Sitting of 2 December 2002

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

    Young Offenders
    Dr. Vincent Cable: What plans he has to extend the use of intensive supervision and surveillance programmes for young offenders. [82302]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Hilary Benn): The intensive supervision and surveillance programme is a Home Office-funded Youth Justice Board initiative. It is the strongest community sentence for serious and prolific young offenders, and it is aimed at the 3 per cent. of young people who are responsible for 25 per cent. of juvenile offences. The scheme has just been extended to cover all 10 areas covered by the street crime initiative. It now covers four fifths of England and Wales, including all the big conurbations.
    Dr. Cable: In the light of Friday's court ruling pointing to the inappropriateness of prison for children, will the Minister now agree to extend completely, to all youth areas, this valuable programme, which has been shown to be much more effective than prison in deterring reoffending and which costs the taxpayer only one quarter as much as a young offenders institution place?
    Hilary Benn: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's support for the intensive supervision and surveillance programme. Early indications are encouraging, but we must wait for the full assessment, which is to be undertaken by Oxford university, with the results available in 2004. One of the reasons that we introduced the programme was to minimise the chances of young people having to go into custody, although we recognise that that may be necessary for a small proportion of offenders.
    Mr. Graham Allen: Is my hon. Friend aware that one of the best ways to supervise young offenders is to have a vigilant police authority, but that police authorities in many areas are composed of people who do not come from high-crime areas? I do not expect him to answer off the cuff today, but will he
    592
    undertake to examine the balance of representation on police authorities, especially in areas such as mine, where there are very few people representing the city of Nottingham, but where the majority of the shire's crime takes place?
    Hilary Benn: I agree that it is important that police authorities should be representative of the communities they serve, not only in dealing with young offenders, but in dealing with all types of crime. I am happy to write to my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Dominic Grieve: Does the Minister agree that for that minority who have to be imprisoned, the key to rehabilitation lies in structured programmes both while they are in custody and on their release? In that context, should there not be concern if the early release programme under tagging of 60 days, extendable to 90 days, is leading to young offenders being released part way through programmes undertaken while they are in custody?
    Hilary Benn: The hon. Gentleman is aware that when applying the early release programme under home detention curfew, prisons will, in anticipation of prisoners coming out, take account of that in their programmes. On his first point, he is absolutely right: structured programmes are important to tackle the problems created by young offenders. That is precisely why in recent years we have invested £50 million in improving those programmes under the auspices of the YJB.

    Air Weapons
    Mr. Chris Mullin: What plans he has to change the age limit at which air weapons can be used; and if he will make a statement. [82303]
    Jeff Ennis: What plans he has to amend legislation on possession and use of airguns. [82313]
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett): The misuse of air weapons is a serious problem. We are considering a number of options for dealing with the difficulties that people have faced, and I intend to introduce proposals in the new year under the new antisocial behaviour legislation.
    Mr. Mullin: I am grateful for that reply, but had hoped that the Home Secretary would be able to go a little further and say precisely what he had in mind. Will he confirm that among the options he is considering are raising the age ban on ownership to 17 and increasing the powers of police to confiscate the weapons; and whether he has any plans to deal with replica weapons?
    Mr. Blunkett: I am deeply sympathetic on all three counts. The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry,

