved may be of secondary interest, but they will not want to see the whole of a police force area disrupted when changes are required only in a small part of it. That is why we seek this specific provision. If we were to go along the course promoted by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, we would be undermining an important
740
measure to improve the quality of policing in a particular area. I cannot believe that the public or your Lordships would support that proposition.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the Minister said that he was surprised that I was now taking the view that the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, had taken some years ago. I should remind him that I was obliged to take back the first eight clauses of my police Bill because it was considered too dictatorial and too government oriented. The noble Lord should not be too worried if he has to take back a few clauses.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, in this House we should not allow the noble Lord to get away with the implication that the issuing of directions or codes of practice by a Minister improves policing. What it does do is satisfy the egos of the relevant government departments and gives them the feeling that they are doing something. There is a clear distinction.
However, as a result of later amendments, the Bill will be improved by the time we have finished our proceedings. Therefore, at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 20 and 21 not moved.]
Baroness Harris of Richmondmoved Amendment No. 22:
Page 3, line 41, leave out from "State" to "to" in line 42 and insert ", after consulting the police authority responsible for maintaining that force, may direct that authority".
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 22, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 27, which concerns Clause 4 and is the substantive amendment on which I wish to speak. I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 35 and 38—it would have been better had they been grouped separately—which deal with similar issues under Clause 5, and to Amendments Nos. 59, 62 and 67 and their application to the National Criminal Intelligence Service and the National Crime Squad. I hope that is clear.
Amendment No. 27 stands in my name and that of my namesake and former APA colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey. He regrets that he is unable to be in his place today. It stands also in the names of my noble friends Lord Dholakia and Lord Bradshaw.
I followed your Lordships' discussions in Committee very carefully and with close interest. It was striking that a similar amendment to this one, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, received widespread support. Even the Minister felt moved to remark that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, had done the House a service in tabling the amendment—which was praise indeed—and he undertook to take away a number of the issues raised in the debate on Clause 4. True to his word, he has come back with substantive proposals and we warmly welcome government

741
Amendments Nos. 23, 24, 25 and 42. They considerably improve the provisions of Section 40 of the Police Act 1996, on which Clause 4 is based.
Welcome though the amendments are, Amendment No. 27 and Amendment No. 41, which relates to Clause 5, are designed to cure a rather different problem—the problem being Clause 5 itself. Indeed, Amendment No. 27 aims to help the Government to find a way through the difficulties that they have created for themselves in the clause. I trust that your Lordships will bear with me if, in addressing Amendment No. 27, I pre-empt some of the discussions that we may have later about Clause 5, about which I shall speak only briefly.
This amendment is intended to replace Clause 5. I hope that that is clear. Clauses 4 and 5 both give the Home Secretary powers to intervene directly where a force or part of it is identified as ineffective or inefficient. Clause 4 provides for the Home Secretary to make such intervention through the local police authority. Under Clause 5, the Home Secretary would intervene directly in the force, presumably using his new police standards unit. That is the fundamental objection to Clause 5. It represents a substantial change in the current tripartite arrangements.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, put the point admirably in Committee. The amendment seeks to replicate part of what is proposed in Clause 5; but it does so in such a way as to support and enhance the tripartite relationship rather than undermining it. The Minister has assured us that it will not be the intention of the Home Secretary to intervene in and seek to micro-manage forces. He nevertheless intends to impose targets, time-scales and action plans. The amendment makes that the responsibility of the local police authority. After all, that is precisely what the police authority is there to do. However, the amendment recognises the Home Secretary's legitimate interest and gives him a chance to work with and through the police authority to put matters right. The amendment does away with the need for Clause 5, unpalatable as it clearly is to your Lordships.
I read with considerable interest, and no small surprise, the Minister's response to the amendment in Committee. I do not want to put the Minister on the spot, but his response bears some examination. We may find that it helps us to identify whether our amendments can resolve the problems which both Clauses 4 and 5 seek to cure.
The Minister's objection to the amendment was that the police authority should be kept away from operational matters because it administers funding. He went on to say that this represented a fundamental difference between police authorities and the Secretary of State, who, he suggested, could therefore have a role in operational matters. That concerned me somewhat. It seemed to suggest a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of police authorities and the concept of operational independence.
I shall make three brief points—although I could make many more. First, the Home Secretary is responsible for the overall allocation of resources to
742
the police service. His role at national level is the same as that of the police authority in allocating resources locally. Secondly, the police authority's role as set out in the Police Act 1996 is not limited to administering funding. It is the job of the police authority to ensure that the style and nature of local policing reflects the views of local people; to set the strategic direction for local policing; to decide what the local policing priorities should be—including operational policies; and to monitor and manage the forces formally.
Thirdly, I am absolutely confident that everyone in the House will agree that the operational independence of the police service is the bedrock of our policing system. None of us wants that undermined in any way. The Home Secretary is in exactly the same position as the local police authority. The Home Secretary must not interfere in operational decisions on particular cases or events. They are a matter for the chief officer. But both the police authority locally and the Home Secretary nationally have a role in setting operational policy. Therefore, it is not clear to me why the powers available to the Home Secretary under Clause 4, as supplemented by the amendment, are insufficient; or why the Home Secretary should bypass the police authority and intervene directly in forces.
The Minister has said previously that the Home Secretary wants more levers to impact on police performance, and that he needs them because of variations in performance across forces and BCUs. There were a great many discussions in Committee about whether the Minister was in a position to make those judgments. We all know the difficulty of comparing like with like. But that said, we all want our local communities to have the best possible policing services. We can do that without undermining the constitutional settlement and the tripartite relationship.
Local police authorities are responsible for managing and monitoring local police performance. It is they who must answer and are accountable on the ground, day in, day out, to their communities for the policing services provided. The amendment enables the Home Secretary to work through and with the local police authority to improve performance if there are deficiencies, and to give his views on what needs to be done. Ultimately, the amendment would ensure that the action taken reflected the needs of local communities which the local police authority and the chief officer are best placed to judge.
I am sorry to have taken up so much time, but we are dealing with the most critical part of the Bill. I hope that your Lordships will agree that the Government's proposal and the constructive alternatives that we have sought to bring forward should be fully explored. I beg to move.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, before the Minister responds, perhaps I may speak briefly, for the record, to my amendments in the grouping.
The proposal in Amendment No. 40—repeated in Amendments Nos. 83 and 93—provides an amendment to government Amendment No. 39 and

743
other instances where the provision applies. It is a repeat amendment which will appear six or seven times in the Bill.
Amendment No. 39 provides that,
"If the Secretary of State exercises his power to give a direction … he shall prepare a report … and … lay that report before Parliament".
That is an enormous improvement and such a provision is very welcome. However, proposed new subsection (13) states that any such report,
"shall be prepared at such time as the Secretary of State considers appropriate; and … may relate to more than one exercise of the power".
The provision is all right; but the words,
"at such time as the Secretary of State considers appropriate",
are an open-ended time limit. Indeed, it is not a time limit at all. The report could be prepared—or it might not be prepared—before a general election. There might be a change of government and all kinds of things might happen. We ought, as a matter of precaution, to place a reasonable time limit on the preparation of the report. The amendment suggests six months as a reasonable time limit for what is a fairly routine matter. I hope that the Minister may find it possible to agree with the principle behind the amendment.
The other amendments in the group apply the proposal to the National Criminal Intelligence Service and to the National Crime Squad. We believe that that is perfectly reasonable. We believe also that the director of the National Criminal Intelligence Service ought to have the agreement of his service authority before putting in place any plan to implement a direction from the Home Secretary. This, again, is a matter of natural, good internal administrative relationships. The Government could concede these amendments without any difficulty or embarrassment. I hope that they will. I beg to move.
6 p.m.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, given not just the number of government and opposition amendments in the group, but the debates we had in Committee, I imagine that many noble Lords regard this as the most important debate today. I shall set out the Government's approach to the points made in Committee. We have taken issues on board and have tried to find an acceptable solution indicating exactly what we are seeking to do. A further group of government amendments, not contained in this group, remove the words "operational procedures and practices" from Clause 7. Those words sent the wrong signals. That is not what we are about. We think that the content is OK, but even the title gave all the wrong vibrations when we discussed the issue. To the extent that we have tried to get the message, I hope that we have come up with a package that can be viewed as a whole, and I trust that your Lordships will see that we are at one.
The amendments that would require the Secretary of State to consult the National Criminal Intelligence Service or the National Crime Squad's service
744
authority before issuing a direction are grouped with some lengthy amendments in my name. Some of the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, and others are superseded by the government amendments. I shall set out the broad thrust of our amendments and comment on the others.
As we explained in the White Paper, it has always been the Government's intention that the use of the direction powers in relation to police authorities, chief officers, the National Criminal Intelligence Service and the National Crime Squad would be governed by a protocol, which would set out clearly the steps that must be taken before the Secretary of State could issue a direction.
Noble Lords from all sides—including those behind me, to my left and my right—expressed grave reservations about the permanence of such a protocol, even were it to be negotiated and signed up to by all three of the tripartite partners. That is why we have tabled amendments to place those steps on the face of the Bill. The key amendment in the group is the lengthy Amendment No. 42, which inserts a new clause after the present Clause 5. It governs the procedures for giving directions under the revised Section 40 of the Police Act and the new Section 41A. In shorthand—lawyers should not take too much notice—the new clause inserted by Amendment No. 42 will govern how the Home Secretary proceeds.
The amendment was put together as a result of your Lordships' deliberations in Committee. It requires the Home Secretary to put the evidence that a force or a part of a force is not efficient or effective to the chief officer and the police authority and to afford them the opportunity to make representations. The Home Secretary will be obliged to have regard to any such representations.
The amendment further requires the Home Secretary to afford the chief officer or the police authority the opportunity to put in place their own remedial measures before they are directed to do so. It is almost a long stop to a long stop. As I have said repeatedly, this is a last resort action by the Home Secretary and it would constitute almost a failure of local policing by the chief officer, the force or the police authority for the whole of the force or particular parts or functions. We want them to put their own house in order. It would not be a surprise to the locality that there was a problem.
The amendment provides a further impetus on the face of the Bill to give all the bodies involved on the ground the chance to put their own remedial measures—not the Home Secretary's—into force before they are directed to do so. The Home Secretary would move to a direction only if the measures proposed by the police authority or the chief officer were considered inadequate or if those measures failed to remedy the poor performance. Further procedural steps could be laid down in regulations, subject to affirmative procedure. Matters that could not be dealt with on the face of the Bill and had to done through secondary legislation would be dealt with by the affirmative procedure.

745
Also in response to arguments made in Committee, amendments have been tabled to amend the current Clause 5 to ensure that progress reports on any action plan from the chief officer must be submitted to the police authority as well as to the Home Secretary. I think your Lordships will agree that we are proposing a robust and effective system to ensure that powers of direction cannot be used lightly. The proposals will not enable any Home Secretary to operate on a whim or a hunch. We have said that that cannot happen and that we do not want it to happen, but we have repeatedly been told that perhaps not all future Home Secretaries will be as nice and benign as the present Home Secretary. We are locking in that process. The powers of direction cannot be used lightly. We have given assurances time and again that they will not be used lightly and that provision is now being put on the face of the Bill. These are powers to be used in the last resort when all other mechanisms have failed—and are clearly seen to have failed—to deliver at local level. That is why we have no problem in transparently operating the powers by a clearly set out process that gives the police authority or the chief officer every opportunity to correct the under-performance at issue.
We are also happy to be held to account for those powers. That is why I propose that the Home Secretary—or Scottish Ministers, where they have the power to direct in relation to the National Criminal Intelligence Service—should be required to report the use of those powers to Parliament. I accept that that is important. My colleagues in government agreed in discussion that being accountable to Parliament means more than just answering Questions or being subject to written Questions and Statements. There must be a requirement to report on the use of the powers to Parliament. We intend to produce the reports as early as is practical after exercising the powers of direction, if those powers are used.
However, the opposition amendments would require the Home Secretary to prepare his report in six months. I am not nit-picking about a technical deficiency. Under the amendments, he would not be required to lay the report before Parliament within six months. That is an important point. If the powers are ever used and there is a sniff that the report to Parliament has been delayed for what I might call political purposes, all hell will break out in both Houses of Parliament, given the nature of the amendments under consideration. The amendments spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, would not lock in the Home Secretary in respect of the reports being laid before Parliament.
I respect the absence of my noble friend Lord Harris. His initial amendment was very important and gave us an opportunity to look at another way of dealing with a very difficult issue. However, we think that Amendment No. 27 is the wrong approach to use of the powers. It would be more time-consuming, routing the direction and the action plan via the police authority, rather than the Home Secretary agreeing the form of direction and the contents of the action plan in consultation with the police authority. There are two stages to the process under Amendment
746
No. 27. Two individual parts of the tripartite partnership sending action plans back and forth for revision and amendment has the potential for delay in the delivery of the plans. Our fellow citizens want those action plans to be delivered if it has been accepted that they are required.
The Home Secretary has a strategic overview which the police authority does not have, being, as it is, closely involved with the police force. Once under-performance reaches the stage at which directions are necessary—when there is an up-front and knowing failure which the local public will know about—the police authority will have already had its chance to drive up performance. As I said, the power is for use only in the last resort. We have also built in a further stage in which the police authority and chief police officer can propose their own way of delivering an action plan.
I have not had a chance to discuss the government amendments with my noble friend Lord Harris of Haringey, but I hope that his concerns about the police authority's involvement in the process are dealt with in the proposed new clause in government Amendment No. 42.
As to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, in relation to some of his later amendments, the Home Secretary will not be requiring the directors-general of the National Criminal Intelligence Service or the National Crime Squad to implement impractical action plans. Moreover, the government amendments build safeguards into the procedure for issuing directions to ensure that the directions and action plans are carefully thought through in terms of deliverability. Those safeguards will provide the directors-general of the two services and the service authorities with an opportunity to make representations and proposals to the Secretary of State before he issues a direction.
Therefore, like police authorities and local chief officers, the other two services will have an opportunity to propose their own action plan. It would be in no one's interest for the Home Secretary to make unreasonable demands of the National Criminal Intelligence Service or the National Crime Squad. He will therefore consult with both organisations before issuing any directions. That is why there is no need to specify in the Bill that a direction must be achievable before it can be issued. As I said, the Home Secretary will work with the directors-general and the service authorities to ensure that a direction is achievable before it is issued; it would be too late to do so after it is issued. However, the Home Secretary has a right to expect a direction, once issued, to be implemented. Amendments Nos. 81 and 91 would subvert that expectation. As such, I do not commend them to the House.
I freely admit that our discussions in Committee were of considerable help to myself and my colleagues in trying to enshrine the Government's intention, rather than what people believe is our intention, in statute. I also freely admit that things are not always drafted as clearly as they could be. Moreover, even

747
with the best will in the world, Ministers can no longer simply stand up and say, "I am a Minister. Believe me and trust me". Life is no longer like that. The situation was the same before I became a Minister, but I am now free to admit it. We are a mature and alert democracy, and the public should always be encouraged to question and to be suspicious of those in authority.
I hope that, because of the way in which we have locked down these issues in this group of amendments, chief police officers will be confident that the Home Secretary is not seeking to do their job. I also hope that police authority members will be confident that they perform an extremely valuable function at the service level of the 43 police authorities. The Home Office is in no way seeking to do their job; that is not our intention. The amendments provide last-resort powers. Moreover, we have built in further checks and balances in their use; we have provided a long stop to the long stop. I genuinely believe that we have used our very best endeavours in developing this package to try to meet the demands that noble Lords made in Committee. I therefore hope that the government amendments in this group will find favour with noble Lords.
Lord Renton: My Lords, the Minister has obviously had second thoughts—as presumably has the Home Secretary—about Clause 5. Amendment No. 42 is obviously an attempt by the Government to mitigate the unpopularity, and indeed the rather resolute provisions, of Clause 5. However, I implore the Minister to bear in mind that Amendment No. 42 really does need to be mentioned in Clause 5. Clause 5 should at least include a phrase to the effect of, "Subject to the provisions of what will become Section 41B". Without such a cross-reference, there will appear to be a conflict in the Bill.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, far be it from me to talk about Bill drafting to the noble Lord, but I should make it clear that Clause 5 will become a new section in the Police Act 1996. The amendment will become Section 41A of the 1996 Act, and it has the heading,
"Powers to give directions to chief officers".
The proposed new clause in Amendment No. 42 will follow that new section and is headed,
"41B Procedure for giving directions under sections 40 and 41A".
Therefore, there is a direct reference in Amendment No. 42 to Clause 5.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I understand that. I have understood it throughout. The point concerns the very drastic powers given to the Home Secretary in what is intended to become new Section 41A of the 1996 Act. As a matter of drafting, and in accordance with our usual practice, Clause 5 should at least contain the phrase, "Subject to the provision of Section 41B of the 1996 Act."
748
Although I believe that the suggested minor change would help, I go further. Frankly—but without going into a mass of detail—the provisions of Amendment No. 42 are in conflict with the provisions of proposed new Section 41A as set out in Clause 5. I think it desirable for the two clauses to be redrafted not only so that they dovetail better, but to mitigate the very considerable powers expressed in Clause 5 which really do conflict with what the Minister has just proposed. I am trying to be helpful. It really would be better if we included in the legislation something along the lines of what I have just proposed.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I accept the noble Lord's comments. However, at the risk of repeating myself, when the two new clauses are read together, as they will be in the 1996 Act, it will be clear that one is 41A and the other is 41B. Not only will the title of the new Section 41B refer to new Section 41A, but the very first line of 41B effectively states that the Secretary of State cannot operate that new section unless he follows the procedure laid out in new Section 41B. There is a direct link between the two. In other words, Clause 5—which has been such a contentious issue in this House—cannot operate unless the procedures specified in the subsequent section are followed.
I am always happy to take advice, as is the parliamentary draftsman. In fact, I know that the draftsman is happy to take advice from the noble Lord, Lord Renton. I give my word that if the provisions require any tidying up in relation to drafting or other technical matters, that matter will certainly be looked at. However, I also make it clear that Clause 5—which itself is amended in my amendments in this group—cannot operate unless the procedures laid out in Amendment No. 42 are followed. That is clearly stated at the beginning of the amendment.
Baroness Harris of Richmond: My Lords, I have listened with great interest to the Minister. I am sorry that he has difficulty with the suggestion that police authorities should be consulted. He spoke about going backwards and forwards and said that it would be too time consuming. If there were failings, police authorities would have had their doors battered down by their local communities. The Minister's remarks about going backwards and forwards would have made no difference. Police authorities would simply have dealt with matters at an earlier stage. I wish that the Minister would reassure his right honourable friend the Home Secretary about that. Where have failings occurred? Where does he think they might occur?
The provision is a sledgehammer to crack a nut. I am deeply disappointed by the Minister's remarks that the Home Secretary can intervene and direct the local police authority under Clause 4. Our suggestion is a much better way of dealing with these matters. Under Clause 5 the Home Secretary will intervene directly, which is not the best way forward. I am disappointed. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, but warn the Minister that we shall probably return to the matter at Third Reading.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Rookermoved Amendment No. 23:
Page 3, line 42, after "such" insert "remedial"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall speak also to the amendments in this group which are in my name. Amendments Nos. 24, 25, 60, 61, 63 to 66 and 68 to 71 are intended to define better the sorts of measures that can be included in the direction to police authorities.
The key phrase, which goes to the heart of what we discussed in Committee, is that the measures must be remedial; they must be about putting right what the inspection report has identified as being wrong. The amendments also specify that the remedial measures must refer only to matters identified in the report as being related to the under-performance identified by the inspectorate, or to matters that the Secretary of State believes are relevant to the matters identified by the inspectorate.
I make it absolutely clear that it is our intention that directions will be used to correct under-performance and that this is not about the Home Secretary micro-managing individual police forces on a day-to-day basis. Such directions are intended to remedy a problem. That is the key point to make. In addition, because we are committed to the use of these powers being open and transparent, we propose that the Home Secretary should report his use of the direction-making powers to Parliament. I shall not repeat what I said on the previous group of amendments.
Your Lordships have tabled amendments to this provision and we are prepared to accept that reports on the use of powers should be laid as soon as practicable after the exercise of the power. However, the amendments, as worded, would not achieve what they are intended to achieve. They would not require the Home Secretary to lay reports before Parliament within six months. They require only that the reports are prepared within six months. The Bill would be meaningless were we to accept these amendments.
In that spirit, it is open to your Lordships to table amendments at a later stage. We are putting the emphasis on remedying a problem; they must be remedial measures. That shows that we are not attempting to manage the day-to-day operations of the police service.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, the Minister has raised the issue of the timing of those reports and has suggested that my amendment does not require the reports to be laid before Parliament within the time limit. I accept that technical criticism of the drafting. If the Minister can give an assurance that the reports will be laid before Parliament within six months, it would spare us all the necessity to table further amendments at Third Reading and might save us all a little time. Will the Minister consider that suggestion?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, this is my best effort. I am not saying that everything is perfect. We are prepared to accept that reports should be laid as soon as is practicable after the exercise of the powers. If your Lordships are not satisfied with that and we can find a form of words, I shall be happy to grovel to my right
750
honourable friend and say that I weakened in a moment of ecstasy. It would be to everyone's satisfaction if we were to get the words right. I shall certainly consider the matter, but I make no promises for Third Reading.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Rookermoved Amendments Nos. 24 and 25:
Page 3, line 43, at end insert—
"(2) Those remedial measures must not relate to any matter other than—