    593
    North-East (Mr. Ainsworth), has been pulling together a package of measures for me, and I hope to be able to announce some of those very shortly.
    Jeff Ennis: I thank my right hon. Friend for his response. Further to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), is the Home Secretary considering the introduction of a licensing system for the use of airguns? That would be popular with many local councils, particularly in Barnsley and Doncaster, but I know that it would be difficult to achieve given that about 4 million unlicensed air weapons are already in circulation in this country.
    Mr. Blunkett: My hon. Friend has identified a real problem in both the bureaucracy and our ability to enforce the law. He will be aware of the way in which the categorisation works at the moment—the six foot-pounds, as they are known, which are already prohibited under the handgun ban. Obviously, there are a number of ways in which the use of handguns can be dealt with as an offence, including firearms offences. I am sympathetic to the problem, and am seeking a way forward that will not bog everyone down in a bureaucratic nightmare but will result in a solution.
    Mr. Nicholas Soames: I thank the Home Secretary for his final remark about not seeking to trap everyone in a bureaucratic quagmire, but does he agree that tens of thousands of young people handle airguns extremely responsibly and learn a great deal about the art of target shooting and rifle shooting, particularly the basic rudiments of weapons safety, from shooting with airguns? Does he agree that it is extremely important that they should not be prevented from enjoying the perfectly legitimate and wholly satisfactory use of their weapons?
    Mr. Blunkett: I would agree, but that is primarily because they are properly supervised and trained, and understand the nature of the weapon that they are handling. If that can be done in properly supervised surroundings, so much the better.
    Mr. James Paice: May I emphasise to the Home Secretary the fact that the ban on handguns, to which he referred just now, demonstrates clearly that banning does not necessarily reduce the criminal use of handguns? I remind him of the Prime Minister's public pledge not to place further restrictions on shooting sports. In that spirit, and in the spirit of the Home Secretary's own remarks on the record that he wants any changes in airgun legislation to have cross-party support, I urge him to reject proposals on licensing and raising ages because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) said, they will penalise the vast majority who participate in the lawful, sensible and safe use of airguns. Will he consider simply extending section 16 of the Firearms Act 1968, which would make it an arrestable offence to carry an airgun in a public place unless someone could prove that they had good reason for doing so? That would have our party's support.
    Mr. Blunkett: I am prepared to consider the hon. Gentleman's proposition, but I want to make it clear
    594
    that there is an enormous difference between holding, owning and using airguns for sport and using them to maim, terrorise and undermine the order that we expect in our communities.
    Ms Diane Abbott: On the question of weapons in general, the Home Secretary will be aware of the rising tide of gun crime in London. Is he aware that the Metropolitan police aim to get the minimum sentence for carrying a weapon raised to at least five years? Will he also do something about the production of Brocock replica weapons?
    Mr. Blunkett: I am aware of representations. There is good reason for treating the issue seriously and considering whether we should add it to the Criminal Justice and Sentencing Bill.
    Mr. James Gray: Like my hon. Friends, I very much welcome the moderate approach that the Home Secretary has outlined this afternoon. However, will he clarify something? Rather puzzlingly, he told the Select Committee on Home Affairs that he would examine why people under 17 could purchase air weapons. Is he not aware that that is already illegal? Between 14 and 17, people can borrow and use air weapons—we all agree that that is sensible—but they have to be over 17 to buy them.
    Mr. Blunkett: You can be under 17 to own one—that is an interesting anomaly. We can banter about the niceties across the Dispatch Box till kingdom come, but in the spirit of our earlier discussion, we are all trying to find a genuine solution.

    CCTV
    Mr. David Kidney: What plans he has for funding further CCTV installations by local authorities. [82304]
    The Minister for Policing, Crime Reduction and Community Safety (Mr. John Denham): Under the crime reduction programme closed circuit television initiative, a potential £170 million will be spent funding 684 CCTV schemes. Although bids for that initiative are now closed, other opportunities for funding CCTV schemes currently exist under the safer communities, communities against drugs, and the small retailers in deprived areas initiatives.
    Mr. Kidney: Does my right hon. Friend agree that CCTV cameras are effective in deterring and detecting crime, especially when they are used in conjunction with other measures such as lighting? The people who live in Stafford town and Penkridge village are delighted with their cameras and would like more. How, as a result of my right hon. Friend's reply, will local authorities such as Stafford borough and south Staffordshire district obtain funding for more CCTV cameras?
    Mr. Denham: I am delighted to hear of the success of the CCTV scheme in Penkridge village. That experience is shared in many parts of the country. Funds will continue to be available for crime reduction through

    595
    crime reduction partnerships. In response to many requests from local councils, we are tending to move away from central ring-fenced budgets for specific purposes to enable decisions on priorities to be made locally. Funds will continue to be available for crime reduction in my hon. Friend's constituency and those of other hon. Members.
    Mr. John Bercow: What is the percentage difference in crime detection in town centres that have CCTV by comparison with those that do not?
    Mr. Denham: The major evaluation of the 684 schemes that the Home Office and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister are undertaking will give us the detailed information about impact that the hon. Gentleman seeks. As well as the increase in crime detection, crime in car parks decreases by more than 40 per cent. when CCTV is introduced. We are seeking a reduction in crime and the fear of crime, not simply an increase in detection.
    Mr. Bill O'Brien: Does my right hon. Friend know that CCTV cameras in metropolitan areas are concentrated in the larger towns and cities? What help does he offer the smaller urban authorities, such as former urban district councils, to obtain the services of CCTV? Is it possible to have mobile CCTV in some of our communities?
    Mr. Denham: The money that we made available through the safer communities initiative and the communities against drugs funds can be used to finance CCTV schemes. They have been used in many different areas. I visited an extensive network in Surrey recently that was funded through such initiatives and other sources. Mobile or relocatable schemes can play a useful part when that is the most appropriate method of tackling the problem.

    Drug Rehabilitation
    Mr. Mark Hoban: What recent assessment he has made of the benefits drug rehabilitation has for a community. [82306]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Bob Ainsworth): Drug treatment, including rehabilitation, works. Research has shown that for every £1 spent on treatment, £3 is saved in criminal justice and victim costs of crime. The longer problematic drug users remain in treatment, the greater the savings ratio. Rehabilitation is only one aspect of treatment and is not always the most appropriate intervention.
    Mr. Hoban: I have talked to those who work with the homeless in my constituency, and they are concerned that the wait of three to six months for treatment is too long, and that the treatment periods are too short to be effective. Given the benefits of rehabilitation that the Under-Secretary outlined in his answer, is it not time to spend more money on treatment and on increasing the
    596
    number of rehabilitation places and their effectiveness, for the sake of our addicts and the communities where they live?
    Mr. Ainsworth: I welcome—I really do—the Conservative party's conversion to providing treatment for drug addicts. It is a shame that it happened only a couple of months ago, before the party conference. We realised the benefits just after we took power in 1997, and we have increased the amount of treatment available by 8 per cent. every year since then. We plan to continue to do that. Although things are not currently adequate, waiting times are decreasing. We need to reduce them further.
    Dr. Phyllis Starkey: Retailers in the shopping centre in Milton Keynes have become aware of the huge cost of shoplifting by a relatively small number of drug addicts, who do it to finance their drug habit. The retailers are considering making a financial contribution towards increasing the number of drug rehabilitation places that are available locally as a better way of dealing with the problem than simply locking people up. What is my hon. Friend's response to that proposal?
    Mr. Ainsworth: My hon. Friend hits on an important point. Retail partnerships are increasing in our towns and cities. They have some knowledge of the problem. We need to plug such partnerships properly into all our crime reduction initiatives, including our ability to get drug addicts into treatment. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing, Crime Reduction and Community Safety recently held discussions along those lines with the Birmingham partnership. We are actively considering the matter to ascertain what can be done in conjunction with retail partnerships in towns such as Milton Keynes.
    Mr. Peter Viggers: With an estimated 300 heroin addicts in Gosport alone, each needing something like £20,000 a year to feed their habit, is it not obvious that the 1,882 places available for treatment are woefully inadequate, and that platitudes and reassurances must be backed up by action?
    Mr. Ainsworth: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is prepared to listen to any answer that is given to him in that regard. We have 118,000 people in treatment in this country. We need to double that figure, and we plan to do so. By the end of the drugs strategy period, we plan to have more than 200,000 problematic drug users in treatment. There is not enough treatment at the moment, but we need people of the right quality to remedy that, and those people need to be trained. We also need the input of GPs. This is not something that can happen overnight. We have been increasing the amount of treatment available consistently since 1998, and we plan to continue to do so. I might say that that is in marked contrast to what went on before.
    Mr. Oliver Letwin: When the Minister answered a recent written question by saying that 118,500 individuals were reported as being "in contact with" treatment agencies, what did he mean? How many

    597
    of those individuals are in fact being maintained on methadone? Is it true that almost half of them are in that condition?
    Mr. Ainsworth: What I meant was that 118,000 people are receiving a whole range of treatment services—not merely rehabilitation—including specialist drugs advice and information, harm reduction advice, in-patient detoxification services, specialist prescribing services, GP drug prescribing services, and counselling services, as well as residential rehabilitation. The right hon. Gentleman appears to be putting across a very simplistic view of what treatment is or needs to be. Treatment needs to be tailored to particular needs, and I would suggest that what is needed in a particular locality does not need to be dictated at national level. Local people need to decide what is needed in their area.
    Mr. Letwin: If such matters do not need to be dictated at national level—I have some sympathy with the Minister on that—is it also the case that there is no need for national targets? In 2000, the Home Secretary set targets to reduce the proportion of people under 25 using class A drugs by 25 per cent., and to reduce by 25 per cent. the level of repeat offending by people misusing drugs. Was it because the Home Secretary and the Minister did not believe that there was a need for a national strategy that they removed those targets in 2002? What is their proposal in relation to their new statement on drugs? Are we going to hear that targets are to disappear altogether?
    Mr. Ainsworth: The right hon. Gentleman should be a little more patient. As I have said, he discovered the drug problem two months ago, just before his party conference. If he waits a short while, and if he is prepared to engage in an adult debate on this issue, he will see that there are better focused targets, which are measurable and achievable, in what we announce.
    Mr. Speaker: Question 5. please.