(a) a matter by reference to which the report contains a statement of opinion falling within subsection (1)(a) or (b); or

(b) a matter that the Secretary of State considers relevant to any matter falling within paragraph (a)."

Page 3, line 43, at end insert—
"(3) If the Secretary of State exercises his power to give a direction under this section in relation to a police force—

(a) he shall prepare a report on his exercise of that power in relation to that force; and

(b) he shall lay that report before Parliament.

(4) A report under subsection (3)—

(a) shall be prepared at such time as the Secretary of State considers appropriate; and

(b) may relate to more than one exercise of the power mentioned in that subsection."

On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 26 and 27 not moved.]
Clause 5 [Directions to chief officers]:
[Amendments Nos. 28 to 35 not moved.]
Lord Rookermoved Amendments Nos. 36 and 37:
Page 4, line 41, leave out from "making" to "or in line 42.
Page 4, line 43, after "plan" insert "to the Secretary of State and to the police authority maintaining the force in question;
() provision as to the times at which, and the manner in which, any progress report is to be made;"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 38 not moved.]
Lord Rookermoved Amendment No. 39:
Page 5, line 15, at end insert—
"(12) If the Secretary of State exercises his power to give a direction under this section in relation to a police force—

(a) he shall prepare a report on his exercise of that power in relation to that force; and

(b) he shall lay that report before Parliament.

(13) A report under subsection (12)—

(a) shall be prepared at such time as the Secretary of State considers appropriate; and

(b) may relate to more than one exercise of the power mentioned in that subsection."

On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 40, as an amendment to Amendment No. 39, not moved.]
Lord Dixon-Smithmoved Amendment No. 41:
Leave out Clause 5.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it was quite coincidental, and not by arrangement, that a report was issued last week by the London School of Economics and the South Bank University about crime and disorder in London. The first paragraph states:
"Narrow, centrally imposed priorities are creating a growing gap between what Londoners expect of the police and what they get. Unless the Metropolitan Police can be more responsive to the needs of local people, it will lose the community support it needs to tackle crime effectively".
I regret that I have been unable to get the full report, but the summary states:
"One important factor has been the unintended consequences of the performance management systems that were imposed on the police throughout the 1990s. Quantitative performance targets were set by successive Home Secretaries, by HM Inspectorate of Constabulary and by the Audit Commission; these generally gave primacy to crime-fighting objectives at the expense of order maintenance. Especially in the 1990s they also imposed the same priorities across widely differing areas regardless of variations in crime problems. This limited the capacity of local police to prioritise according to local need. If the flexibility of the MPS to respond to local problems was constrained by central government initiative, the problem was compounded by the high degree of centralisation in the MPS decision-making. Borough commanders were responsible for areas as large as some provincial forces"—
as the Minister has already said—
"but with far more intense problems of crime and disorder. Yet at the time of fieldwork they had limited scope to use their own discretion to tailor their resource allocation to local need".
Clause 5 takes the business of central administration of what are essential local services too far. The truth of the matter is that the Home Office is in a muddle. That academically-based report highlights the difficulties of the police service. The police service is over-administered; it is having difficulty with policing. Regrettably it seems to be ineffective; regrettably it is not perceived to have adequate detection rates in criminal matters; regrettably it is not effectively preventing crime because it has not got time; and regrettably, as a consequence of all of that, it produces low conviction rates in the courts.
I sometimes think that if the Home Secretary were honest, he would be grateful that the police were achieving low conviction rates. The prison population is at its highest level ever and the prisons are bursting at the seams. Quite frankly, if the police were to double their performance rate and the consequence was that conviction rates were doubled, there would be nowhere to put the criminals.
One can look at other aspects: for example, the asylum services. We read in our Sunday newspapers that asylum seekers who are supposed to stay in this country regularly take trips across the Channel for vacations or family weddings. That system is not working properly. The Government's strategic services, which are responsible for providing the systems, are not working. Within that, in Clause 5 we see the legislative tentacles of the department stretching down desperately seeking something small enough to control.
752
We believe that Clause 5 is wrong. There are jobs which central government can and should do, and there are jobs that they should not do. There is nothing that can be done from an office in Whitehall which will affect things dramatically on the streets, be it in London, Birmingham or even my local town of Braintree. Everywhere the circumstances are different. I accept that the Minister has done his best to ensure that the actions taken under Clause 5 would only be taken as a last remedial power, a long-stop to a long-stop, having given the local bodies the incentive, which already exists, to put matters right in the first place.
If we accept the new management systems, we will find the management information which is available is a recent phenomenon which was not available to police authorities or chief constables in earlier days. So those systems could not operate more quickly than the Home Office is now intending. Clause 5 is therefore completely unnecessary. It goes too far. It is taking central administration to the point where it is beginning to prevent the effective performance of these essential services.
Another report was published only one week ago saying more or less the same thing about the health service. This is a lesson we all need to learn fast and seriously. We have therefore come to the conclusion that the only sensible way of preventing this excess of action, which is damaging, is to delete Clause 5. I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, we have made abundantly clear throughout the Committee stage and at Second Reading that it is our view that Clause 5 is unacceptable. We are therefore delighted to support Amendment No. 41 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, myself and my noble friend Lord Bradshaw.
Clause 5 threatens the very basis of our tripartite system of checks and balances by placing too much power in the hands of the Home Secretary. I listened carefully in the earlier debate about the long-stop and the long-long-stop about which the Minister talked. But we have to be careful because the tripartite system has been constructed to ensure that no one party has complete control over policing. It is a unique system and works very well. That is not to say that the tripartite relationships may not be slightly adjusted from time to time, and the previous Home Secretaries have rightly done so. We recognise that that may be so and will work constructively with the Government to achieve the changes that are needed.
But Clause 5 goes too far. It rebalances the tripartite relationship in a way which places too much power in the hands of the Home Secretary. It diminishes local influence, local accountability and local control. The tripod which has stood the test of time is now to be removed.
Clause 5 allows the Home Secretary effectively to control local operational policy, despite the fact that the word "operational" has been questioned again and

753
again. It empowers the Home Secretary to direct exactly what the chief officer or BCU commander must do through specifying the contents of action plans, targets and time-scales. It provides for the chief officer to report directly to the Home Secretary and it gives the local police authority, whose job it is to monitor and manage police performances, little say in the process. The police authority will only have to be consulted on the action plan, not agree it, and thus will have little say over the targets, time-scales or resources to be applied to the problem which the Home Secretary has decided needs to be solved. The authority will be copied into progress reports, but will have no effective role in managing performance.
We have already indicated that in bringing forward their amendments we recognise that the Government were trying to be responsive to the concerns rehearsed in earlier debates. But they do not address the fundamental problem with Clause 5; that is, that it subverts the existing tripartite relationship. I do not see how anyone can argue that that is not a radical change in our system of policing.
We heard in Committee the Minister's contention that this radical change in our system is needed because of the wide variations in police performance throughout the country. Various statistics were bandied about. But we all know that statistics can be used to support any case where needed.
We are fully behind the Minister on one point. We agree that all our communities are entitled to the best possible policing. We entirely support driving up police performance. We do not want to see postcode policing either. But we have to look at what the Minister is proposing and whether it will solve the issue.
There was an interesting exchange at Committee stage between my noble friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury who, sadly, cannot be here today, and the Minister. My noble friend asked why the Minister thought that the Home Office could do better than local police authorities and forces. The Minister's response was,
"could the Home Office do it worse?"
Most of us believe that it could happen. He is not accountable day in and day out in the way that local police authorities and chief officers are to their communities. Where there are variations in performance we need to motivate local police authorities and forces to find solutions with their communities, not send in civil servants from Whitehall.
The Minister has assured us time and again that this is the nuclear option; the power of last resort. But Clause 4 already gives the Home Secretary all the power he needs while preserving the national/local balance of control over policing. We believe that our amendment to Clause 4 is the solution.
But given the establishment of the Police Standards Unit and experience elsewhere in government, it is hard to believe that the Home Secretary will not be tempted to use the new powers available to him.
754
But this would have serious and unwelcome ramifications for local policing. Our system is unique in giving local people a strong voice in how they are policed. This is critical to policing by consent. We do not want to see our police under the control of central government or their activities politicised, which is what Clause 5 could ultimately mean.
We all want to improve local policing in our communities. No one disagrees with the Government about that. The question is how best to achieve that. We urge the Government to think again about how best to secure those improvements.
A partnership approach which builds on the relative strengths and responsibilities of local police authorities working with their forces and their communities is likely to prove more successful than any direction from Whitehall.
I return to a very important point made by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. Earlier in the debate I mentioned the report Policing for London which the noble Lord cited. The study follows the one carried out by the Policy Studies Institute about 20 years ago. The important theme in the report is that increased central control over the police does not guarantee more effective policing.
There has been an understandable sense of urgency on the part of successive governments to get to grips with crime and disorder and reforming the police is an important element in all this. But the risks and cost of the different options need to be publicly aired and properly discussed. We have done that at Committee stage. Centralising the policing function is not an option which we would approve. There is too much at stake if we get it wrong.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene briefly before the Minister responds. During Committee stage noble Lords on the Conservative and the Liberal Democrat Benches made a number of important points in relation to Clause 5, the power to give directions to chief' officers. As the Minister explained and everybody agreed, it was a power that would only be used in the last resort. It was to be used if a police force, or part of it, were inefficient or ineffective or if it would become so unless remedial measures were taken.
But there were concerns, especially those expressed then and a moment ago by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, that the involvement of central government and the Home Secretary with the chief of police direct was a severe interference with the tripartite system. While some very strong concerns were expressed at Committee stage, I do not believe that either the Conservative or Liberal Democrat Benches have made out a case today in the light of Amendment No. 42, which the Minister has already explained but which we have not yet reached.
That is an example of the working out of the tripartite system and it is not in any way an attack on it. It involves giving every opportunity there could possibly be to the police authority in the first place and to the chief officer of police in the second, to make

755
representations and proposals and to have them considered by the Home Secretary. In the light of that amendment, if it is accepted, there is no way in which anybody could seriously argue that it was a great attack on the tripartite system or the arrival of centralised power in the sole hands of the Home Secretary. If Amendment No. 42 is accepted, and it is a form of centralisation, it is an incredibly modest one, which hardly deserves the attack that has been maintained from the Committee stage to this Report stage when we have this important other amendment in front of us.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, when one wants to decide against whom an army is marching one looks to see in which direction the guns of its tanks are pointed. It seems to me that this clause is a tank. There has been an elaborate effort to camouflage it. There have been very praiseworthy efforts to hedge about its use. I recognise what the Minister has done and the difficulty he has no doubt had in persuading his right honourable friend and those who advised him. After three years in their company at the Home Office I hold them in high regard.
But in this respect I do not believe that the men at Whitehall know best because the tank is still pointing its gun at the solitary figure of the chief officer of police. The Secretary of State can tell his police authority what he is about and take advice from anybody. But in the end he has opted not to use the powers under Clause 4 and deal through the other part of the tripartite arrangement, which consists of people with a democratic responsibility, but to deal direct with somebody appointed as a public servant. He will find himself staring down the barrel along which is squinting the Secretary of State, the Permanent Secretary, the Under-Secretary and the Assistant Secretary, and all the authorities of the state who can wield their power on him.
I do not believe that the camouflage, even that expressed in what the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, said, actually conceals the fact that the gun is pointing at the chief constable. He should have the support of his authority and it should have a voice and a role in this matter, not merely to be consulted but to be the body at which the gun is pointed. I stand by my noble friend's proposition that this clause should not stand part of the Bill.
Baroness Harris of Richmond: My Lords, perhaps I can help the noble Lord, Lord Borrie. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Elton, for putting his concerns so succinctly on this matter. I wish to add a few words based on my past experience as chair of my local police authority. I was a member of the National Crime Squad Service Authority and also deputy chair of the National Association of Police Authorities.
In my view Clause 5 creates more problems for the Home Secretary than it could ever solve. At earlier stages the Minister told us that the Home Secretary believes that the tripartite relationship means that he
756
gets all the blame. Police authorities have all the money and chief officers have all the power. I find it somewhat worrying that after 10 months in the job the Home Secretary seems to have what can only be described as a distorted view of the governance of policing in this country.
From the local perspective it is the other way round. The Home Secretary has the money and power while police authorities and chief officers struggle to provide a genuinely local policing service which meets the needs and aspirations of their communities.
My colleagues have already made clear our fundamental objections to Clause 5 and the equivalent provision in Schedule 1(4) which relates to the National Criminal Intelligence Service and National Crime Squad. Taken with the rest of Part 1 of the Bill and the new powers that the Home Secretary proposes to give himself elsewhere in the Bill, it radically shifts control of policing away from local people and communities to Whitehall.
We are told that the powers in Clause 5 are the last resort and that they are needed to drive up poor performance to the level of the best. As far as I can see, the Government have given us no hard evidence to show why such powers are necessary or in which circumstances they will be used. We have already discussed the extensive powers available under Clause 4. Can the Minister give a concrete example of why the powers under Clause 5 are needed and how they will be used?
While the Minister considers that, I shall turn to the recent street crime initiative. The Government are concerned about rising levels of street crime as I am sure are all noble Lords. The Prime Minister has instigated weekly crime summits involving key players from the Association of Police Authorities, the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Criminal Prosecution Service, the courts and other government departments such as the Department of Health and the Department for Education and Skills. The 10 forces identified as having the worst problems in this area are already developing action plans to tackle the situation. That is being undertaken at the moment without the powers proposed under Clause 5. I leave the Minister and your Lordships with a question: why on earth do we need Clause 5?
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, I apologise for not being able to attend the debate earlier, although I sat through many of the debates on this matter on the previous occasions when it was discussed. Your Lordships' House is rightly concerned—I share the concern—about any attempt to try to centralise control of the police. With the greatest respect to your Lordships, I fail to understand much of the argument. Perhaps I may illustrate my point as simply as I can.
The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, said that there should not be policing by postcode, with which I agree. I suggest that the powers being sought in Clause 5 are to try to achieve that. To that extent, it is on the side of local policing. The report, Policing for London, to

757
which the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, referred, made the point that there is no direct correlation between the number of police officers and the level of crime. Your Lordships may join with me in saying that you wish that there were so that to reduce crime we could simply double the number of police officers on the beat. Life is not that simple.
It is fair to say that that report referred to the matter obliquely, but it should have gone a step further. Much more important than the manpower and the money is the leadership provided at the grassroots. I welcome, as I hope your Lordships do, the fact that this Government have encouraged the establishment of the operational command units, which break down police force areas into small sections, around which the police can walk without running out of breath. They will try to ensure that levels of policing for communities across the length and breadth of England and Wales deliver roughly the same service. As people are aware, at the moment that does not happen. Like the Minister, I know that that does not happen from my experience in another place, when I represented a constituency in Birmingham. Too much was left to the wit and wisdom of the incoming chief inspector or superintendent. Like new brooms, they come in and want to change things.
I readily confess that my experience of police authorities is totally different from that of other noble Lords. I can remember hearing from the West Midlands police authority only when it wanted more money. I do not knock the authority for that, as that is part of its role, but I was there for 23 years and I never noticed it ensuring that there was a local input to policing, although it may have done so behind my hack. I understand the importance of that role, but I believe that it should be improved upon.
Time and time again it has been said in another place that the Home Secretary of the day carries the can when matters go wrong with the police. The previous Conservative government said that the Home Secretary should not set police force numbers. They said that money should be allocated and that it was up to the chief constables and to the police authorities to work out how that money should be spent. That appears to have changed because Home Secretaries in the present Government have volunteered to decide on the number of police officers. By next year we shall have an extra 5,000 police officers to establish record levels. I leave open the fact that extra officers do not mean less crime and do not mean better detection rates.
The powers being sought in this part of the Bill are to remedy failure. A Home Secretary cannot get out of bed one morning and say, "I do not like what is going on in the West Midlands or in the Kent Police force or whatever", and pick on them for no reason. There has to be an identified failure in a police force and either an unwillingness or art inability by the local police authority to try to put right that failure.
If the Home Secretary of the day carries the responsibility when matters go wrong, he or she needs to have powers for circumstances where a failure has
758
been identified and no proper steps have been taken to deal with it. In those circumstances, and against the constraints which a whole raft of amendments to the original proposition proposed, he or she needs to be able to use those powers.
Today one of the principal partners—the Association of Chief Police Officers—prayed in aid by those who stand behind this amendment, has made clear that it welcomes the amendments that the Minister has tabled to the Bill. A press release issued by the association today says:
"Chief police officers have welcomed amendments introduced by the Government to the Police Reform Bill … We welcome the amendments to the Bill which have been proposed and which go a good way towards limiting the potential for any arbitrary powers of intervention. We particularly welcome the recognition that the leaders of the Service have a key role in giving professional endorsement to any operational codes and regulations".
If the amendments proposed by the Government to this clause are good enough for the Association of Chief Police Officers, who some weeks ago we were told were in danger of having their masculinity cut from underneath them, and if they now say that they are satisfied, I believe that your Lordships' House should listen to what is being said.
Those powers have been changed to meet the voices around the Chamber. When we first considered the matter I shared many of the concerns. If we are genuinely on the side of local policing, locally delivered, with everybody as far as possible receiving the same level of policing across the country, we should allow the Home Secretary to have the powers to enable him to do something about an identified failure on behalf of local people.
Earl Russell: My Lords, it is typical of the way in which matters work here that I should begin an attempt to persuade people to vote against the Government by praising the noble Lord, Lord Carter. In the late 1980s the noble Lord, Lord Carter, discovered that there existed model clauses for how to draft a Bill. The phrase by which he detected that was that people were to leave public bodies if they became disabled or otherwise incapacitated to perform their duty. The words "disabled or otherwise" were, of course, quite redundant.
Here we have a model clause. I have seen it in more Bills dealing with the public services than I care to remember. That began with the Quality Assurance Agency against universities in 1992. It is still possible to persuade any academic to vote in favour of our party by saying that we divided the House against the creation of the Quality Assurance Agency. No further argument is needed.
We have a model clause designed to deal with failure. By what the Minister will, I am sure, assure me is a coincidence, these model clauses designed to deal with failing forces, failing schools, failing hospitals, always come in at precisely the moment of financial stringency, when one has that sickening realisation that, however hard one tries with the money available, one cannot possibly succeed.