    National Treatment Agency
    John Mann: What criteria are used to determine the performance of the National Treatment Agency. [82307]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Bob Ainsworth): Sorry, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. John Bercow: So are we all.
    Mr. Ainsworth: The National Treatment Agency is assessed by the Department of Health. The following criteria are used: access to treatment, in terms of progress on meeting the national drugs strategy target of doubling the people in treatment by 2008; capacity, in regard to the extent to which there is work force capacity to meet the target; efficiency, in terms of the reduction of
    598
    waiting times; and effectiveness, in regard to the increase in the proportion of people successfully completing or appropriately sustaining treatment.
    John Mann: I wish to follow up the fourth aspect—the quantification of what determines success. I have investigated that at length in ray constituency, but nobody from the drug treatment services has been able to quantify success—for example, whether it means people coming off drugs, stabilising, reducing intake or eliminating criminal activity. Will my hon. Friend consider how that specific fourth target can be tightened to hold the National Treatment Agency accountable?
    Mr. Ainsworth: My hon. Friend is right. All treatment has to be aimed at attempting to achieve abstinence, but maintaining people on treatment can in itself lead to significant reductions in crime. The treatments offered have therefore to be tailored to individuals, and keeping people in treatment, picking them up when they fail, and readmitting them to treatment all need to be looked at positively. However, we need adequate ways to measure exactly what is being achieved, locally as well as nationally.
    Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: The Minister is right to refer to cost-effectiveness, and rehabilitation treatment is important in the criminal sphere, since between 50 and 60 per cent. of property crime is drugs related. A few weeks ago, I put to him the possibility of ring-fencing the proceeds of drug trading, millions of pounds of which are rightly confiscated each week in the Crown courts. Why do we not ring-fence that money to create more rehab places for that very important category of person? May I also remind him that there are only 38 rehabilitation beds in the whole of Wales? That does not deal with the problems in a single valley.
    Mr. Ainsworth: The hon. Gentleman should not look to recovered assets—not at the moment, in any case—as the panacea for all those problems. We managed to recover about £20 million of criminal assets last year, and over half that was redistributed through the recovered asset fund. That money on its own will not make such a difference, and it will not deal with the treatment that is needed and al ready planned in the drugs strategy. I accept what he says—it can play an important part—but there needs to be a lot more input than just recovered criminal assets.

    Police
    Mr. David Cameron: What recent discussions he has had with the chief constable of Thames Valley police about recruitment and retention of police officers; and if he will make a statement. [82308]
    The Minister for Policing, Crime Reduction and Community Safety (Mr. John Denham): I have discussed the chief constable's concern about retention in the Thames Valley area on a number of occasions in the past year, most recently in the past few weeks. Thames Valley police has been recruiting strongly in recent years, but the force has recently experienced retention difficulties, including a net outflow of transfers. We are working

    599
    with chief constables, police authorities and staff associations in London and the south-east, including Thames Valley, to consider all the associated issues and to develop practical solutions.
    Mr. Cameron: I am grateful for that answer and I am glad that the Minister has spoken to the chief constable of Thames Valley police, to whom I spoke this morning. I have to tell the Minister that the retention situation is still dire. Is he aware that, in parts of the Thames Valley area, over 60 per cent. of front-line officers are probationers? Will he consider increasing the extra allowance for Thames Valley officers in the south-east of England and giving the chief constable more flexibility over his budget, particularly in respect of overtime and the special priority payments? We must try to keep some of those officers in the Thames Valley force rather than see them go all over the country.
    Mr. Denham: There are a number of things that we need to consider, including how the additional special priority posts money will be implemented in Thames Valley and other forces in the new year. Thames Valley officers already receive an additional allowance compared with the norm of £2,000 a year, and we are helping in other ways—for example, 171 of the starter homes under the starter homes initiative will be for the benefit of Thames Valley officers. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we take the issues facing a few of the south-east forces very seriously and we are considering what measures we can take to assist.
    Mr. Paul Goodman: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that 22 officers have left the Chiltern Vale force since April, which is some 10 per cent. of the total? I was told by a senior officer this morning that that will have grave consequences if something is not done quickly; so will he please, this afternoon, commit himself to extra allowances, as my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) requested?
    Mr. Denham: As I have said, additional resources are on the way as a result of the pay deal with the Police Federation and the employers earlier this year. We need to discuss how they can be used. We are considering, among other things, giving the forces help with housing. I am due to meet the forces in the south-east before Christmas to look at a range of options.