759
The suspicion exists in the minds of many public servants that clauses like this are designed to pass the buck. The noble Lord, Lord Corbett, said that the measure was designed to deal with failure. I agree with him. Some of us are born failures; some of us achieve failure; and some of us have failure thrust upon us. Those who suffer this clause will believe that they belong to the third category.
7 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I retain a great concern about the clause for many of the reasons given. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Corbett, that it is to be used in theory only when something goes wrong; and no one ever wants anything to go wrong. But it was Archbishop Fisher who said once that there is no unreasonable argument that cannot be proved reasonable by reason.
The Government are giving powers to the Home Secretary to intervene over policing matters which have always been the responsibility of local policing authorities. I had occasion to mention earlier the problems we had in 1994 when we introduced a police Bill. The row was over whether one appointed people to the police authority. It was not the Home Secretary taking powers. Subsection (2) of new Section 41A states that the Secretary of State may direct the chief officer of the police. Those are huge powers. Subsection (4) states that the Secretary of State may direct the chief officer of police of the force in question to do various things.
The Police Service has always run on the tripartite view of the milkmaid's stool with three prongs: the Home Secretary; the chief constable; and the local authority. But for the Home Secretary from Whitehall to direct the actions not of police authorities but of chief constables gives huge power to the centre. With regard to the police Bill in 1994 there was such a row over who should be members of the police authority that I found myself obliged to take back all eight clauses. That was merely a question of who was to sit on the authority. There was no question about whether the Home Secretary should direct people. That would have been intolerable.
I suggest to noble Lords that this is not the right thing to do. Local police authorities must be responsible for their local policing.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, perhaps noble Lords will forgive me if I repeat much of what I said in the earlier debate on Amendment No. 42. It may be convenient for some noble Lords to treat Clause 5 in isolation but, frankly, they cannot get away with that. I have made a set of proposals, including the new clause, Amendment No. 42, which alters the position. We are not in Committee. It is not the day that the Bill was published.
Having listened to some noble Lords talking about police authorities, anyone would think that all was right, that the police authorities are doing a fantastic
760
job and that we are simply interfering with their day-to-day activities. No noble Lord pointed out that the clause is activated only if there is failure. It operates only under the procedures set out in the new clause, Amendment No. 42. It is a last resort. No one has talked about that last resort. The last resort is a failure and a breakdown of policing in a local area or force. No one has addressed that issue. They have all said, "We do not like this measure. It is interference".
Clause 5, as drafted, operated by the procedures under the new clause, Amendment No. 42, operates only where there is a breakdown. No noble Lord from any party asked, "What do we do if there is a breakdown?". Under the procedures in the government amendment, the chief of police and the beloved police authority will have already had one, two, three or four opportunities to put right the failure. What do noble Lords seek today? They seek to let them carry on, to have a fifth chance to fail their communities. That is the reality of removing Clause 5 and ignoring the amendments brought forward by the Government since Committee stage. Noble Lords shake their heads but that is what they seek: a fifth chance of failure, letting down local communities. That is the reality that we face, with noble Lords refusing to accept any alternative but to leave out Clause 5. Without Clause 5 the remaining provisions will go.
The measure will be activated only after the police authority's own action plan to remedy the publicly acknowledged failure. So there is a publicly acknowledged failure of policing in either an area or a function of a police force. The police authority will then have another opportunity to come forward with its own action plan before Clause 5 is activated. The chief officer will come forward to the police authority with his own extra action plan to deal with that failure before Clause 5 operates.
What do noble Lords expect? It is failure after failure, with the Home Secretary, not the police authorities, being held accountable before the House of Commons. My noble friend Lord Corbett is right. In his heart, the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, knows he is right. We never noticed a police authority carrying the can as individuals. They are not democratically elected. Someone spoke about the democratically elected. None of us is elected. None of us has to face the electorate having said, "No, we shall settle for failure". That is what it means. Doing nothing means settling for failure. We say that the measure is a last resort, a longstop to a longstop.
In those circumstances—with narrowly defined areas and following all the reports that we would require—I cannot believe that people with the experience of life that your Lordships have would say, "Let it go. Do not do anything". The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, referred to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips. I do not want to misquote the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, in any shape or form. I was struck by what the noble Lord said in debate. He was open and honest enough to say in Committee, "Yes, I accept the failure and then it is up to the electorate to do something about it". When Members of another place have the Home

761
Secretary at the Dispatch Box it is not good enough to say, "We cannot wait. We want action in our area now. We have a failure". Nothing would be done behind closed doors. Everyone concerned would know that there was a failure of policing. I do not accept the noble Lord's argument.
I am told that the Home Secretary can order what local commanders can do only after the failure of the local action plans put forward by the police authority and the chief constable without the Home Secretary interfering. So what do noble Lords want? Is it the status quo? That cannot be acceptable. I challenge any noble Lord to say, "It's all working perfectly". It simply cannot be argued.
The noble Lord, Lord Elton, said that I camouflaged Clause 5. He did so in the nicest way; I do not take it as personal criticism. Clause 5 on its own in the Bill is not acceptable to the Government, as we discussed in Committee. That is why we have come forward with a package, including Amendment No. 42, setting out how Clause 5 will operate. It would not operate other than under the rules set out in the new clause we want to insert.
We are not camouflaging Clause 5; we are giving more direction to the tank commander—to use the earlier analogy—who cannot work the tank without operating under the rules set out in the amendment. It is no good noble Lords going through the Division Lobby saying "We didn't like Clause 5". The debate is not about Clause 5. It is about Clause 5 and the rest of the package brought forward by the Government to the House at this stage of the Bill, following four days in Committee. Clause 5 is not on offer on its own, and noble Lords know that. It is on offer with a package of amendments, including Amendment No. 42, which I am moving today on behalf of the Government.
I cannot answer the detailed questions such as that about the Downing Street crime summit. Perhaps I may put it this way. It did not get going until the Prime Minister spent his time on the matter. Someone had to do something. It was not done under statute; under the force of a piece of legislation such as this; nor under the force of a Minister saying "Go forth and do this, that and the other". With chief constables and others called into Downing Street, that would not be strictly necessary.
Is that what we are to be forced to do each time there are perceived problems in areas of policing: to have a Downing Street summit behind closed doors without any accountability to this House in the way that we have set out in the clauses and the amendments? Surely it is better to have a more open and transparent process and not to have to leave the matter to Prime Ministerial summits. That is not sensible good governance.
I feel for the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, for having to take back eight clauses in 1994. I shall not take hack any clauses. The measure will come back from the other place, so this will not be the end of the debate. The other place will know that this debate was not about Clause 5. I refuse to accept that. It is about Clause 5 and the rest of the package specifying how
762
Clause 5 will operate. It is about a last resort; a long stop to the long stop. It is about the Government—I hope with Parliament's support—trying to achieve something where there is openly acknowledged failure of policing in our communities. I beg the House not to throw it out.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, the Minister has made much of Amendment No. 42. The amendment states:
"The Secretary of State shall not give a direction … in relation to any police force unless—

(a) the police authority maintaining that force and the chief officer of that force have each been given such information about the Secretary of State's grounds for proposing to give that direction as he considers appropriate for enabling them to make representations or proposals under the following paragraphs…

(b) that police authority and chief officer have each been given an opportunity of making representations…

(c) that police authority, in the case of a proposal for the giving of a direction… has had an opportunity of making proposals for the taking of remedial measures…

(d) that chief officer, in the case of a proposal for the giving of a direction… has had an opportunity of making proposals for the taking of remedial measures…

(e) the Secretary of State has considered any such representations and any such proposals".

It does not talk about whether there might be time for those proposals to be implemented or about their failure. The Minister is gently stretching the amendment, although I accept its good intention. We have to deal with the words before us in the Bill. That is a perennial problem with legislation.
The Minister says—I regret to say, with a certain amount of correctness—that the police authority never carries the can; not least in the persistent failures of local administration which have taken place throughout my experience in local government. That is because of the failure of government in the centre to treat local bodies as if they were responsible, so that they would have had to behave responsibly. They have been wet-nursed, nappied and bailed out so many times that they hardly know that they are adult anymore.
That is not a criticism of this Government, but this Government are rather better at that than some of their predecessors. I accept the Home Secretary's difficulty when he stands before many irate Members in another place demanding action on a local problem. Something has not been mentioned so far in the debate; the intensification and development of management information over the past decade, largely as a result of computerisation and the speed of communication. These problems have intensified because everything is analysed in so much more detail; detail that did not exist a few years ago.
We now have a situation where the Home Secretary knows of a problem in Muchbinding-in-the-Marsh or wherever as soon as the local BCU commander does. So does the MP. The MP raises the problem on the Floor of the House. The Home Secretary is naturally embarrassed and feels obliged to promise action without stopping to think about the reality; that local people know there is a problem and they do not need

763
to be told. They do not like the problem any more than anyone else and they will already be taking action to put matters right. That is the answer to the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Corbett of Castle Vale.
I am grateful to noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. It has been a useful and important discussion. I return to the fundamental problem I mentioned at the beginning. There is increasing evidence, and reports are coming in increasingly across a number of government services, that the over-centralisation of administration is fundamentally damaging the provision of service to the public. The reason is simple: the perception of what is needed in the centre to remedy action in a place regarded as being a long way away is never the same as the perception in the place itself where they are dealing with the problem on a day-to-day basis.
Unfortunately that will always be so and we cannot escape it. That is why the clause is unacceptable. I have no hesitation or shame in asking to test the opinion of the House. It is entirely proper.
7.19 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 41) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 205; Not-Contents, 131.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Colwyn, L.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Condon, L.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]

Arran, E.

Craig of Radley, L.

Astor, V.

Craigavon, V.

Astor of Hever, L.

Crathorne, L.

Attlee, E.

Crickhowell, L.

Baker of Dorking, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Barker, B.

Dahrendorf, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Belstead, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Blackwell, L.

Denham, L.

Blaker, L.

Dholakia, L.

Blatch, B.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Boardman, L.

Dundee, E.

Bowness, L.

Eden of Winton, L

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Elles, B.

Bradshaw, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Elton, L.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Erroll, E.

Brookeborough, V.

Ezra, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Falkland, V.

Burnham, L.

Fearn, L.

Buscombe, B.

Ferrers, E,

Butterworth, L.

Flather, B.

Byford, B.

Fookes, B.

Caithness, E.

Fowler, L,

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Freeman, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Carrington, L.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Glentoran, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Goodhart, L.

Chan, L.

Goschen, V.

Chester, Bp.

Greaves, L.

Chilver, L.

Greenway, L.

764

Griffiths of Fforestfach, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Hamwee, B.

Palumbo, L.

Hanham, B.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Hannay of Chiswick, L.

Peel, E.

Harris of Peckham, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Harris of Richmond, B. [Teller]

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Plumb, L.

Henley, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L

Higgins, L.

Prior, L.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Pym, L.

Hogg, B.

Quinton, L.

Holderness, L.

Rawlings, B.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Razzall, L.

Hooper, B.

Reay, L.

Hooson, L.

Redesdale, L.

Howe, E.

Rees, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Rees-Mogg, L.

Howe of Idlicote, B.

Rennard, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Renton, L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Richardson of Calow, B.

Hurd of Westwell, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Jacobs, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

James of Holland Park, B.

Rogan, L.

Jopling, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Kimball, L.

Russell, E.

King of Bridgwater, L.

Saatchi, L.

Kingsland, L.

St John of Fawsley, L.

Laing of Dunphail, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Seccombe, B.

Liverpool, E.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Sharples, B.

Lucas, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Ludford, B.

Sheppard of Didgemere, L.

Luke, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Lyell, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

MacGregor of Pulham Market, L.

Slim, V.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

McNally, L.

Stern, B.

Maddock, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Mancroft, L.

Strange, B.

Mar, C.

Strathclyde, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Taverne, L.

Marlesford, L.

Tebbit, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Thatcher, B.

Methuen, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Michie of Gallanach, B.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Tope, L.

Monson, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Montrose, D.

Trumpington, B.

Moore of Lower Marsh, L.

Vivian, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Waddington, L.

Moynihan, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Wakeham, L.

Newby, L.

Walker of Worcester, L.

Newton of Braintree, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Noakes, B.

Warnock, B.

Northbrook, L.

Watson of Richmond, L.

Northesk, E.

Weatherill, L.

Northover, B.

Wigoder, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Wilcox, B.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Onslow, E.

Windlesham, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Ahmed, L.

Bach, L.

Alli, L.

Barnett, L.

Amos, B.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Andrews, B.

Berkeley, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

765

Billingham, B.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Blackstone, B.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Blease, L.

Jones, L.

Borrie, L.

Judd, L.

Brennan, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Brett, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Layard, L.

Brookman, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Burlison, L.

Lipsey, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Lockwood, B.

Carter, L. [Teller]

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Chandos, V.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Christopher, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Clark of Hampstead, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Clark of Windermere, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Mallalieu, B.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Manchester, Bp.

Crawley. B.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

David. B.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Mitchell, L.

Desai, L.

Morgan, L.

Dixon, L.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Elder, L.

Orme, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Parekh, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Pendry, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Peston, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Filkin, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Gale, B.

Puttnam, L.

Gavron, L.

Radice, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Gilbert, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Rea, L.

Golding, B.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Richard, L.

Goudie, B.

Rooker, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Grenfell, L.

Serota, B.

Grocott, L.

Sheldon, L.

Hardy of Wath, L

Simon, V.

Harrison, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Haskel, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Hayman, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Temple-Morris, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Thornton, B.

Hollick, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Uddin, B.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Hoyle, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Hunt of Chesterton, L.

Whitty, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Wilkins, B.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
[Amendments Nos. 42 and 42A not moved.]
7.31 p.m.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I beg to move that consideration on Report be adjourned during pleasure. In moving this Motion, perhaps I may suggest that the Report stage begin again not before 8.32 p.m.
766
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) (Amendment) Order 2002
7.32 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringeyrose to move, That the order laid before the House on 14th March he approved [23rd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the primary aim of the order is to give effect to the two European directives on electronic money, which were adopted in September 2000.
Before going into the detail of the directive, perhaps it would be helpful if I said a word about what electronic money is and what it is not. That will put in context how we have framed the directives and how they translate into UK law. Electronic money, or e-money as it is better known, is best thought of as an electronic substitute for coins and bank notes. It is stored on an electronic device such as a chip card or a computer memory. It is generally intended to make payments of a limited amount.
At the moment, e-money takes two main forms. First, there are plastic cards onto which e-money can be loaded. These usually take the form of cards with an integrated chip that memorises sums previously paid to the issuer and from which the necessary sums for small purchases are downloaded. Commercial trials of card-based e-money have been undertaken in the United Kingdom by Mondex International in Swindon and VisaCash in Leeds, but they have not yet led to a national scheme. Limited extensions have also been undertaken in self-contained communities such as universities.
The second main form of e-money is stored in an individual's computer or on a central server. These electronic tokens represent value, which can he used to buy goods and services; for example, over the Internet.
By contrast, debit cards, for example, are not e-money. Although a debit card allows its holder to make payments, the monetary value is not in any sense stored in an electronic device. The card contains only the data necessary to identify its holder and to link him to his bank account. At present, these data are little more than a bank number. But even when debit cards use chip and pin technology there is still no electronic money held on the card. So credit cards do not constitute e-money as they, by definition, do not represent pre-paid value. Company specific payment cards, such as the traditional BT phone card, are not covered as these are only accepted by the sole issuer.
To date the success of e-money in the United Kingdom has not been great. Nevertheless, firms are seeking to develop strong consumer propositions for e-money. E-money is best suited to those transactions where physical cash is awkward to use. Examples include use in parking meters and in vending machines that need exact change. Further success may come