    Active Citizenship
    Ross Cranston: What plans he has to promote community engagement and active citizenship. [82309]
    The Minister for Citizenship and Immigration (Beverley Hughes): As I think my hon. and learned Friend knows, we believe that the active involvement of local people in their communities is essential to achieving safe, cohesive communities and can make a real difference to the quality of life in an area. We want to increase voluntary activity and promote active citizenship, and the active community unit is leading that work across Government.
    Ross Cranston: I agree that good public services are not simply a matter of bureaucracy up here providing
    600
    services for a community down there. That applies particularly to deprived communities. How, though, is my hon. Friend ensuring that Home Office services in my area actively involve local people—and, if I may be blunt, what Home Office resources are available to those people?
    Beverley Hughes: My hon. and learned Friend is right. If we are to involve the voluntary and community sector more in the delivery of public services, which is what we want to do, local people must be involved in both defining and shaping the way in which services are delivered. They must become involved in the voluntary and community organisations that we want to engage in public service delivery.
    My hon. and learned Friend will know from his experience in Dudley, which is one of the 88 most deprived areas and has received substantial regeneration money, that as well as producing better services such arrangements often have a marked effect on local people who become involved. Like me, he has met many for whom that involvement has constituted a personal turning point, showing them that they have the capacity for more extensive involvement.
    Dudley, as I said, has received substantial resources. [Interruption.] If I may finish—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] My hon. and learned Friend will know that, in addition—[Unterruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Let the hon. Lady finish.
    Beverley Hughes: There is also a specific amount, £330,000, for development of voluntary and community networks in Dudley.
    Bob Russell: The Minister rightly spoke of the important role that the voluntary sector can play in our deprived communities in particular. It now costs some £22,000 a year to keep a young person locked up in a young offenders unit. Would it not be better to invest that money in our young people through the recognised youth organisations, perhaps helping them to hire school halls; and would not our communities be a lot better for it?
    Beverley Hughes: As the hon. Gentleman will know from the policy we have published, we consider community-based solutions appropriate for many young people, and the voluntary sector has a key role to play in that.
    Mr. Andrew Miller: When an active citizen who has witnessed a serious crime is scared off from giving evidence at a criminal trial, does that not underline the need to strengthen the law so that some of the thugs on our streets who are getting away with serious assault and worse are brought to justice? If people are to be active citizens and support their communities, they too need support from the law of the land.
    Beverley Hughes: I agree that the concept of active citizenship is not only about involvement in voluntary activity. It also means being able to play a proper role as a participant in the criminal justice system. Our White

    601
    Paper and the Bill that will follow will make the system work so that victims and witnesses can play their proper role.

    Special Constables
    Mr. George Osborne: How many special constables were employed in England in (a) 1997 and (b) 2002. [82310]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Wills): On 31 March 1997 there were 19,874 special constables in England and. Wales. On 31 March 2002 there were 11,598.
    Mr. Osborne: Those figures reveal the total collapse in the number of special constables employed in this country. In my county, the number has fallen by more than 50 per cent. The Government say they are committed to increasing the number of specials, and regularly organise recruitment campaigns. Why have they failed so spectacularly?
    Mr. Wills: We of course agree that the special constabulary has a very important part to play—[Interruption.] If Opposition Members want to hear the answer to the question, I suggest that they listen. If they go on making noise, they will not hear the answer—[Interruption.] There you go, Mr. Speaker.
    We agree with the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) that special constables have an important role to play, and that we need more of them. As a result, we are investing a lot of money—£300,000—in the champion's initiative, which my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing, Crime Reduction and Community announced 10 days ago. We need to improve the engagement of employers, and to see what else we have to do. The reason for the fall in numbers is a long-standing one, which began many years ago. In many ways, it can be traced back to 1945, and there are many complex reasons—[Laughter.] Opposition Members find this very amusing, but we have to deal with the problem.
    The point that hon. Member for Tatton is, I hope, getting at is that we have to deal with crime and with reassuring the public about crime. That is the role of special constables, but it is only part of the picture. In looking at this issue, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will remember that police numbers as a whole have risen to 188,512, and that we now have the largest ever number—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I call Mr. Jenkins.
    Mr. Brian Jenkins: Does my hon. Friend recognise the demise in the number of special police officers—a development that starkly highlights the drop in the number of people in our society who do voluntary work and who make a voluntary commitment? That is happening across the youth sector, and it certainly worries me. Has any work been done on that, and is it happening because too many people now lead hectic
    602
    lives and do not have sufficient time, or because for 18 years they were told that there is no such thing as society?
    Mr. Wills: My hon. Friend is right, and he draws attention to a very valuable point. There are many reasons why the numbers are falling, a key one of which is that we are having difficulty in retaining special constables. Recruitment is not a problem: last year, we recruited 1,700 new special constables, which is a significant achievement. The problem is that we are losing more of them, and a key reason why is exactly as my hon. Friend describes. More than 50 per cent. of special constables leave because of family commitments, and work and study commitments. Significantly, one in five leave to join the regular police force, which shows our success in transforming the state of policing in this country. Anecdotal evidence shows that, in many areas, as many as 40 per cent. leave the specials to join the regular police force, which we should all welcome.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: Who bears the greatest responsibility for the hon. Gentleman's failure, Attlee or Thatcher? [Laughter.]
    Mr. Wills: I assume that that was a debating point, rather than a serious question. The responsibility falls not to any Prime Minister, but to long-standing changes in society. It is a measure of the failure of the Conservatives that they do not realise that some things have to be tackled systematically, coherently and with proper funding, and that is what we are doing.

    Alcohol-related Crime
    Mr. John Grogan: If he will ensure that all crime and disorder partnerships include measures to combat alcohol-related crime as part of their strategies. [823111
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett): Initial analysis of the crime and disorder partnerships shows that some 53 per cent. of them have included prioritisation of alcohol abuse in their policies for reducing crime.
    Mr. Grogan: Given that the aims of the Government's Licensing Bill include allowing more flexible hours for pubs and creating a more civilised atmosphere late at night in our town and city centres—making them attractive not just to the young, but to those who are young at heart, such as my right hon. Friend and me—does he agree that it is more important than ever that crime and disorder partnerships prioritise by trying to make the night-time economy as safe as possible?
    Mr. Blunkett: I would encourage all crime and disorder partnerships to take a further look at their strategies in view of the real problems of binge drinking. More than half of those who commit crime are seen to have been involved in drink or drugs, and we know that that causes devastation.

    603
    On a slightly facetious note, may I congratulate my hon. Friend on his dedicated work for the all-party beer group, which includes getting people to drink sensibly?
    Simon Hughes: Given that the Government have had it trailed in the press this week that we are about to have the relaunch of the drugs strategy and that it is widely known that the most recent British crime survey showed that 40 per cent. of violent crimes are fuelled by alcohol, can the Home Secretary tell us when we will get the Government's alcohol strategy, which is hugely important and was trailed nearly five years ago? When will they give crimes fuelled by alcohol equal priority with crimes fuelled by other dangerous drugs?
    Mr. Blunkett: The Department of Health and the Home Office are working with the forward strategy unit on developing a proper programme that is integrated with and related to the updated drugs strategy that we will publish this week. I do not disagree with the need to tackle this problem, and I do not think that anyone would, given that a high percentage of stranger violence is committed by people who are under the influence of drink.
    Liz Blackman: Is my right hon. Friend aware how effective exclusion orders are in banning perpetrators of violent crime from licensed premises, particularly where partnerships exist between the police, the local authority, magistrates and landlords? Unfortunately, their application is patchy. Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to point out again to local crime and disorder partnerships how effective exclusion orders can be and ask them to reconsider using them in their armoury to combat violent alcohol-related crime?
    Mr. Blunkett: I should very much like to do that, in conjunction with the proposals in the Licensing Bill. Not least, I commend those alcohol outlets, particularly in city and town centres, which have made an agreement with the police, often using radiocommunications, and are prepared to contribute a little towards making those outlets more attractive. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and I are looking at how to strengthen that.