767
from multi-application SMART cards which combine an e-purse with other applications, such as a debit or credit card, a transport season ticket or even SMART cards for digital television set top boxes.
I return to the e-money directives. One of these—2000/28/EC—is largely technical and need not detain us. The meat is in the other directive—2000/46/EC. It introduces a special prudential supervisory regime for issuers of e-money. It creates a special new type of credit institution—an e-money institution—that will be authorised to issue e-money. Traditional credit institutions—notably banks—will also be able to issue e-money. Like banks, authorised e-money institutions will have what are known as passport rights, which will allow them to provide their services throughout the European Union.
The directive's regime for e-money institutions is based on the existing regulatory regime applicable to banks. In recognition of the more limited need for consumer protection and the fledgling nature of the industry, it is in many respects less complex and thus generally less onerous.
Set against this, the directive effectively limits e-money institutions only to issuing e-money. Banks, on the other hand, can undertake other activities as well, such as deposit taking. The regime for e-money institutions is also tailored to address some of the specific risks inherent in issuing e-money. For example, strict limits are placed on the investments an e-money institution can make with its outstanding e-money liabilities.
The Government take a positive and constructive view of the long-term potential of e-money. It provides a chance to create a modern and effective means of payment that will facilitate electronic commerce and novel ways of doing business.
In implementing the directive into UK law, we have struck a balance between two factors. On the one hand, there is the need to make provision for the financial integrity of e-money institutions and the protection of consumers. On the other, there is the need to ensure that the development of e-money schemes is not hampered by excessive regulation. Our general approach has been to implement the directive with a light touch. In that way regulation will not unduly burden existing e-money issuers. It will also encourage innovation and new entrants, both from within the banking sector and elsewhere.
The Treasury issued a consultation document last year seeking views on the proposed legislative measures for implementing the e-money directive. That approach received widespread support from industry and consumer groups.
Perhaps I may turn to some of the technical aspects of the order. The Government have chosen to implement the directive by making the issuing of e-money a regulated activity under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. That gives effect to the principal requirements of the directive. First, it ensures that persons not authorised to do so under the Act—other than those with a waiver—will be prohibited
768
from carrying on the business of issuing e-money. Secondly, it enables the Financial Services Authority to impose on e-money issuers the remaining requirements of the directive. The order defines e-money issuance in the same terms as the directive. It means that the FSA will now be responsible for offering firms guidance on the definition. I understand that it will shortly be publishing its guidance.
With regard to waivers, the directive gives member states the option of permitting their competent authorities to waive the application of some or all of the directive's provisions in relation to certain "small" or "limited" e-money issuers. The Government believe that it is important for new entrants to be able to start up and grow without the burden of unnecessary regulation. We also believe that the risks to consumers posed by such a scheme are likely to be limited.
We have therefore provided fully for such waivers. They will exempt smaller schemes from the detailed requirements imposed on authorised e-money issuers. That will foster competition and innovation in the e-money industry and encourage its development.
Larger e-money issuers will, however, be required to seek authorisation from the Financial Services Authority. If successful with its application, these firms will need to meet the prudential and other requirements of the directive.
In accordance with the deadline set by the directive, the new regime will come into force on 27th April 2002. Firms already issuing e-money on that date will be granted a transitional exclusion. For the first six months after 27th April, they will be treated as not carrying on a regulated activity under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. The aim is for existing issuers to use the six-month period to apply for either authorisation or waiver. Meanwhile, issuers will be able to continue their e-money activities without interruption and without needing to comply with any of the requirements of the directive or of the Financial Services Authority's rules.
The order also makes further, miscellaneous amendments to the regulated activities order. These are of a technical and clarificatory nature. They are made following consultation with the Financial Services Authority and the industry.
Finally, I confirm, that in my view, the provisions of the order are compatible with the convention rights within the meaning of the Human Rights Act 1998. I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the order laid before the House on 14th March be approved. [23rd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord McIntosh of Hariney.)
7.40 p.m.
Lord Lipseyrose to move, as an amendment to the Motion, at end insert "but this House regrets that Her Majesty's Government have postponed fulfilling their pledge to the House to introduce a similar order for the regulation of long-term care assurance."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, before I come to the substance of the matter, perhaps I may make three points. First, I have absolutely nothing against the

769
order, I wish only that another order had come first. Secondly, the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, asked me to apologise for the fact that he is unable to be here tonight. He, having with myself signed the minority report of the Royal Commission on Long-Term Care of the Elderly, would have liked to be here to support the amendment. Thirdly, what I shall say will be critical of the Government, but I wish to say that no blame attaches to my noble friend Lord McIntosh, nor to the Treasury Ministers who have dealt with the matter.
I remind the House of the background. It was the recommendation of both the majority and minority reports of the Royal Commission that long-term care insurance should come under the regulation of the Financial Services Authority—one of the few things on which we agreed. That was strongly supported by consumer groups and the entire industry, which wants to be regulated in the sale of such products. It was resisted by only one group: Her Majesty's Treasury. I shall not go over its reasons now. When the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 was before the House, amendments were tabled to ensure that it should be regulated. In their wisdom, the Government recognised that it would be futile to attempt to resist the amendments, as they had support in every quarter of your Lordships' House. They therefore gracefully stepped down. That was done by my noble friend, in his usual elegant and graceful language. He said:
"We shall aim to include long-term care products in the regulated activities order, often referred to as the scope order, which will follow the passage of this Bill … I undertake that we will give the House a full report of our conclusions, with a clear timetable for future action, at the time when the order is debated. The Government intend to lay that order before Parliament as soon as is reasonably practicable. We are determined … that the stable door will not be left open for so long that there is a serious risk that the horse will bolt".—[Official Report, 18/4/2000; col. 581.]
In February 2001, nine months later, the regulated activities order appeared in this House. It did not mention long-term care insurance. I did not worry too much. After all, I had the word of my noble friend. On 16th March, my noble friend moved the order. Again, there was no mention of the promised timetable or of doing anything to implement it. I should have picked that up at the time, of course, but I did not worry, because I had the word of my noble friend. The months ticked by.
It was December 2000, eight months after the Bill, when the House had said that it wanted long-term care insurance covered, that the Treasury finally acted. It produced a consultation document, which was a little weak but better than nothing. It said that Ministers favoured regulation. It invited comment by March 2001, which we awaited.
Nothing happened, but I had the word of my noble friend that all was being done as soon as possible, so I did not worry too much. Again, months ticked by, and then—Eureka£— a letter arrived from Ruth Kelly, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, dated 5th October, in which she said that she would shortly be
770
announcing that long-term care insurance was to he regulated by the FSA and that she hoped that regulation could be put in place as soon as possible.
I had waited a long time for that day—Eureka day. The champagne was opened. I can remember the moment at which I took my fat file of correspondence on the matter, opened the wastepaper basket and threw it in. How naïve. Again, months ticked by. In February, I received a letter from the Economic Secretary dated 31st January. Europe, it told me, had decided to move to a wider regulation of all insurance using intermediaries. It had therefore been decided that it would be right to delay providing for long-term care assurance until then—by 2004, the letter said, on present timing.
Given my experience of present timing over the matter, those words did not give me tremendous comfort. It may be that I shall be surprised by the measure in 2004, but I see the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, who is a gambling man, sitting opposite. Would he care to take even money on 2004—the noble Lord shakes his head—2005, 2006, what is the favourite in this market? Sometime? Never? Who knows?
That farce of dilatoriness and delay has important constitutional implications for how we do business in this House. We do business on the basis that when a Minister gives an assurance it will be seen through and delivered. Otherwise, many more amendments would be put to the vote and forced to decision from which there could be no reneging. I say in all seriousness and trying to avoid an excess of pomposity that if that convention goes, the way that we do business in this House and in another place will start to collapse. Heaven knows, it is hard enough ever to persuade the executive to accept the view of Parliament, but en occasion this Parliament presses its view. It is then incumbent on the executive to take that with utmost seriousness—not to try to delay, to destroy or to use "Yes, Minister" tactics to prevent the House getting its way but to bow the knee before the will of Parliament.
That is the high constitutional argument, but another argument weighs heavily with me. It concerns old people themselves. We did not press the amendment for the sheer pleasure of doing so. It was not some game that we were playing. The House felt that old people were in peril as a consequence of the lack of regulation of long-term care insurance. Since then, more than 2,000 policies have been sold. Those people lack the protection that regulation would have given them.
But it is more than that. The industry says—and I have no reason to disbelieve it—that it will not sell many such policies until they are regulated because old people will not have confidence in them. That is why the take-up has been quite small. So thousands more older people may lose all their assets, which they could have protected by taking out a long-term care insurance policy, as a result of the Government s culpable failure to put in place regulation.
It is a sorry tale. What is the way forward? The first way forward would be for the Government to ignore the decisions and views of the House again, as they did

771
last time, and proceed as they wish. One day, perhaps, we would see regulation, or perhaps we would not. That would not be acceptable to the House. Unless the Government give us the right assurances, we will find that future debates are more crowded and that there is much more press coverage. The conventions governing our business will be insisted on by the House. That is my view. The Government can try to prove me wrong if they choose.
The second way forward—my clear preference would be to proceed at once to bring in the order. The Government must have it ready by now. My goodness, it has been cooking away for more than two years. We could have limited consultation—the Financial Services Authority could do that if it were not tangled up in all the other regulation—and put the regulations in place as soon as possible. We should get on with it and get it done. That is my strong preference. However, there might be a fall-back. There are certain protections in place—for example, the code of the ABI for the products involved. There is, however, no protection against the wildcat independent financial adviser who sells the products to people who might not need them.
It would be worth while if those of us who have followed the subject and who have pressed it and the Government could explore interim protections—less good, I admit straightaway, than full regulation, but better than nothing—that would enable the House, in its infinite forgiveness, to forget what has been done. I hope, therefore, that my noble friend will say tonight that the Government are willing to open discussions and explore the options and that they will do their best, thinking creatively and positively, not entering the discussions with a view to blocking the proposals, about what must be done. I hope that my noble friend can agree to that. I have great trust in him, despite the things that have gone wrong. I shall be delighted to accept such an invitation, secure in the knowledge that I—and the House—have my noble friend's word. I beg to move.
Moved, as an amendment to the Motion, at end to insert "but this House regrets that Her Majesty's Government have postponed fulfilling their pledge to the House to introduce a similar order for the regulation of long-term care assurance." — (Lord Lipsey.)
Baroness Greengross: My Lords, I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey. In spite of the medical advances and the advances in social care and healthcare that have been made, we know that our society is ageing fast. In the foreseeable future, there will be many more people suffering from chronic disease who will need long-term care. From my experience of the organisations that represent old people, I can say that people are getting more and more anxious. They are anxious to ensure that they can retain some dignity in later life and can ensure for themselves that they get the care they need.
772
Long-term care insurance is usually purchased by older people, although it can, of course, be purchased by people of any age. Most people do not think about it until they are of advancing years. Therefore, the people who purchase long-term care insurance policies are sometimes vulnerable when they do so, as their need is imminent. It is essential that the industry be regulated. We have had enough examples of the consequences of having no regulation or poor regulation and of the mis-selling of financial products. Home income plans are one example of a good idea to which extraordinary damage was done by just such a lack of regulation. Long-term care insurance, as we all know, is not suitable for everyone, but it has an important role to play in its own right and in appropriate cases. However, selling such insurance to the wrong person is, itself, a form of mis-selling and can do great damage to the whole market, if it happens in that way.
It is necessary that regulation be introduced. It must be introduced quickly. As the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, said, there have been huge delays. When we are dealing with older people, such huge delays are unacceptable. Older people cannot wait indefinitely. Why should they have to?
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: My Lords, I also support the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Lipsey. When the original amendment to the Bill was before the House, I spoke in the debate and, like my noble friend, I believed that the Treasury genuinely intended to do something about the matter. It is not as though we were discussing people with their life ahead of them. It is now nearly two years on—longer if we take into account the recommendations from the commission of which my noble friend was a member. We are talking about some of the most vulnerable members of our community.
The intermediaries directive was referred to. I gather that the Treasury Minister said that it would cover the matter and talked about a date in 2004. That depends on directives being delivered on time from Europe. There is no guarantee of that.
I should declare that I am a member of the General Insurance Standards Council. That is not why I intervened this evening. Nor was it the reason for my intervention in the debate on the original amendment. I intervened then—as I do now—because I see the life-damaging impact that the pensions scandal has had on elderly people. Many thousands of people in Britain are worried about their pension. They are worried about final salary schemes that are in huge deficit and the move to money purchase schemes, many of which are themselves worth less than they were when they were bought.
If there is one crumb of comfort that we could give to older people, it would be this regulation. There is no reason why we could not have the regulation. If it is necessary to subsume it into future regulations from 2004, because of the intermediaries directive, that could be done then. It is wrong to expect people to wait

773
for fair regulation of a major investment that has great impact on their life until 2004 at the earliest. That is why I support the amendment.
Lord Blackwell: My Lords, I add my support for the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey. As long ago as 1996 or 1997, there was a Green Paper on long-term care. It made various proposals but, for several reasons—one of which was a change of government—none of them went forward. Since then, little has happened to develop the market, even though, as the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, said, it is a critical issue that we must get right. There is a huge need to cover the cost of long-term care, but the matter is in a vacuum. It is important that we move forward with regulation.
I have a question for the Minister. How will the order relate to electronic money that might be stored on mobile phones? If there is an electronic wallet on a mobile phone, linking into the Internet, that would be regarded under the order as electronic money. I am less clear on the situation in respect of payments in advance that are registered on mobile phones. Such pre-payments may be primarily for the purposes of pre-paying calls, but they could also be used to pay for other services. For example, if the mobile phone holder calls a premium call number, he may be using the money stored on the phone to pay for services through the premium number or to pay for services registered back to the phone through text message ordering. It is a simple point of information. I am not clear as to how pre-payment vouchers and pre-payments stored on a phone would relate to the order.
8 p.m.
Lord Newby: My Lords, I have considerable sympathy for 1he arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey. When his original amendment came before the House, we supported it. We had expected that it would have been acted upon by now. We look forward to hearing the Minister give some reassurance that action will be taken. The noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, spoke of the possibility of introducing what I think he called "interim protections". I shall be interested to know what such measures might be. I suspect that something either is or is not formally covered by the FSA, but if there is such a thing as an interim protection, it is hoped that it could be brought forward quickly.
The only comment I wish to make with regard to the remit of the FSA in respect of any insurance products is that, at the time that the Bill was passing through this House, we were keen to ensure that the FSA would cover not only the specific area of insurance for the long-term care of the elderly, but the insurance industry more generally. At the time we were persuaded by the Minister and the Treasury that we should not press those amendments, on the basis that such a proposal would greatly increase the scope of the work of the FSA. In its first years the body would have enough on its plate simply to fulfil what was required of it under the terms of the Bill. It could not also take on insurance matters.
774
Having watched the FSA take on its new powers, I suspect that the staff are extremely grateful that, at least last year, they did not have to worry about insurance matters. However, I think that the time has now come for the whole area to be looked at again.
I turn now to the main order. It seems sensible, although in terms of order of priority, electronic money does not strike me as a hugely important area in comparison with that raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey. Furthermore, it will form one of a series of amendment orders because I believe that there are a number of other areas in which the remit of the FSA is not as wide as it needs to be.
Noble Lords who participated in the debate some weeks ago on the accountancy industry will have heard me speak about the position of the split investment trust sector, in which many savers, principally pensioners, have invested substantial amounts of money in products that were sold to them as low-risk investments, but which have since proved to be extremely high-risk investments. In many cases, people have lost a large proportion, if not all, of their savings. I understand that as many as 30,000 people stand to lose in this way. It is a major problem.
A further problem that the matter has brought to light is that those people who invested in splits, other than through independent financial advisers, are not covered by the FSA. They may have lost all their money, but they are not covered by the compensation scheme and they are not covered by the financial services ombudsman. I believe that this may well be another case where the regulatory scope needs to be examined.
At the moment the FSA is undertaking a review of the entire splits sector. I believe that that review will demonstrate that there has been mis-selling of such products. Logic dictates that they should now he regulated under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. I should be grateful if the Minister could confirm that such products could be brought under the control of the FSA by means of an amendment order along the lines of that which we are discussing tonight.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, we are most sympathetic to the substance of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey. We also have a few technical concerns with regard to the order, of which I understand the Minister is already aware.
Article 3 states that proposed Article 9A provides that cash paid to buy electronic money is not a deposit for the purposes of the regulated activities order if the cash is immediately exchanged for electronic money. Can the Minister tell the House whether this covers a situation in which cash is paid in when applying for an electronic device?
Article 4 makes it clear that the issuing of electronic money is a regulated activity requiring a FISMA authorisation certificate, unless the requirement is waived. Waiver is dealt with by proposed Article 9C, upon which I have certain observations.
First, why, by virtue of Article 9C(2), can the activities of credit institutions never be waived?

775
Secondly, there appears to be an inconsistency between paragraph 10·2 of the Explanatory Memorandum and Article 9C(5)(c)(ii). According to the Explanatory Memorandum, the FSA can issue a waiver certificate to an issuer of e-money if it is accepted by the issuer's parent, subsidiaries of the issuer which perform functions ancillary to the issuing of electronic money or subsidiaries of the parent. However, we observe that paragraph (5)(c)(ii) excludes all subsidiaries of the issuer.
Thirdly, in our view, paragraph (6)(b) of Article 9C should be amended to make it clear that the waiver applies where some of the "one hundred persons" fall in paragraph (6)(b)(i) and the remainder in paragraph (6)(b)(ii) so as to be consistent with paragraph 10·3 of the Explanatory Memorandum.
I have a few concluding observations. First, under Article 9E, we think that the deeming provision in paragraph (3) ought to apply to the Part IV permission as well.
Secondly, contrary to the view expressed in paragraph 13 of the Explanatory Memorandum, we think that the compensation scheme ought to be extended to small issuers, at least if they are exempted under paragraph (4).
Thirdly, Article 9(4)(b) of the order suggests that the regime applies where e-money is issued from outside the UK to a recipient inside the UK. If that is so, it would be helpful to provide an exemption under Article 72 of the regulated activities order, which is the article dealing with exemptions of overseas persons generally.
Finally—the Minister will be relieved to hear—paragraph 20 of the Explanatory Memorandum states that the proposal under Article 12 seeks to ensure that a,
"security repayable on notice of less than one year should be treated as commercial paper",
and therefore as a deposit. However, the implementing new Article 9(3) refers only to an investment which has an original maturity of less than one year, and not to a notice period. Thus, a security terminable on one month's notice does not necessarily have a maturity of less than one year as at the date of issue. This problem could be solved by inserting after the expression, "date of issue", the phrase, "or can be redeemed at any time on less than 12 months' notice without any default by the issuer".
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have three speeches to make: one about long-term care insurance; one about split capital investment trusts and one about the order before the House. I am not sure in which order to make them. If the House will allow me, I shall deal first with the original order and then finish by dealing with the amendment, because that is the question which will be put immediately to the House.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Lipsey and the noble Lord, Lord Newby, for saying that they do not
776
object to the order. Perhaps I may deal with the points raised by the noble Lords, Lord Blackwell and Lord Kingsland.
The noble Lord, Lord Blackwell, asked me about pre-paid mobile phones and premium services orders. Pre-paid mobile phones which do not involve premium services would not count as e-money because the money goes back to the issuer. They are no different from existing BT phone cards. The question is whether pre-paid mobile phones can be accepted as a means of payment by persons other than the issuer. It is critical to determine whether that is the case when interpreting the definition of e-money. The case raised by the noble Lord concerns premium rate services, where third parties are paid for the services provided—although of course they are paid by the mobile phone operator rather than directly by the customer using the services. We do not yet have an answer. The FSA is considering whether such pre-paid services constitute e-money and it hopes to give its formal view shortly.
I turn now to the first point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, which concerns the distinction between e-money and deposits in paragraph (3) and the provision that cash paid to buy electronic money, which could be used to pay for goods and services and to repay the cash by doing so,
"is not a deposit for the purposes of article 5 if it is immediately exchanged for electronic money".
The directive states that sums received in exchange for e-money do not constitute deposits if they are,
"immediately exchanged for e-money".
Respondents to consultation welcomed our proposal to use this wording in the implementing legislation on the grounds that it provides a clear distinction between e-money and deposit taking.
But scenarios can be envisaged where there is a time period between when a consumer purchases the e-money and when he activates his e-money account or card. We believe that "immediate" does not mean "instantaneous" and that certain such delays in issuance can be justified on operational grounds. Much will depend on the length of the delay and the reason for it, and the FSA will be responsible for interpreting this element of the directive. I understand that it agrees with our analysis.
The noble Lord's next question concerned why a waiver is not available for traditional credit institutions. It is correct that Article 9C(2) states that traditional credit institutions cannot benefit from a waiver. This is a requirement of the directive.
The noble Lord asked about the waiver for e-money accepted only by undertakings in the same group. This concerns the conditions under which the FSA can grant an exemption by means of a waiver to a qualifying e-money institution—which I am afraid we are going to have to learn to call an "ELMI"—if the e-money is accepted as payment only by the parent undertaking, subsidiaries of the ELM I which perform ancillary functions and other subsidiaries of the parent.

777
This again is a matter of the directive, which stipulates one waiver condition as being that,
"the e-money issued by the institution is accepted as a means of payment only by any subsidiaries of the institution which perform operational or ether ancillary functions relating to e-money issued or distributed by the institution, any parent undertaking of the institution or any other subsidiaries of that parent undertaking".
We believe that the drafting of the order achieves this.
The noble Lord then asked about conditions for the waiver of geographical and close relationships, and asked whether both of the conditions with regard to permitted locations and close relationships must apply to all of the 100 persons or whether they can be combined. This relates to Article 9C(6)(b). The waiver condition is met only where all the undertakings accepting the e-money fall under either sub-paragraph (i) or (ii). It is not possible for some of them to fall under one sub-paragraph and some under the other. All the undertakings concerned must operate in a limited local area or as part of a close business relationship with the issuer for a waiver to be available.
As to the question about drafting for applications process work under Article 9E—the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, raised the issue of the deeming provisions—we believe that the order achieves the desired application of the warning and decision notice procedures contained in the Financial Services and Markets Act. The order provides that the relevant provisions of the Act,
"apply to the revocation of a certificate … As they apply to the cancellation of a Part IV permission".
The further words suggested by the noble Lord are therefore not necessary.
Turning to the issue of a compensation scheme for small issuers, the Government believe that it is important to allow e-money to develop under as light a regulatory touch as possible while taking into account the need for prudential regulation of large-scale issuers. Such issuers may not exist at present, but they will in the future as e-money develops. Not only are current e-money schemes fairly small but also the amount of e-money that consumers are likely to hold is limited. The directive noted that e-money is largely used for lower value payments, so the losses that a consumer may suffer in the event of an e-money issuer's failure are correspondingly likely to be fairly low.
As to the overseas persons exemption, the noble Lord asked whether I could clarify that Article 9(4)(b) of the order, which refers to issuants on a services basis, also applies where the e-money is issued from outside the United Kingdom to a recipient in the United Kingdom. He queried whether it would not be appropriate to provide an exemption in terms of Article 72 of the original regulated activities order. Article 9(4)(b) must be read in the context of the rest of the Financial Services and Markets Act—and neither he nor I wish to do that. In particular, Section 19 of the Act makes it clear that the carrying on of a regulated activity requires authorisation only if it is carried on in the United Kingdom. So where an overseas person issues e-money in the United Kingdom, whether by way of a branch or otherwise, he
778
will require authorisation. We have not applied the exclusion for overseas persons in Article 72 of the order to the activity of issuing e-money. The directive requires us to prohibit persons who are not credit institutions from carrying on the business of issuing e-money. It is therefore not open to us to apply the existing exclusion for overseas persons to e-money.
The noble Lord's final point concerned debt securities, and he quoted paragraph 20 and the amendment to Article 12. The intention is that if a debt security is repayable on notice of less than a year, including repayment on demand, it is treated as commercial paper and it is a deposit. The current definition provides that the investment,
"must be redeemed before the first anniversary of the date of issue".
This is too rigid as it excludes debt securities which are capable of running on for more than one year, even where they are repayable on notice of less than a year or on demand. We are satisfied that the drafting catches this kind of investment.
That is speech number one. Speech number two relates to split capital trusts. We appreciate the work being carried out by the noble Lord, Lord Newby, and the attention that he has drawn to the problem of split capital investment trusts. It is a problem and he is right to draw attention to it in public. We share his concerns about the problems which appear to be arising with some—but by no means all—split capital investment trusts.
The FSA has put useful information for investors in split capital investment trusts on its website and will shortly be releasing the responses to the issues paper it published earlier this year. This will help to decide whether there are allegations of mis-selling and collusive behaviour which need to be investigated further. Ministers will then be in a position to consider whether the regulation of investment trusts is appropriate or whether further regulation would be appropriate.
It would be a mistake to think that there is nothing the FSA can do with its existing powers. Where split capital investment trusts are held in an ISA or unit trust, or where a firm gave advice, then FSA rules apply. Where a firm gave advice on whether or not to buy a split capital trust, FSA rules on suitability apply FSA advertising rules will also apply to sales brochures and publicity material. FSA powers to deal with market abuse mean that the FSA can censure or fine anyone, authorised or not, who, for example, creates false or misleading impressions about a financial product. In addition, most investment trusts are companies listed on the London Stock Exchange and the listing rules apply to them. These govern how shares are offered for sale. In addition to these FSA powers, there may also be a case for action to be taken under company law. I should add that it would be wrong to assume that investment trust companies have fallen foul of these rules before the FSA has properly investigated.
There is still a problem about investors who bought direct from the provider. Where an investor bought a split capital investment trust on an execution only

779
basis—that is, direct from the provider, without advice—and feels that the promotional literature misled him or her as to the nature of the product, he or she should complain direct to the company in the first instance and, if they are not happy, should go to the financial ombudsman.
It is necessary to say how we would regulate investment trusts. As I have said, some of the aspects of the operation are already investigated. If further regulation is required, it would depend on how we proposed to regulate them. The regulated activities order would need to be amended. I can confirm specifically that the noble Lord is right in thinking that there will be more regulated activities amendment orders in the future and this could be one of them.
If the decision was to regulate the products in the same way as unit trusts or open-ended investment companies—having mentioned ELMIs, I am reminded of OEICs. Separate legislation would be required setting out the product regulation. Beyond this, the FSA would need to consult on any proposed regulation and be sure that it was supported by cost-benefit analysis. I hope that that covers the range of points made by the noble Lord, Lord Newby.
I turn now to the matter raised in the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey. I should respond first to the noble Lord's comment about what was said during the passage of the Bill. I indicated that the Government would aim to include long-term care insurance in the regulated activities order. I also outlined the various processes which the Government still needed to go through before determining what measures should be taken to ensure that consumers in this area are fully protected. These include completion of the work of the Treasury committee, completion of the process of regulatory impact analysis, and the necessary consultation with interested parties.
As the noble Lord said, I undertook in this House in April 2000 that the Government would give the House a full report of our conclusions on the matter, with a clear timetable for action when the regulated activities order was debated in the House. That debate took place on 16th March 2001, and I did not do that. I formally apologise to the House for that failure. I did not explain why we had not included the regulation of long-term care. I did not provide a timetable for future action. However, I should like now to give a full explanation of why that was missing, and outline our timetable for the regulation of long-term care insurance. I ought to begin with a firm assurance that we do intend to regulate long-term care insurance.
The conclusions of the Treasury committee were published as part of the Treasury's consultation document on long-term care insurance regulation in December 2000. The noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, did indeed receive his copy and responded to the consultation. The purpose of the committee was not to examine whether or how long-term care insurance should be subject to regulation, but to explore with the financial services industry ways in which long-term care insurance products could be made more attractive
780
to a wider audience. The main recommendation was that the Treasury should promulgate a set of CAT standards which operate on a voluntary basis.
However, when following the public consultation the Government decided to bring in statutory regulation, they decided against additionally setting CAT standards for LTCI products. Such detriment as might arise in future would he addressed through statutory regulation. CAT standards are useful for those products that consumers can choose off the shelf; but LTCI is not bought that way. It is bought alongside other products and with help from advisers. So we believe that the best way forward is to let the market develop and innovate in a regulated environment.
We published the first consultation document in December 2000, and consultation closed at the end of March 2001, which was too late for legislation to be included in the original regulated activities order made in March 2001. But with the subsequent decision to regulate the sale of general insurance products more generally, announced at the end of December 2001, the Economic Secretary decided to dovetail regulation of long-term care insurance with implementation of the wider general insurance regime. I understand that she wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, to explain the decision in January 2002.
The Government are fully committed to legislate to regulate long-term care insurance. There are, however, good reasons why we have not yet legislated to regulate it. We intend to dovetail the regulation of long-term care with the implementation of the European Community insurance mediation directive. I shall respond to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, about the timetable.
The regulation of both mediation of long-term care insurance and mediation of other forms of insurance—because, of course, contracts are already regulated; it is the question of mediation and advice with which we are concerned here, the conduct of business regulation—will need to be compatible with the EU insurance mediation directive which we expect to be adopted in the summer.
Doing things in parallel brings with it the advantage that we can create a seamless regime for the regulation of long-term care insurance and other related insurance products—for example, private medical and critical illness insurance. One of the difficulties in attempting to do it separately is the difficulty of defining a contract of long-term care insurance. Many of the products on the market are a mixture of life insurance, critical illness insurance and provision for long-term care. The FSA Consumer Panel's response to the long-term care insurance consultation was that there were problems with all these products that could be addressed by regulation. There is a risk that pressing ahead with long-term care now and fitting the general regime around it could produce an overall structure that distorts the market and might cause anomalies for the consumer who buys these and closely related products. We cannot anticipate such potential problems in advance. The only way to avoid

781
them is to take the regime forward at the same time. That is my basic response to the first way referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey.
My response to his second way is that, even if we did go ahead and regulate long-term care insurance as soon as we could, there is still a need to prepare difficult and technical legislation, to undertake public consultation and to put orders through Parliament. The FSA would need to consult on its rules, and then give time for the industry to gear itself for the detailed regulatory regime. That process could take more than a year; therefore, we should be talking about autumn 2003 anyway. The burdens on industry would be increased, because it would have to respond to two streams of consultation as well as needing to seek permission from the FSA twice. Even though I acknowledge that many firms are keen to see regulation brought in quickly, they would not welcome two rounds of compliance costs in quick succession. Therefore, we argue that regulating separately from insurance mediation would be inefficient, requiring two public consultations, two sets of legislation, and two sets of FSA consultation and FSA rules.
Regulating long-term care insurance in advance of other forms of mediation will also give rise to substantive difficulties. Any regime for long-term care insurance will, from mid-2004, have to comply with the new general insurance regime which will implement the insurance mediation directive. This is a technical directive which has yet to be finalised and adopted. We could not be certain that a regime that we put in place quickly would be directive compatible. If we did so, we would have to amend the LTCI regime when we implemented the insurance mediation directive. That would cause difficulty for the industry and could confuse consumers.
There will also be real advantages for consumers in developing the overall regime in a way that takes account of the work that we have already done on long-term care, but firms up the detail of that regime alongside related products. In that way, we can develop a smoother regime that offers consumers protection across the board in a way that is proportionate to the risks inherent in the products.
The noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, asked about the timetable. The Government plan to legislate later this year, once the insurance mediation directive has been adopted and the new general insurance regime can be finalised. The Council of Ministers reached a common position on the insurance mediation directive on 5th March 2002. The European Parliament is starting the process of its Second Reading, which it must complete by mid-July. We expect the directive to be adopted by the Council shortly after that. It is possible that it could be changed or rejected by the European Parliament, but we do not think that is likely and we are working on the assumption that the directive will be adopted in July or soon after. Once it is in its final form and has been adopted, we shall consult on the implementing legislation. We are preparing now so that we can issue
782
consultation as soon as possible, within a few weeks of the directive being adopted. Following that, we shall put the legislation before Parliament.
Once we have legislated, the FSA will prepare and consult on its rules. Once the rules have been finalised, we expect firms to be able to apply for authorisation. We expect the regime to become fully operational by mid-2004. That is to give the FSA time to develop its rule books and register many thousands of insurance intermediaries, who will be brought within the scope of regulation. The General Insurance Standards Council has more than 6,000 members and 1,000 applicants, all of whom will need to be registered. The regime will also cover certain insurance intermediaries not covered by GISC. Bearing in mind that we shall also be regulating mortgage lenders for the first time, it will be seen that this is an enormous extension in the scope of responsibilities of the FSA.
The noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, made a third point about the need to protect consumers in the run-up to regulation. Ministers and officials will certainly discuss with the FSA and the industry ways of maximising the current protections for consumers in the run-up to regulation. We shall be happy to involve him and any other noble Lords who have taken part in the debate in the consultation. Insurers who effect and carry out contracts of insurance, including the contracts of long-term care, are regulated by the Financial Services Authority. They have to comply with FSA rules on areas such as capital requirements, fitness and properness. The insurance mediation activities—advising on and arranging contracts of insurance—need to be brought under FSMA regulation. Some protections are already in place because of the compulsory jurisdiction of the Financial Ombudsman Service, which ensures that consumers have access to an independent and free service that provides redress. The ABI has its own code of best practice. The General Insurance Standards Council has a code of conduct. If an insurer is a member of the General Insurance Standards Council, its rules require that it ensures that intermediaries who distribute its products who are not in GISC membership understand that they have to comply with the various ABI codes.
IFACare is a national organisation of independent financial advisers with a special interest: in providing financial planning services to those concerned with current or future need for long-term care. IFACare has more than 250 IFA members, all of whom are regulated by the FSA—not in respect of selling long-term care insurance, but they have to meet FSA fitness and propriety and other requirements.
Ministers and officials will be talking to the industry about the existing protections, options for strengthening them, and marketing them more effectively in the run-up to full regulation to give customers a better service and better reassurance. We are happy to include other noble Lords in that process.

783
Once again, I apologise to the House for not describing sooner the outcome of the work on long-term care insurance and the timetable of its regulation. I am pleased to have had the opportunity to rectify that and to set the matter straight on our future plans. I am convinced that implementing long-term care insurance as part of the wider general insurance regime under the scope of the insurance mediation directive will benefit consumers by introducing a seamless and comprehensive regulatory regime covering long-term care insurance and other related insurance products.
Lord Lipsey: My Lords, I thank all those who have spoken in support of my amendment this evening. It will not have escaped the Minister's attention that they came from all four quarters of your Lordships' House. I noticed the reference by my noble friend Lord McIntosh to the further orders that will come before the House. We shall have many more opportunities to debate amendments on the subject, should that prove necessary.
I noted carefully the arguments that my noble friend the Minister made. Of course I accept in full his apology for the omission when the relevant legislation was debated. I am sure that it was an oversight and no culpability should fall on him. It is my fault for not being here to ask him about it at the time.
I am not convinced by my noble friend's argument that we should wait for the rest of the package to come along. The matter should have been dealt with ages ago. We would then have had to make some changes to accommodate the European directive at that stage. It is not enough to wait and wait until an excuse comes along for further postponement. I agree that there are some practical defects in doing it in that way. That is why we should explore ways in which adequate protection can be given.
I very much welcome the Minister's assurance that he and the Treasury team will discuss the matter with the industry and with interested Members in this House. I hope that we can find a way forward. I assure him and the House, as he would expect, that if such a way forward is not found, we shall continue to press these matters, not simply because of their constitutional impact, but because of the argument so powerfully put by the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, and my noble friend Lady Dean that old people cannot afford to wait for these protections, because otherwise the protection may not be there after they have gone. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Police Reform Bill [H.L.]
8.38 p.m.
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
Clause 6 [Regulation of equipment]:
Lord Rookermoved Amendment No. 43:
Page 6. line 4, leave out "such" and insert "with—

(a) persons whom he considers to represent the interests of police authorities;

(b) persons whom he considers to represent the interests of chief officers of police; and

(c) such other"

The noble Lord said: My Lords. I can be brief. Clause 6 and its equivalent for the National Crime Squad relate to the regulation of equipment. Under the original wording, the Home Secretary would be required to consult,
"such persons as he thinks fit"
before making regulations under the provisions. In response to concerns expressed in Committee, Amendment No. 43 would make it crystal clear that he was required to consult representatives of police authorities and chief officers of police before regulating equipment. Amendment No. 95 makes the equivalent change to paragraph 5 of Schedule 1. I beg to move.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I welcome the amendment. Although it is in keeping with others, it is no less welcome for that. I think that the Government are doing a great deal to try to move the Bill along the lines that are being suggested.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I endorse what has just been said by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. We certainly welcome the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 7 [Regulation of operational procedures and practices]:
Lord Bassam of Brightonmoved Amendment No. 44:
Page 6, line 18, leave out "operational"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, many noble Lords expressed concerns about this clause in Committee. Before I explain the intention of these amendments, I should just re-iterate what our intention is in this clause.
Where it would be in the national interest for all police forces to adopt common procedures or practices—but only then—the Home Secretary would lay a regulation before Parliament. By that, we mean where forces need to be able to work closely with one another—where they need to share resources or be able to work in the same way, or where they need to be able, effectively and efficiently, to share information. We have offered the example of the national intelligence model as a means of ensuring that all forces are gathering and handling intelligence material in the same way.
Sadly, criminals do not operate within force boundaries; it would be much easier for us if they did. Forces therefore need to be able quickly and effectively to share robust information on criminals, their modus operandi and their whereabouts. A number of other

785
examples powerfully make the case for this regulation-making power. There may be occasions when adjacent forces need to respond to the same terrorist or firearms incident; an armed robbery, for example, may give rise to a pursuit across force boundaries. It is essential in such circumstances that the officers responding to incidents have received similar training and are deploying similar tactics. There could be a very real risk to the safety of the officers and to members of the public if different approaches to such situations gave rise to any confusion.
We think that there is a strong need for this provision. That need has been acknowledged by the Association of Chief Police Officers, which has long argued for more effective machinery to ensure that good practices are adopted across all forces. The association's original concern was that the Bill as drafted did not give sufficient weight to its position as the professional leader of the service. The government amendments, the detail of which I shall come to, have addressed that concern. In a press release issued today, the association stated,
"We welcome the amendments to the Bill which have been proposed … We particularly welcome the recognition that the leaders of the Service have a key role in giving professional endorsement to any operational codes and regulations".
Noble Lords made it quite clear in Committee that this power as currently drafted had the potential to be too far-reaching. We acknowledge that Clause 7 as introduced went rather wider in its effect than we had intended. Accordingly, these amendments seek to narrow the ambit of the regulation-making power and introduce a number of further safeguards to ensure that the views of the service are fully taken into account. First, we have introduced a requirement for the Home Secretary to consult police authorities and chief officers at an early stage to seek their views on whether regulations are needed in any given case.
Secondly, we have spelt out much more clearly what the test will be for regulations under this clause. Regulations may be made only where it is necessary, in the national interest, for the service to adopt common procedures or practices in order to facilitate the carrying out by members of any two or more police forces of joint or co-ordinated operations.
Thirdly, the Central Police Training and Development Authority, in preparing advice for the drawing up of any regulation under this section, is explicitly required to consult police authorities and chief officers.
Fourthly, and perhaps most significantly, the Home Secretary is required to consider not only the advice of the Central Police Training and Development Authority but must also have advice from Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary that states that he is satisfied that the making of a regulation is necessary to meet the test I have just set out.
These changes not only bring chief officers and police authorities in at every stage and every level, but also introduce Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary as an independent assessor of whether given regulations are necessary. The amendments to Schedule I introduce like provisions in the case of
786
regulations relating to the National Crime Squad. These Government amendments make significant changes to Clause 7. I should hope that, in the spirit of some of the earlier debates, noble Lords will recognise that and fully endorse the proposed changes. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Rookermoved Amendments Nos. 45 to 51:
Page 6, line 19, leave out "operational"
Page 6, leave out lines 21 to 26.
Page 6, line 28, after "from" insert "—
(a)the chief inspector of constabulary; and"
Page 6, line 29, at end insert—
"() Before seeking advice under subsection (3) the Secretary of State shall consult about his proposal to do so with—

(a) persons whom he considers to represent the interests of police authorities; and

(b) persons whom he considers to represent the interests of chief officers of police."