    Accommodation Centres
    Tony Baldry: When he expects to appoint the independent monitor of accommodation centres. [82312]
    The Minister for Citizenship and Immigration (Beverley Hughes): We intend to ensure that the monitor is appointed in good time for him or her to be able to monitor the operation of accommodation centres from the date at which the first centre is open.
    Tony Baldry: Would it not be sensible for the monitor to be able to advise on whether a location is suitable to meet the needs of asylum seekers before hundreds of
    604
    pounds are spent on a public inquiry and millions are spent on building an accommodation centre rather than after?
    Beverley Hughes: The role of the monitor was discussed here and in the House of Lords during the passage of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill, including the implications of the late amendment on location. The hon. Gentleman has put that point before. Lord Firkin wrote to him on 15 November, making it clear that the monitor is not an adjudicator or an arbiter of whether a location would be suitable for an accommodation centre and that decisions about where to locate the centres will be made by the Secretary of State subject to the planning process. The monitor will not be involved in selecting sites.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Does the Minister accept that there is sufficient ambiguity in the drafting of the last-minute concession in the Bill to allow plenty of argument about the right time to appoint the monitor for him or her to be able to advise on whether all the services can be provided to residents in a particular locality? If she remains so confident that she is right and all the interest groups are wrong when she says that all the services can be provided in remote rural areas, why will she not take the generous interpretation, appoint the monitor soon and allow him or her to comment on the policy of putting all these people in very remote rural places?
    Beverley Hughes: I have already said that that is not the role of the monitor—he or she will be monitoring the operation of the centre. I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman believes that some areas of the country, including his own, are not suitable for asylum seekers and accommodation centres, but we do not take that view. In the annual report to the Secretary of State, the monitor will be able to comment on whether a need of residents is not being adequately met in a particular location. We can then take action to ensure that that need is met properly.
    Mr. Humfrey Malins: We support the concepts of accommodation centres and of an independent monitor, but will the Minister tell us what impact they will have, first on the current record number of applications for asylum—29,000 plus in the last quarter; secondly, on her collapsed policy of removing failed asylum seekers; and, finally, on the backlog of claims, 16,000 of which have been outstanding for more than a year?
    Beverley Hughes: The accommodation centres themselves are part of an end-to-end strategy for keeping in much closer contact with asylum seekers so that we are able to remove people if their claim is refused. The hon. Gentleman will also know that the Act was implemented only three weeks ago. We had to fight tooth and nail with the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues in the House of Lords for many of the most important provisions in that Act, and when we are able to implement them, as we shall be doing during the next few months, they will have the impact on the intake of asylum claims that we anticipate.

    Child Abduction
    Tim Loughton: What support he has given to Sussex police to operate the amber alert pilot scheme to help counter child abduction. [82314]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Hilary Benn): We are very interested in the lead being taken by Sussex police and the Association of Chief Police Officers' homicide working group in piloting the child rescue project. We wish it success and will closely monitor its progress over the coming months.
    Tim Loughton: I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. May I draw his attention to early-day motion 70, which has been signed by me and 84 hon. Members and praises the amber alert scheme as it operates in the United States and wishes the Sussex police well in their pilot? However, as Sussex has only a limited amount of motorway, and as the scheme relies on breaking into media broadcasts and on broadcasting on motorway and other traffic signs, will he monitor it closely and give us an undertaking that, if it goes well, it will be piloted more extensively in other constabularies throughout the country, so that at least something positive might come from the horrific murders and abductions that have occurred during this and previous years to deter other such tragedies in the future?
    Hilary Benn: I agree wholeheartedly. The scheme is imaginative and is aimed at using all the resources of the community to try to intervene quickly when a child abduction appears to have taken place. We know that those early hours are crucial if we are to find a child who has been abducted. I gladly undertake to monitor carefully the success of the scheme. I am sure that other forces will be looking with great interest at the work that Sussex is doing and I should be happy to meet the hon. Gentleman and officers from the Sussex force when the pilot period is over so that we can consider how to spread that good idea elsewhere.