Page 6, line 29, at end insert—
"() A request for the purposes of subsection (3) may specify a period within which the requested advice is to be provided; and, if a period is so specified, the requested advice must be provided within it."
Page 6, line 32, leave out "such" and insert "with—

(a) persons whom it considers to represent the interests of police authorities;

(b) persons whom it considers to represent the interests of chief officers of police; and

(c) such other"

Page 6, line 32, at end insert—
"(4A) The Secretary of State shall not make any regulations under this section requiring the adoption of any procedure or practice unless—

(a) he has, as respects that procedure or practice, received advice from the Central Police Training and Development Authority and has considered that advice;

(b) the advice of the chief inspector of constabulary states that that inspector is satisfied as to the matters mentioned in subsection (4B); and

(c) the Secretary of State himself is satisfied as to those matters.

(4B) Those matters are—

(a) that the adoption of that procedure or practice is necessary in order to facilitate the carrying out by members of any two or more police forces of joint or coordinated operations;

(b) that the making of regulations is necessary for securing the adoption of that procedure or practice; and

(c) that securing the adoption of that procedure or practice is in the national interest."

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Dholakiamoved Amendment No. 52:
Leave out Clause 7.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we have already indicated that the amendments tabled by the Government are extremely welcome. I am pleased to be able again to say to the Minister that we recognise

787
that he has listened to the concerns which have been expressed and sought to respond very constructively. For that we are very grateful.
With the government amendments, Clause 7 is a very different animal from that which appeared originally. There are now significant limitations on the extent to which the clause can be employed. For example, there is no longer any reference to "operational matters"; regulations can be made only when they assist forces to collaborate; and HMIC has to certify that the regulations are "in the national interest". We recognise that those are very significant changes. However, these changes make it even more difficult to see where and when regulations might be made and what they would cover. The Minister should not take that as a concession. Rather, we should be asking ourselves why—if regulations are to be few and far between, as they must now clearly be—this power is needed at all.
The Government have now removed any reference to "operational" in Clause 7. It would be helpful to hear from the Minister what types of practices and procedures the Government envisage regulating under Clause 7. In Committee, the Minister mentioned the national intelligence model, but he also suggested that there might be a code of practice. However, as all forces are committed to rolling out the national intelligence model, what use would regulations serve? We on these Benches remain to be convinced that the Home Secretary needs these powers to set local policing policy or practice through national regulation.
The strength of our system is in tailoring policing to meet the needs and expectations of local communities. Police authorities do want to identify and implement good practice, but imposing something in regulation may not be the answer to that. Clause 7 represents an unnecessary and unwarranted interference by the Home Secretary in local policing. It distorts the tripartite relationship which we have discussed in earlier debates and undermines our system of policing by consent. It should have no place in this particular Bill.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I, too, have very grave doubts about Clause 7. The trouble is that circumstances vary so much, both geographically and in relation to population, in so many different parts of England, Wales and Scotland. Just consider the difference between, for example, East Anglia, where I live, and the metropolis of London, where I have to live when I am working. However, even the difference between East Anglia and Cumbria is really rather remarkable. In Wales—which I know quite well—the roads never seem to lead anywhere.
It is going to be a terrible challenge for the Home Office to have to expect the Secretary of State by regulations to make provision for all police forces in England and Wales, requiring them,
"to adopt particular operational procedures or practices; or … to adopt operational procedures or practices of a particular description".
788
I was in the Home Office for four-and-a-half years where my responsibilities included answering questions on police matters. To expect Home Office officials to know all the circumstances when they vary so much locally and geographically in England and Wales to be able to regulate operational procedures is not feasible.
I therefore support the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, in his suggestion that the clause should not stand part of the Bill.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I respect entirely the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, made his case. The previous group of amendments, which we have just approved, effectively changed Clause 7 dramatically. I do not wish to go over the debate again as that would be counter-productive. An example of a change is the removal of the word "operational". The amendments, as a package, will introduce the following steps that the Secretary of State will be required to take before making regulations under Clause 7.
He will consult representatives of police authorities and chief officers about any proposal and will seek advice from HM Inspectorate of Constabulary and the Central Police Training and Development Authority on the introduction of a regulation. He will then seek advice on the proposed regulation from HMIC and the CPTDA. He will specify a time frame within which that advice must be delivered. Before providing any advice to the Secretary of State, the CPTDA will be required to consult representatives of police authorities and chief officers as well as anyone else it sees fit. Following that advice, before making the regulation, the Secretary of State must have received and considered advice from the CPTDA. He and HMIC must be satisfied that the adoption of a particular procedure is necessary to facilitate joint co-ordinated operations between two or more forces. In making the regulations it is necessary to secure the adoption of that procedure and securing that procedure is in the national interest.
That is a summary of the previous group of amendments which I hope makes the case for retaining Clause 7. I do not propose to use the extensive notes that I have to defend Clause 7 because it has been radically changed. I am not saying that the case made by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, was not a strong one from his point of view—far from it. But the previous group of amendments that we approved go a substantial way down the road. I shall not talk about roads in Wales that lead nowhere. It may not get the noble Lord, Lord Renton, into trouble, but it will get me into trouble.
It is better to have Clause 7, as amended, in the Bill. We have considered many of the points that were made, especially in Committee, where the genesis of the amendments were discussed. I therefore hope that your Lordships will leave Clause 7, as amended, in the Bill.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. His remarks require some study and I shall

789
read them carefully. If need be, we can discuss the matter again at Third Reading. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 1 [Powers of the Secretary of State in Relation to NCIS and NCS]:
Lord Rookermoved Amendments Nos. 53 and 54:
Page 85, line 22, leave out "shall consult such persons as it" and insert "("the CPTDA") shall consult with—

(a) the NCIS Service Authority;

(b) the Director General of NCIS;

(c) persons whom the CPTDA considers to represent the interests of police authorities;

(d) persons whom the CPTDA considers to represent the interests of chief officers of police; and

(e) such other persons as the CPTDA"

Page 85, line 24, at end insert—
"(5A) The Secretary of State shall lay any code of practice issued by him under this section, and any revisions of any such code, before Parliament.
(5B) The Secretary of State shall not be required by subsection (5A) to lay before Parliament, or may exclude from what he does so lay, anything the publication of which, in his opinion—

(a) would be against the interests of national security;

(b) could prejudice the prevention or detection of crime or the apprehension or prosecution of offenders; or

(c) could jeopardise the safety of any person."

On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 55 not moved.]
Lord Rookermoved Amendments Nos. 56 and 57:
Page 86, line 11. leave out "shall consult such persons as it" and insert "("the CPTDA") shall consult with—

(a) the NCS Service Authority;

(b) the Director General of the National Crime Squad;

(c) persons whom the CPTDA considers to represent the interests of police authorities;

(d) persons whom the CPTDA considers to represent the interests of chief officers of police; and

(e) such other persons as the CPTDA"

Page 86, line 11, at end insert—
"(4A) The Secretary of State shall lay any code of practice issued by him under this section, and any revisions of any such code, before Parliament.
(4B) The Secretary of State shall not be required by subsection (4A) to lay before Parliament, or may exclude from what he does so lay, anything the publication of which, in his opinion—

(a) would be against the interests of national security;

(b) could prejudice the prevention or detection of crime or the apprehension or prosecution of offenders; or

(c) could jeopardise the safety of any person."

On Question., amendments agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 58 and 59 not moved.]
Lord Rookermoved Amendments Nos. 60 and 61:
Page 86, line 29, after "such" insert "remedial"
Page 86, line 30. at end insert—
"(1A) Those remedial measures must not relate to any matter other than—

(a) a matter by reference to which the report contains a statement of opinion falling within subsection (1)(a) or (b); or

790

(b) a matter that the Secretary of State considers relevant to any matter falling within paragraph (a)."

On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 62 not moved.]
Lord Rookermoved Amendments Nos. 63 to 65:
Page 86, line 40, after "such" insert "remedial"
Page 86, line 41. at end insert—
"(3) Those remedial measures must not relate to any matter other than—

(a) a matter by reference to which the report contains a statement of opinion falling within subsection (2)(a) or (b); or

(b) a matter that the Scottish Ministers consider relevant 10 any matter falling within paragraph (a)."

Page 86, line 41, at end insert—
"(4) If the Secretary of State exercises his power to give a direction under this section—

(a) he shall prepare a report on his exercise of that power; and

(b) he shall lay that report before Parliament.

(5) If the Scottish Ministers exercise their power to give a direction under this section—

(a) they shall prepare a report on their exercise of that power; and

(b) they shall lay that report before the Scottish Parliament.

(6) A report under subsection (4) or (5)—

(a) shall be prepared at such time as the Secretary of State considers or, as the case may be, the Scottish Ministers consider appropriate; and

(b) may relate to more than one exercise of the power to give a direction under this section."

On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 66, as an amendment to Amendment No. 65, not moved.]
[Amendment No. 67 not moved.]
Lord Rookermoved Amendments Nos. 68 to 70:
Page 87, line 13, after "such" insert "remedial"
Page 87, line 13, at end insert—
"(2) Those remedial measures must not relate to any matter other than—

(a) a matter by reference to which the report contains a statement of opinion falling within subsection (1)(a) or (b); or

(b) a matter that the Secretary of State considers relevant to any matter falling within paragraph (a)."

Page 87, line 13, at end insert—
"(3) If the Secretary of State exercises his power to give a direction under this section—

(a) he shall prepare a report on his exercise of that power; and

(b) he shall lay that report before Parliament.

(4) A report under subsection (3)—

(a) shall be prepared at such time as the Secretary of State considers appropriate; and

(b) may relate to more than one exercise of the power to give a direction under this section."

On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 71, as an amendment to Amendment No. 70, not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 72 to 82 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 83, as an amendment to Amendment No. 82, not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 84 to 92 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 93, as an amendment to Amendment No. 92, not moved.]
[Amendment No. 94 not moved.]
Lord Rookermoved Amendment No. 95:
Page 90, line 35, leave out "such persons as he" and insert "with—

(a) the Service Authority for the National Crime Squad;

(b) the Director General of that Squad;

(c) persons whom the Secretary of State considers to represent the interests of police authorities;

(d) persons whom the Secretary of State considers to represent the interests of chief officers of police; and

(e) such other persons as the Secretary of State"

On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 96 not moved.]
Lord Rookermoved Amendments Nos. 97 to 103:
Page 91, line 6, leave out "operational"
Page 91, line 7, leave out "operational"
Page 91, line 10, after "from" insert "—
(a) the chief inspector of constabulary; and"
Page 91, line 11, at end insert—
"() A request for the purposes of subsection (2) may specify a period within which the requested advice is to be provided; and, if a period is so specified, the requested advice must be provided within it."
Page 91, line 11, at end insert—
"() Before seeking advice under subsection (2) the Secretary of State shall consult about his proposal to do so with—

(a) persons whom he considers to represent the interests of police authorities; and

(b) persons whom he considers to represent the interests of chief officers of police."

Page 91, line 14, leave out "shall consult such persons as it" and insert "("the CPTDA") shall consult with—

(a) the NCS Service Authority;

(b) the Director General of the National Crime Squad;

(c) persons whom the CPTDA considers to represent the interests of police authorities;

(d) persons whom the CPTDA considers to represent the interests of chief officers of police; and

(e) such other persons as the CPTDA"

Page 91, line 14, at end insert—
"(3A) The Secretary of State shall not make any regulations under this section requiring the adoption of any procedure or practice unless—

(a) he has, as respects that procedure or practice, received advice from the Central Police Training and Development Authority and has considered that advice; and

(b) the advice of the chief inspector of constabulary states that that inspector is satisfied as to the matters mentioned in subsection (3B); and

(c) the Secretary of State himself is satisfied as to those matters.

792
(3B) Those matters are—

(a) that the adoption of that procedure or practice is necessary in order to facilitate the carrying out by members of the National Crime Squad and of any one or more police forces of joint or co-ordinated operations;

(b) that the making of regulations is necessary for securing the adoption of that procedure or practice; and

(c) that securing the adoption of that procedure or practice is in the national interest."

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 9 [The Independent Police Complaints Commission]:
Lord Rookermoved Amendment No. 104:
Page 7, line 18, leave out "at any time"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall also speak to Amendment No. 105. The first amendment is a drafting amendment as the words to be left out are superfluous.
The second is in response to an amendment tabled in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, and the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman. I said then that accredited persons will be members of the extended police family and, as such, will work closely with the police. Although they are not employed by a chief constable and they exercise very limited police powers, it would not make sense to have on the commission someone who is doing that job, or who has done that job. It is possible that they will be viewed as lacking in independence and objectivity because of their association with police work. Therefore, I am fulfilling a commitment to return with an amendment. I beg to move.
9 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I welcome Amendment No. 105, which we are grateful to see on the Marshalled List.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Rookermoved Amendment No. 105:
Page 7, line 20, at end insert—
"() he is a person in relation to whom an accreditation under section 36 is or has been in force;"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2 [The Independent Police Complaints Commission]:
Viscount Bridgemanmoved Amendment No. 106:
Page 94, line 5, leave out sub-paragraph (3).
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, Amendment No. 106 refers to the power of the Secretary of State to appoint the first chief executive and to approve the appointment of subsequent chief executives.
In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, said that the Government were 100 per cent in favour of independence. That must surely mean what it says. This is probably the most sensitive of any appeal tribunal in this country and it is essential that it should be transparent. The power of the Secretary of State to

793
have an effective veto over the appointment of the chief executive into the indefinite future must surely be resisted. I beg to move.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I appreciate the noble Viscount's point about this being an important independent body and it must be seen to be so. As we said earlier, it will be much more powerful and much better resourced than the existing complaints authority.
It is essential for the Secretary of State to be able to appoint the first chief executive of the commission. I am not making a big thing about this, but it is sometimes the practice for the Secretary of State to appoint the first chief executive of a non-departmental public body. I may have used the analogy in the past—it is the one I had experience of as a Minister—of the Foods Standards Agency although I was at MAFF and therefore not responsible and had left MAFF by the time the agency was set up. However, I took the legislation through its various stages and it was my baby as a White Paper as well. I was very conscious of the fact that that was not a non-departmental public body. It was set up as a non-ministerial department, so the structure was slightly different in the way the department went about making the appointments.
There is a good case for making an early appointment of a chief executive in advance of the appointment of the hoard members. The chief executive will need to be in place well before the commission is formally set up to take forward the establishment of the commission and its operating procedures. The chief executive will be the accounting officer of the body. If the chief executive is not in place to do that, I have to say to the House—resting on the prejudices of some noble Lords, although of none present—that it will be left to the Home Office to do it; and some people may not like the Home Office doing that work and then handing over to the chief executive. It is a less than satisfactory way of proceeding.
However, I want to make it clear that there is no suggestion that the Home Secretary will be able to put his own man or woman in the post. The first chief executive will be recruited in an open and fair process according to established practice; that is, by public advertisement and proper sifting procedures.
As with other members of the staff of the commission, the chief executive will be an employee of the commission and under its direction and control. Obviously the chief executive will have to satisfy the commission that he is performing satisfactorily. The commission's chair and members will then select subsequent chief executives. It must be borne in mind that, whatever the process of the Secretary of State approving the appointment, the Secretary of State will be in no position to put forward his own person as the chief executive. The commission will put forward the name. It may be that it puts forward a name to which the Home Secretary objects. But the Home Secretary is not then allowed to put another name in position. It is the commission's right to do that. The Secretary of State's right is only to refuse or approve a nomination.
794
Furthermore, the chair and commission members will define the role and duties of the chief executive. The Secretary of State will only be able to refuse or approve the role rather than prescribe it. There is no suggestion that the Secretary of State's approval will compromise the independence of the commission or that he can place his own representative there to mould it according to his wishes. He cannot. The commission will be appointed by the Commissioner for Public Appointments through the proper process.
The power of the Secretary of State to give approval is an important safeguard for the Government, mainly to ensure that the appointee is appropriate to the position. In establishing new non-departmental public bodies, it is important to have in place checks and balances. I do not say that this is the same process in every case, but there are many non-departmental public bodies in existence.
As I said, the chief executive will be the accounting officer. The Government need to be satisfied that the selection process was open and fair and in line with established best practice. At the end of the day the Home Secretary has an oversight role of the operation of the commission and the police complaints system generally, for which of course he is accountable to Parliament. Parliament will be in a better position to be able to hold the Government to account for the commission's effectiveness if the Home Secretary is in the seat for approving the commission's selection of the chief executive. The Home Secretary will not be able to run away and say, "It was nothing to do with me, guv. The commission appointed this person" From Parliament's point of view, that is a better position than any of the alternatives, which would mean that the Home Secretary had no role at all.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that comprehensive reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 107 not moved.]
Clause 10 [General functions of the Commission]:
[Amendments Nos. 108 and 109 not moved.]
Clause 11 [Reports to the Secretary of State]:
Viscount Bridgemanmoved Amendment No. 110:
Page 10, line 7, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b).
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in Committee the Minister gave an assurance that in the delivery of reports there would be a presumption in favour of publication, and that was very much to be welcomed. But taking into account what the Minister said about the previous amendment, this is a very much more subjective decision for the Secretary of State and we must once again look to future Secretaries of State whose armour may not necessarily be shining with the brilliance of that held by the present incumbent. We would be very much happier if the presumption of publication could be enshrined in this clause. I make a further suggestion to the Minister that it might be possible to have the condition turned around so that

795
only in exceptional circumstances would the report not be published. I ask for the Minister's views. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Viscount moved this amendment at Committee stage. We are not of a mind to offer a different response now. I shall carefully explain why.
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament and cause to be published every report that it receives from the Independent Police Complaints Commission. On the face of it that seems to be a reasonable proposition, but we argue that it could be potentially harmful to the public interest if the legislation demands that all reports are published.
It is highly likely that this amendment would result in reports not being written at all by the commission or useful information being excluded because it would be considered as potentially harmful. It is right that the commission's annual report will have to be laid before Parliament and published.
As regards other reports, the Secretary of State should have some discretion as to whether to publish or not, having considered all relevant factors. For example, a report might contain sensitive, potentially harmful information or recommendations about police practices, which, were they to be made public, would damage future police operations. I believe that this House is agreed that the police must have flexibility over police operational matters. After all, it is their domain—policy on one side and operational matters on the other.
The discretion provided in the clause allows the Secretary of State to balance the need for conflicting public interest arguments for and against disclosure of such reports. In this context no doubt he will be aware that it would he possible for reports to be released with any sensitive information removed.
The amendment could be self-defeating and that is the kernel of our argument. Normally, we would want to argue for maximum disclosure, but in certain circumstances where that disclosure would be harmful to the service or operations, we believe that the Home Secretary needs to have that flexibility and to exercise his or her discretion in future. For those reasons I invite the noble Viscount to withdraw the amendment.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, the Minister holds his ground. I accept his explanation and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 12 [Complaints, matters and persons to which Part 2 applies]:
Viscount Bridgemanmoved Amendment No. 111:
Page 11, line 15, leave out from "public" to end of line 19.
The noble Viscount said: This again is an amendment which was moved at Committee stage. We consider that the category of individuals who can make complaints remains too restrictive. We
796
appreciate that the administration of the commission must be had regard to, which is a point made by the Minister at Committee.
But we believe that this is a very sensitive area and there must surely be provision for the informed whistle-blower. That is not provided for in the complaints catchment at the moment and in certain circumstances it could be very useful. Will the Minister consider this amendment? I beg to move.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I fully accept the reason why the noble Viscount has returned with this amendment. I have no doubt that this is not the last time when this particular issue will be raised during the passage of the Bill.
We have tried to embrace in Part 2 of the Bill the principle of much greater accessibility to the police complaints system. We have more explicitly defined than in existing legislation who can make a complaint. This will, therefore, replace any scope for the use of discretion over the recording of complaints with much more consistency and clarity.
We have also provided the would-be complainant with a right to appeal to the commission against the non-recording of a complaint. This right of appeal is predicated on the fact that while the definition of a complaint is a wide one, it also sensibly limits complaints to those made by people who are likely to have a relevant connection with the police conduct under question.
We want a system under which the conduct of anyone serving with the police, which has an adverse effect on a member of the public, is dealt with efficiently and effectively. That is why it is not just "victims" who will be able to make a complaint. People who can make a complaint will also include "witnesses". I gave one example during Committee stage, as I recall. That is people who have full control of a CCTV system, for example. Also, people acting on behalf of "victims" or "witnesses" will have the right to make a complaint. It is also why people who may be apprehensive about approaching the police, which I fully understand, will also be able to make complaints through "gateways", that is to say, through certain community organisations and individuals who have regular contact with members of the public.
While I do not want to open up a new debate, it may be that this will cover the area of the informed whistle-blower referred to by the noble Viscount. However, these amendments would enable any member of the public to complain about the conduct of anyone serving with the police whether or not they had any connection with the incident or would be able to contribute in any way towards an investigation.
These amendments, coupled with the right of appeal, would radically change the nature of the system by creating a significant amount of additional administrative work for the police and the commission. It would mean that any and all allegations might wend their way through the system, taking up time and resources disproportionate to the importance of the complaint.

797
The intention is to open up the system so that conduct by anyone serving with the police which has an adverse effect on a member of the public is dealt with, while ensuring that that is done properly. Members of the public who, for various reasons, do not want to make direct complaints to the police can do so through others. They will have a connection with the complaint. The change proposed would jeopardise that, which I do not believe would be in anyone's interest.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, I recollect that at such an hour in Committee the Government introduced a measure that gave the commission authority to initiate an inquiry of its own on which my noble friend Lord Renton animadverted at the time. Was the Minister thinking of that in relation to what he has just said, or was that quite a separate matter?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, that is a separate matter. I see noble Lords nodding. If a category of people has a connection with an incident in which the public have been treated badly by someone serving in the police or working for the police authority and that category is not covered by what I have said. I would be pleased to hear about it. We do not want to rule that out.
We do not want to give carte blanche so that anyone who reads something in the media can make a complaint and have the right of appeal and all the other rights that go with the new process. We do not seek to stop anyone who has a complaint relating to themselves or to a friend dealing with it through a go-between or through a third party, but there has to be a connection with someone who has been badly treated by the police. If the matter is left wide open, it will not take long for someone who wants to create a mountain of paperwork to work out how to clog up the system as an act of policy. The point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, relates to the fact that the commission itself—it is a powerful commission—can initiate inquiries about complaints, but that has nothing to do with the substance of this amendment.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, I have one question arising out of that. I have no difficulty in accepting why the Government are anxious to prevent people who have no connection with a case starting hares running. In terms of the points raised by my noble friend in moving the amendment in relation to whistle-blowers, it is presumably conceivably the case that the commission might act on a whistle-blower's contribution.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, if the commission knew who the whistle-blower was, and the complaint was made to the commission by the whistle-blower but he did not want to do it publicly, it may be up to the commission to take that on board. Alternatively, I think that the whistle-blower would be able to complain to the commission through another party—a friend or an organisation. We are not closing off the
798
opportunity for the complaint to be made if the person concerned is operating as a whistle-blower, by which I am assuming that he is someone inside the organisation or the police. It is not unknown for that to happen. We do not want to exclude that in any way, shape or form, but the complaint has to be about someone who was badly treated by the police. It is difficult to conceive of the circumstances. If noble Lords can come up with better examples, I shall try to come up with a better answer.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I am sure that we are all working for the same purpose, which is to make the new commission work as well and as efficiently as possible. We appear to be discussing whether, in drafting legislation, we can make a judgment about the validity of a complaint, or whether it is better to leave the commission to make such a judgment when it receives the complaint. I believe that that is what my noble friend Lord Bridgeman is proposing.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, in mentioning a whistle-blower, I meant someone who is totally independent. I did not mean an inside person. I have carefully noted what the Minister has said. If there is a possibility of expanding the category slightly, perhaps we can return to the point at Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 112 not moved.]
Lord Dixon-Smithmoved Amendment No. 113:
Page 12, line 15, at end insert "; or
(d) he is an accredited person for the purposes of section 35"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Clause 12 defines who can be the subject of a complaint to the complaints commission. We believe that the clause is inadequate. Unless we manage later to implement some other changes, we shall have people exercising police powers on the streets who are not subject to normal police discipline nor to the complaints commission.
We think that that is an omission which should be corrected. I accept that we debated the issue in Committee but we believe that we should return to the matter. We are clear that the ultimate supervision of people who act with police powers has to be, first, by the police and, ultimately, if it comes to a question of complaint, through the police complaints commission.
A difference of principle exists between ourselves and the Government. However, we do not apologise for again raising the matter. I beg to move.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, no noble Lord needs to apologise for bringing matters back on Report. I make no complaint about that. I am switching back to emollient mode at the moment. I mean that because we could look at issues three or four times. We may think that we have got it right but we can always have a second look. The noble Lord is right: there is a matter of principle. These people are not employed by the chief constable. They are not employed by the police

799
authority. By definition they are well outside the police family. They are part of the extended police family. They have an employer because they are part of the accredited system. The individual or the employer would not be accredited unless the employer had a good complaints system. If things go wrong, the ultimate sanction is for the chief constable to remove the accreditation of that person or organisation.
My right honourable friend and I have discussed the matters raised. I give an example to the House. There are organisations with powers over people. Examples include neighbourhood street wardens and dog wardens. In some parts of the country there are still park keepers. Environmental health officers have fairly substantial powers. Those are not police powers but they are similar to the powers used by the accredited person. No one has suggested that they should be brought within the remit of a police complaints authority. The employer should have a satisfactory system for complaints about such persons. At the end of the day, the issue can go to the independent ombudsman as well as to elected councillors.
A strong case cannot be argued. As the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, said, it is a point of principle. If it is inappropriate to use the new independent police complaints commission for existing local authority employees, it is equally inappropriate to bring accredited community safety officers within the commission's jurisdiction. We have a problem. The accreditation process is meant to help the police by providing a co-ordinated response from other sections of the community, whether shopping centre wardens, local authority guards or private sector security people. Theirs is a more hands-on role. They will have to keep their house in order or they will lose their accreditation. Without accreditation some of those people will go out of business. The shopping centre will not use an unaccredited person under this system. It will become the norm that people not approved by the local chief of police will be told, "Sorry, we don't want you or your staff". That will be important for the public perception. Where people are guarding premises, looking after shopping centres and so on, it will be a comfort to the public to know that the chief of police has had a role in who is doing the "policing".
If an accredited person is alleged to have committed a crime, the police will investigate that matter as with any other. The allegation of misconduct breaches the employer's disciplinary code. If the employer does nothing about it, that is unsatisfactory. The ultimate sanction is that the employer loses the accreditation of the people; that is, he will go out of business. That is quite a sanction.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, the Minister gave a full and good reply, but the difference between us remains. The difficulty is that his ultimate sanction, the removal of accreditation from an employer, will not necessarily provide adequate satisfaction to someone who runs into difficulty with an accredited person exercising a police power. One can envisage a
800
circumstance in a shopping centre where someone says, "You shouldn't be doing this" or, "You've been drinking too much" and tries to confiscate alcohol from some young people or something like that. That may lead to an unjustifiable argument which turns violent and then becomes an affray and one gets into the business of who is responsible.
That could cause immense difficulty. The situation would not be as easy to deal with if one was dealing with a commercial group such as Securicor or Group 4, as with employees of a local authority, where one might meet a slightly different attitude. Unless we can persuade the Government to move on the matter it will be difficult to persuade commercial firms to become involved and take the risk, however good their complaints procedure may be. It is not a question of complaints procedure so much as liability. Complaints procedure is one thing, but liability is another. When one sees what happens nowadays when the courts argue liability, it is a different situation.
I will study the Minister's response. It does not satisfy me now and we may need to return to the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 3 [Handling of Complaints and Conduct matters etc.]
Viscount Bridgemanmoved Amendment No. 114:
Page 105, line 45, leave out from "with" to end of line 2 on page 106.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the only point in moving the amendment is to inquire whether the phrase we have suggested deleting is otiose and whether the clause would have the same meaning without it. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the short answer is "No"; it is not otiose. Subparagraph (7) of paragraph 10 of Schedule 3 is designed to allow flexibility to make regulations for the time periods with respect to the requirements of paragraph 10 in relation to conduct matters arising from civil claims.
I will explain further because the matter is worth putting on the record. The words the amendment seeks to delete are useful because, unlike the normal situation where a complaint is made to the police, the paragraph is concerned with circumstances where police conduct is challenged in the civil courts; for example, by an action for assault, false imprisonment or mistreatment.
It is right in such circumstances that there is greater flexibility in determining when the clock starts ticking and the time period starts running. The proposed deleted words would allow the regulations to empower the independent police complaints commission to determine the appropriate time period for compliance with the requirements, as I said earlier, in relation to an appeal of a civil claim brought out of time. If the words were taken out it would be damaging to the interests of the complainant, and, one would argue, natural

801
justice. They are not otiose; they are essential, but I appreciate the noble Viscount's desire for brevity in legislation.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, I am most grateful for the Minister's very informed explanation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Rookermoved Amendments No. 115:
Page 119, lime 23, leave out from "proceedings" to "to" in line 24.
The noble Lords said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 116. I shall be brief. Under Clause 12, alleged misconduct by anyone serving with the police can be dealt with under the new system. Paragraph 27 of Schedule 3 currently provides for the new complaints commission to make a recommendation and, if necessary, a direction to the appropriate authority regarding the disciplinary proceedings to be brought against,
"a member of a police force".
The purpose of these amendments is to extend that power to disciplinary proceedings against both special constables and civilians—that is, civilians employed by the police. It is entirely appropriate for it to be extended to special constables, as the complaints commission will in any event be able to bring, conduct or intervene in disciplinary proceedings against them. The Government believe that it will also be appropriate to extend it to support staff to ensure that the complaints commission will be able to decide that disciplinary proceedings should be brought against a civilian who has committed an act of misconduct. When the complaints commission exercises this power, it will have to take the specific terms and conditions of employment of the civilian into account. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Roolkermoved Amendment No. 116:
Page 119, line 28, leave out "member of police force" and insert "person serving with the police"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 15 [General dudes of police authorities, chief officers and inspectors]:
Baroness Harris of Richmondmoved Amendment No. 117:
Page 12, line 38, leave out "maintaining a police force" and insert "in securing the maintenance of an efficient and effective police force"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we welcome and support the contents of Clause 15. Our amendment seeks to improve it in a way that reflects the current provisions of Section 77 of the Police Act 1996. This requires police authorities not just to keep themselves informed as to the working of the complaints procedures. It goes further and links this to the duty on authorities to maintain an efficient and effective force, and thus gives them scope to act if things are going wrong.
802
We welcome the establishment of the new IPCC. But, let us face it, when complaints reach the IPCC it usually means that things have gone seriously wrong somewhere. As we all know, prevention is far better than cure. We want to ensure that police authorities can have in place a rigorous process and structure to oversee all complaints, and to take remedial action where there are concerns.
I hope that the noble Lord's emollient mode will extend to my moving this amendment, because Clause 15 is important. However, as currently drafted, it does not in our view go quite far enough. Issues relating to complaints, whether to do with the alleged conduct of police staff, or issues relating to direction and control, go to the heart of the efficiency and effectiveness of the force; and they go to the heart of public confidence in policing.
Section 77 of the Police Act 1996 recognises this by tying oversight of complaints issues to the statutory duty of police authorities to secure the maintenance of an efficient and effective police force. That enables police authorities not just to monitor what is going on, but also to act where the handling of complaints impacts on efficiency or effectiveness.
Our amendment is based on the wording of Section 77 of the Police Act 1996, which will, of course, be repealed by this Bill. The difference made by the slight change in wording incorporated in the amendment is small, but important. It would ensure full and proper oversight and accountability for complaints. The public should demand no less. I hope that the Minister will feel able to accept the spirit of the amendment. I appreciate that he may well want to consider whether the wording of the amendment can be improved, but the key issue is the principle of effective oversight of the complaints procedures and clear accountability to local communities. I should welcome a commitment that the Government will take the matter away and bring forward proposals at Third Reading. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, this is quite an interesting point about the drafting of the provision. I have looked again at the wording and reflected on what the noble Baroness has said. The provision currently places a duty upon police authorities to keep themselves informed—or at least this is what the drafting is about—of the workings of the complaints system.
We read our provision as being slightly wider than the similar one used in Section 77 of the Police Act 1996, to which the noble Baroness has referred. We cannot see a reason to limit it just to one function of a police authority, when they have others; for example, and in particular—and the noble Baroness and I have talked about this aspect in the past inside and outside the Chamber—of achieving best value. We believe that lessons from the complaints system may be relevant to all the police authority's functions. Our argument really is that the amendment of the noble Baroness is more restrictive than she imagines. We think that our wording is broader.

803
We are mindful that the police authority must keep itself informed of the workings of complaints systems so far as is necessary in relation to all its functions, rather than the narrow confines of efficiency and effectiveness. In practice, we do not think that this duty will be very different to the one placed upon police authorities by the current system.
Therefore, I am not minded to suggest that we want to accept the amendment, but if the noble Baroness writes to us explaining how she feels her amendment broadens rather than narrows the provision—as we argue in defence of our own position—obviously we will reflect on that. We are probably not one million miles apart. We are trying to achieve that necessary breadth because we think that it is in the interests of the public and the police and in the interests of securing an effective and efficient complaints system. I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment. However, if she wants to give some further thought to the matter we shall certainly listen to her.
Baroness Harris of Richmond: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for giving me the reassurance that he will consider the matter at least if I write to him and further tell him what is proposed. It is important that he also understands that police authorities need to, and do, keep themselves apprised of the procedures. I am reassured by what he says. I shall consider the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 20 [Duty to keep the complainant informed]:
Lord Rookermoved Amendment No. 118:
Page 18, line 35, leave out from "required" to end of line 36 and insert "on proportionality grounds"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 118, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 119. Under Clause 20(6)(iii) the Secretary of State has the power to make regulations to prevent the disclosure of information or investigation reports to complainants to secure that no person is adversely affected by the disclosure.
In Committee, the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, moved an amendment which had the intention of ensuring that disclosure would not be prevented on the grounds that it would adversely affect the person complained about where the complaint had been upheld. In fact, as I explained then, the duty to keep complainants informed under Clause 20 does not apply at the stage in the process where a complaint may or may not have been upheld. Complaints can only be either upheld or dismissed during disciplinary proceedings by which time any disclosure under this clause will already have taken place. There are separate provisions under Clause 33 for complainants to be involved in disciplinary proceedings.
Nevertheless, it is important for the sensitivity test under Clause 20(6) to provide for the prevention of disclosure where someone could be adversely affected. A substantial amount of information on the person
804
complained about will often come to light during the course of an investigation, and much of it may have no bearing whatever on the complaint. To disclose that information to the complainant would serve no useful purpose and would unnecessarily breach the privacy of the person complained about.
However, it has never been the Government's intention to allow the person complained about to prevent disclosure on general grounds that he would be adversely affected. The amendment would make clear that disclosure should be prevented only when it would disproportionately adversely affect someone. It will be explicit in the Bill that in all cases a judgment will need to be made based on the balance between the need to keep the complainant informed and the need to avoid unnecessary breaches of anyone's privacy. I beg to move.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, the provisions are entirely equitable and we support them.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bassam of Brightonmoved Amendment No. 119:
Page 18, line 38, at end insert—
"() The non-disclosure of information is required on proportionality grounds if its disclosure would cause, directly or indirectly, an adverse effect which would be disproportionate to the benefits arising from its disclosure."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 21 [Power of the Commission to issue guidance]:
Lord Bassam of Brightonmoved Amendment No. 120:
Page 19, line 17, at end insert—
"() Before issuing any guidance under this section, the Commission shall consult with—

(a) persons whom it considers to represent the interests of police authorities;

(b) persons whom it considers to represent the interests of chief officers of police; and

(c) such other persons as it thinks fit."

The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 122.
It has always been the Government's intention for the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Association of Police Authorities and others to he consulted before issuing regulations and guidance. For that reason, we were happy to give fair consideration to the proposals made at the Committee stage by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, and to return today with something that reflects what was sought.
The effect of Amendment No. 120 will be to place an obligation on the independent police complaints commission to consult people representing the interests of police authorities, chief officers and others on guidance that it intends to issue before seeking the approval of the Secretary of State to issue that guidance.
The government amendment varies from the amendment moved in Committee in that it will require the commission to consult on guidance that it intends

805
to issue before seeking the approval of the Secretary of State to issue that guidance, whereas the amendment moved in Committee would have required the Secretary of State to consult before giving his approval.
The reason for that is that the commission will want to take account of the views of the key players in drawing up the guidance and it would therefore not he appropriate for the Secretary of State to consult them again. To do so would mean either the key players having to confirm their views or, if they were not reflected in the guidance, a risk that the independence of the commission would be impugned if the Secretary of State sought to introduce those views into the guidance.
Similarly, the effect of Amendment No. 122 would he to place an obligation on the Secretary of State to consult before making regulations under Part 2. In addition to persons representing chief officers and police authorities, the consultees would naturally also include the independent police complaints commission. So our amendments reflect the spirit of what the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, proposed, but also respect the independence of the new independent police complaints commission. I beg to move.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I rise simply to thank the Minister for his consideration.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 22 [Regulations]:
[Amendment No. 121 not moved.]
Lord Rookermoved Amendment No. 122:
After Clause 22, insert the following new clause—
"CONSULTATION ON REGULATIONS
Before making any regulations under this Part, the Secretary of State shall consult with—

(a) the Commission;

(b) persons whom he considers to represent the interests of police authorities;

(c) persons whom he considers to represent the interests of chief officers of police; and

(d) such other persons as he thinks fit."

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Rookermoved Amendment No. 123:
After Clause 28, insert the following new clause—
"PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS FOR REMOVAL OF SENIOR OFFICERS
(1) In subsection (2) of section 9E of the 1996 Act (removal of Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis) for the words from "an opportunity" to the end there shall be substituted "—

(a) an explanation in writing of the Authority's grounds for calling upon him, in the interests of efficiency or effectiveness, to retire or to resign; and

(b) an opportunity to make representations;

and the Authority shall consider any representations made by or on behalf of the Commissioner.
The opportunity given to the Commissioner to make representations must include the opportunity to make them in person."
806
(2) In subsection (3) of section 11 of the 1996 Act (removal of chief officer of police), for the words from "an opportunity" to the end there shall be substituted "—

(a) an explanation in writing of the authority's grounds for calling upon him, in the interests of efficiency or effectiveness, to retire or to resign; and

(b) an opportunity to make representations;

and the authority shall consider any representations made by or on behalf of the chief officer.
The opportunity given to the chief constable to make representations must include the opportunity to make them in person."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 125, 128, 129 and 130. The Government share the wish that an officer who is subject to proceedings should have a full and fair opportunity to present his or her case. The government amendments will have that effect. They will go a substantial way to meet the intended effects of Amendments Nos. 124, 126 and 127, although we disagree with some aspects of them.
The new clause inserted by Amendment No. 123 will require three distinct courses of action: first, the officer would have to be given an explanation, in writing, of the police authority's grounds for calling on him or her to retire or resign; secondly, the officer would have the right to make representations, in writing, in person or through someone acting on his or her behalf; thirdly, the police authority would be under a statutory duty to consider those representations.
Correspondingly, in cases in which the Secretary of State intervenes under Section 42, Amendment No. 125 provides for the officer to be given notice of the Home Secretary's intention to intervene and a written explanation of his reasons for doing so. Amendment No. 128 provides for the right to be heard by the inquiry and for the officer to be heard in person. That amendment also provides a statutory right for the police authority to make representations to the inquiry if it wishes. Amendment No. 129 is a consequential amendment and merely ensures that officer's right to a written explanation from the police authority is disapplied in a Section 42 case, for which the explanation will come from the Secretary of State.
I hope that, following our debate in Committee, I have been able to persuade the House that the purpose of Amendment No. 126 has been achieved and that retention of the inquiry provisions for Section 42 cases, at which Amendment No. 127 appears to be aimed, is part of the Bill.
With regard to Amendment No. 124, as I said, the police authority would be able to put its views to the Section 42 inquiry. The amendment would go further and introduce a statutory process of consideration of representations for suspension cases. In the Government's view, consultation will be the norm, where such cases arise. There may be cases in which urgent and critical action is vital. If such a serious situation arose, it would not be right to inhibit the capacity of the Secretary of State to move swiftly, if circumstances made it imperative.

807
Government Amendment No. 130 creates a requirement for consultations to include representatives of police authorities and chief officers before regulations are made in respect of Part 3.
In moving Amendment No. 123, I hope that I have touched on some of the amendments tabled by noble Lords. I beg to move.
9.45 p.m.
Baroness Harris of Richmond: My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment No. 124. The Government's amendments to Part 3 of the Bill are welcome. They provide additional important safeguards in cases where a chief officer is forced to retire or resign. That is right. However, those safeguards apply only in cases in which the decision has, in effect, been taken to exercise the power; that is right at the end of the process. There should be an earlier dialogue between the Home Secretary and the police authority, before the Home Secretary tells the authority to remove its chief officer.
I am sure that the Minister will tell me that that dialogue will go on and that the Home Secretary will not simply get out of bed one morning and issue a peremptory order that a particular chief constable must go. However, it would be more reassuring if that safeguard were built into and reflected in the legislation.
We made it clear at Second Reading that we have considerable difficulty with the idea that the Home Secretary should have the power to require a police authority to suspend its chief officer. We are not persuaded that the Home Secretary should second-guess the judgment of the authority on whether local confidence in the force demands that the chief officer be suspended. That is a matter for the local community and its representatives; namely, the police authority. I see that the Minister accepts that argument.
If the Home Secretary insists on taking the power, we would be considerably reassured if, before exercising it in any given case, he were required by statute to consult the police authority concerned and consider its views. Currently, the Bill simply gives the authority the opportunity to make representations after the Home Secretary has reached a conclusion. The effect of our amendment would be quite simple. It would require the Secretary of State to consult and to have regard to representations received. That should be enshrined in the Bill.
The Minister has assured us that it is a power of last resort, but the Home Secretary may come under considerable pressure from the media and others to use the power as an instant response. We would not want that to happen. Our amendment would help to ensure that the power was used only after full and thorough consideration. We believe that it would protect the operational independence of a chief constable, to which we on these Benches are deeply committed. As I said earlier, this provision would provide a buffer between the Home Secretary of the day and the potential for direct interference and undue influence. I
808
strongly urge the Minister to give this amendment serious consideration. In no way does it undermine the Government's aims; rather it seeks simply to improve the process.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I have tabled two amendments in this grouping, Amendments Nos. 126 and 127. Amendment No. 126 seeks to ensure that the person affected by the decision of the Secretary of State in Clause 30 has an opportunity to make representations in writing or, indeed, via a third party acting on his behalf.
Amendment No. 127 is perhaps the more significant amendment. It quite deliberately seeks to introduce an independent third party into the process. A question is wrapped up in all this; that is, is there any potential conflict with the processes set out in the human rights legislation which one would normally expect to apply? It is a cause for real concern. If the Secretary of State comes to the conclusion—it may be a perfectly valid conclusion—that a chief constable or commissioner has to go, and he then goes to the authority, that authority has to comply and act in response to the request put by the Secretary of State. So we have here a one-way track.
We need to ask how independent are the existing procedures. We may be dealing with, if not a Commissioner of the Met, then a chief constable of around the age of 40. The loss of employment at that age presents real difficulties with regard to the possibility of securing alternative employment. The dispute may have arisen over a difference of opinion, shall we say, rather than over a matter of real substance. Without the intervention of some form of third party, this seems to pose particular problems.
We felt that it was worth tabling Amendment No. 127 simply to open up the issue to debate. At one point the facetious suggestion was made that chief constables do not in fact have any human rights, but of course that is absolute nonsense. I have to say that, on looking again at the matter, we decided that this is compliant with human rights legislation because, as a last resort, the chief constable can go to judicial review, which would impose an independent appeal. However, that also imposes huge costs and risks and thus could be extremely difficult.
We are dealing with the futures of people holding senior office. If they happen to be high-flying staff who arrive in senior posts while they are still young, then we are not dealing only with matters of salary and the security of a family, we are dealing with a person's potential in the pensions arena. This is very much a lifetime matter.
I ask the Minister to consider seriously whether we have struck exactly the right balance in these clauses. Even if Amendment No. 127 does not provide the right way of going about it, perhaps we ought to look again at this issue. I am not absolutely convinced that we have got it right at the present time.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I shall be brief. Amendment No. 127 is otiose. It appears to assume

809
that the requirement to appoint an inquiry in Section 42 cases has been removed, but the Bill retains that requirement. I hope that that answers the noble Lord.
As to the amendment of the noble Baroness, I am happy to consider the points she made. I do not want to repeat what I said about Amendment No. 124, but the best way to prescribe those matters is in the context of the regulations. The points she makes are valid and will not be forgotten. Consultation will be the norm— I hope that is taken as read—but there are cases where urgent action is vital. We shall look at this in the context of the regulations.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 30 [Removal etc. of' senior officers at the instance of the Secretary of State]:
[Amendment No. 124 not moved.]
Lord Rookermoved Amendment No. 125:
Page 30. line 16, leave out from "give" to "and" in line 19 and insert "the officer concerned—

(i) a notice of the Secretary of State's intention to require the exercise of that power; and

(ii) an explanation in writing of the Secretary of State's grounds for requiring the exercise of that power;"

On Quest ion, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 126 and 127 not moved.]
Lord Rookermoved Amendments Nos. 128 and 129:
Page 30. line 31, at end insert—
"() After subsection (3) there shall be inserted—
"(3A) At an inquiry held under subsection (3) —

(a) the Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner or, as the case may be, the chief constable in question shall be entitled, in accordance with any regulations under section 42A, to make representations to the inquiry;

(b) the Metropolitan Police Authority or, as the case may be, the police authority concerned shall be entitled, in accordance with any regulations made under section 42A, to make representations to the inquiry.

(3B) The entitlement of the Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner or, as the case may be, the chief constable in question to make representations shall include the entitlement to make them in person."
Page 30, line 45, after "constable" insert "a written explanation of the authority's grounds for calling upon him to retire or to resign, to give him"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 31 [Regulations concerning procedure for removal of senior officers]:
Lord Rookermoved Amendment No. 130:
Page 31, line 14, at end insert—
"() Before making any regulations under this section, the Secretary of State shall consult with—

(a) persons whom he considers to represent the interests of police authorities;

(b) persons whom he considers to represent the interests of chief officers of police; and

(c) such other persons as he thinks fit."

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bradshawmoved Amendment No. 131:
Before Clause 34, insert the following new clause—
"SPECIAL CONSTABLES
(1) The chief officer of police of a police force maintained for a police area who appoints special constables in accordance with section 27 of the Police Act 1996 (c. 16), shall submit to the police authority for that area a draft scheme relating to the appointment, deployment and progression of such special constables.
(2) A draft scheme submitted under this section shall include the chief officer's proposals for—

(a) the recruitment, appointment, retention and progression of special constables;

(b) the arrangements for the provision of training for special constables;

(c) the arrangements for the provision of equipment for special constables;

(d) the arrangements for the making of payments to such special constables and the circumstances in which special constables shall be eligible for such payments; and

(e) an estimate of the costs to the police fund kept by the police authority of the scheme as a whole and cacti of paragraphs (a) to (d) above.

(3) Before approving any such scheme, the police authority may, after consulting the chief officer, revise or amend it.
(4) The chief officer may from time to time submit draft proposals for a revised or modified scheme to the police authority for its approval."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, before speaking to the amendment, which stands in the names of myself and my noble friends, I should declare that I am an elected member of a police authority. Regardless of the earlier comments of the noble Lord, Lord Corbett of Castle Vale—who said that he had never made representations to an elected member during 23 years in the other House—I am an elected member. I am surprised that he went through 23 years without meeting one, which probably reflects on him as much as it does on any police authority. I represent 610,000 people in the county of Oxfordshire and I am accountable to every county councillor for the behaviour of the police authority. So there is a democratic line of accountability, of which I am a part. I resent the remarks that were made earlier. They were thoroughly uncalled for.
In Committee, we had a useful debate on special constables—the subject of the amendment—where their commitment and work was rightly praised on all sides of the House. The Minister assured us that his department was actively looking at the issue of making payments to Specials, possibly through amending existing statutory instruments, which would not require primary legislation. He also said that a range of work was under way to tackle issues such as training, recruitment and so on. That was welcome news, which I know is fully supported by the APA and everyone involved in police work. The Minister recognised the principle behind the amendment, and what we are trying to do is very much in line with the Government's aims.
We have returned to this amendment because vie believe that it is vital that the issue of the Special Constabulary is addressed. It is important that we are making the best use of the Special Constabulary before

811
we turn our attention to the issue of community support officers and accredited persons, which we shall do tomorrow.
The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that all police authorities and forces have in place a coherent strategy for the use and deployment of Specials. It does not, as the Minister mischievously suggested, require the authorities and forces to have special constables if they do not wish to do so—although it would be a rare force which did not wish to have special constables. It will not place any new burden on the service. I am sure that every police force would welcome a coherent strategy.
We know that the number of special constables has declined rapidly, a decline matched by the inactivity of the Home Office in this respect. This is a matter which demands attention because the payment of Specials would be a ready made vehicle for increasing the numbers of the Special Constabulary at once. The amendment would ensure that authorities and forces have in hand a properly resourced strategy for recruiting, promoting, training and equipping Specials. I am sure that it is a way in which we could quickly boost the number of uniformed officers on the streets.
So I hope that the Government will give the amendment serious consideration. What we should like to hear above anything else is a date by which an order will be published, so that we know, even if it is some time in the future, that we can get on with recruiting and paying special constables. I beg to move.
10 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, in principle we support the amendment, albeit we believe that more original thinking is needed on the issue of special constables. The 1996 Act currently contains the section under which special constables are appointed. It is somewhat limited in terms of the breadth of provisions that can be made by regulation. To that extent, this amendment would assist. I hope that the Government will agree to consider it seriously and that they will not reject it out of hand. This is a serious matter.
Good though the amendment is, I am bound to say that it will not provide the kind of radical thinking that is required if we are ever to stimulate and rejuvenate the special constables process. That will be an occasion for a different debate. As I said, in principle we support the amendment.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, in spirit, we are there. I do not think that there is much disagreement that volunteering is a jolly good thing. One of the things that I remember most from my time as leader of my local authority is the fact that, if I did not agree with the chap at the end of the table, who was one of our chief officers, he had the opportunity to arrest me at demonstrations on Saturdays. We were all in it together somehow.
812
The Government are committed to increasing the size of the special constabulary. It has been in decline for some years. We share the aims behind the amendment. However, we believe that we can achieve the objectives more effectively through other means.
We feel that the proposed new clause risks further fragmentation and lack of clarity about the role and conditions of service of Specials at a time when we are working with stakeholders to provide the clarity that is needed and uniformity for the special constabulary in response to feedback from Specials themselves.
Asking individual forces to determine whether and, if so, how much Specials should receive by way of payment will prove divisive. We believe that it would also lead to Specials measuring how much a force valued them in terms of financial rewards rather than in terms of the training and management efforts made. It could also undermine the voluntary status of Specials.
The Government are considering the case for a new allowance for Specials in recognition of the commitment made by them and, more importantly in some ways, by their families. That consideration will be subject to the current spending review that is being undertaken. This allowance, were it to be made, would be uniform and would apply across the country. It could be introduced via an amendment to conditions of service regulations made under Section 51 of the Police Act 1996.
We are working on good practice guidance on the management and deployment of Specials as well as on advising the conditions of service regulations. The regulation-making power in Section 51 of the 1996 Act, together with the new power in Clause 2 of the Bill to issue codes of practice, already give us the necessary means to give statutory underpinning to any elements of good practice should it prove necessary to do so. Accordingly, while I can enthusiastically endorse the spirit behind the amendment, I cannot agree to it because of the difficulties it would cause.
I reiterate: there are many good things going on. We are mounting a national press campaign linked to the "could you?" campaign for regulars which was run in January this year. We are trying to do all that we can to attract special constables back into the service.
It is true that there has been a national decline over the past few years. Part of that is explained by the fact that many people who want to come forward into the police service, instead of using the Specials as an interim route, are going straight into the service itself, recognising that that is a better long-term career prospect.
We want to encourage volunteering. There is agreement across the House on that. However, well intentioned though the amendment is, we do not feel that it is the best way to achieve the objectives sought by the noble Lord, who has so much experience in the area. Those objectives are shared across the three main parties. For those reasons, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. Unfortunately, volunteering requires some form of payment to turn it into a satisfactory contribution towards policing. Until the issue of payment is addressed, we shall remain short of volunteers. We shall return to the issue at every opportunity until some concession is made. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
814
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Rooker: I beg to move that consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question. Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at six minutes past ten o'clock.

  London Magistrates' and Youth Courts: Adjourned Trials
  London Magistrates' and Youth Courts: Adjourned Trials
  National Archives
  National Archives
  Indonesia
  Indonesia
  China: Human Rights
  China: Human Rights
  Iraq: UN Weapons Inspectors
  Iraq: UN Weapons Inspectors
  Central Asia
  Central Asia
  Wandsworth Prison: Healthcare
  Wandsworth Prison: Healthcare
  Animal Rights Extremism
  Animal Rights Extremism
  Internet Access
  Internet Access
  Film: Cultural Diversity
  Film: Cultural Diversity
  Apsley House
  Apsley House
  Ofcom
  Ofcom
  NHS: Information Management and Technology
  NHS: Information Management and Technology
  Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill
  Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill
  BSE: Progress Report
  BSE: Progress Report
  NHS: Net Expenditure Since 1996–97
  NHS: Net Expenditure Since 1996–97