    Police
    Mr. John Robertson: What plans he has to improve the rate of recruitment and retention of police officers. [82315]
    Brian White: What plans he has to improve the rate of recruitment and retention of police officers. [82317]
    The Minister for Policing, Crime Reduction and Community Safety (Mr. John Denham): The police service in England and Wales is recruiting very successfully; 10,215 officers joined it in the year to March 2002–38 per cent. more than the previous year and the highest number of recruits since 1975. The number of police officers leaving the service annually remains low at about 5 per cent. of strength. However there are variations between forces, and we are working
    606
    with chief constables and others to identify measures that can be taken where there are local retention problems.
    John Robertson: I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer. He will be well aware that, early next year, the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 becomes law and will allow the police to seize the assets of the drug barons and Mr. Bigs of the criminal world. What talks has my right hon. Friend held with the Scottish Executive on police staffing on both sides of the border, especially in relation to cross-border co-operation?
    Mr. Denham: The Scottish Executive have been closely involved in all stages of the development of the policy and the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth) has taken a close personal interest in the implementation of the Act, as has the Minister for Justice in Scotland, Jim Wallace. The operation of the Act is a devolved matter, but the Scottish Executive have recently appointed the heads of the new criminal confiscation and civil recovery units. The Scottish police college is delivering comprehensive financial investigation training to police officers in Scotland and that is being developed in consultation with the police service in London.
    Brian White: I welcome the measures that the Minister has announced for retaining police officers, particularly in the south-east, but is he aware that the same pressures apply to civilians working in the police force, and those who work alongside the police, such as the new neighbourhood wardens being piloted in my constituency? Will he ensure that the measures do not create unintended or artificial barriers for those who support the police in their duties?
    Mr. Denham: Of course I am keen to ensure that nothing we do to support police officer retention has an adverse effect on those who fulfil an important role as police staff. I am pleased to say that there has been good and strong recruitment of civilian staff in my hon. Friend's local police service and all the police services in the south-east.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: Special constables are by definition police officers, and we have already heard that there has been a serious collapse in their numbers. Would the Minister consider paying them, invoking the precedent of paying retained firemen and the Territorial Army?
    Mr. Denham: We recently invited the current deputy chief constable of Surrey, soon to be the chief constable of Cheshire, Peter Fahy, to act as the leader of a new project to investigate the recruitment, retention, training and deployment of specials in an endeavour to increase their numbers. The question of payment is controversial among specials. I recently approved a pilot project in Workington in Cumbria that, subject to changes in parliamentary regulations, would enable modest local payment to specials in the area. I anticipate, as part of the specials project, that that may happen in a few other areas, too, but we need to be careful not to upset the essentially voluntary nature of

    607
    the special constabulary, which I know from experience is highly valued by many specials. I accept in principle the question that the right hon. and learned Gentleman raises, but we must proceed with due caution with some pilot projects, to see how it works out.
    Mr. David Heath: Is there not a distinction between paying specials and introducing a new status of retained officer, an omnicompetent officer working part-time, which would help to retain experienced officers? Ministers have said repeatedly over the years that they are considering the case for such retained officers. When will they reach a conclusion?
    Mr. Denham: We have been considering not a salary but a bonus payment or modest enhancement in allowances. We have no active plans to introduce other types of working for specials, save that, as part of the pay negotiating body agreement last year, we are making the use of part-time paid police officers more flexible than in the past, by allowing engagement for less than 16 hours a week.
    Kate Hoey: Does the Minister share my concern about the effect of congestion charging on the retention of police officers in inner London? Is he aware that many of the officers in my constituency have to travel by car because of their shift hours? Is anyone likely to provide the extra £1,000 that they will have to pay?
    Mr. Denham: That is the responsibility of the Mayor of London and the Metropolitan police service, as the officers' employers. [HON. MEMBERS: "Aha."] I know how much the Conservative party would resist any suggestion that the Home Secretary or I should interfere in these matters. The issues are under active consideration by the Metropolitan police service, and were touched on in recent discussions that I had with the deputy assistant commissioner.

    Rural Crime
    Miss Anne McIntosh: What the incidence of rural crime was in (a) April 1997 and (b) April 2002. [82316]
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett): A comparison of the British crime survey figures for 1997–98 with those that I announced in July shows that, for rural areas, burglary was down 44 per cent., violent crime down 35 per cent. and vehicle theft down 34 per cent.
    Miss McIntosh: Will the Home Secretary take the time to come and visit Thirsk, one of the market towns in the Vale of York, where burglaries of both homes and properties appear to be on the increase? Will he consider closely the question of improving closed circuit television cameras, to ensure that the clarity of the picture is sufficient to be able to apprehend criminals, rather than merely showing the crime that they have committed?
    Mr. Blunkett: Yes, I would. I am very pleased that the community safety partnerships have been using resources allocated by the Home Office to extend
    608
    CCTV, and I should like to take the opportunity to congratulate the Hambleton crime reduction partnership in a neighbouring area on being one of only two groups in the country to be awarded beacon status for their efforts in crime reduction in rural areas.
    Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statistics and the downturn in crime in rural areas, but there are also hot spots in rural areas. In my constituency, there is a lot of car crime and vehicles being dumped, and we would like to see more high-visibility policing in the rural area. What resources can he make available to allow to that to happen?
    Mr. Blunkett: I hope that, later this week, we can indicate the necessary resources and encouragement to help forces to recruit and to use those recruits effectively in terms of imaginative single manning where appropriate and, of course, show the importance of restoring the rural element to police funding, which will help across the country.

    Travellers
    Ms Julia Drown: What steps he is taking to tackle antisocial behaviour by travellers. [82318]
    The Minister for Citizenship and Immigration (Beverley Hughes): The Government are committed to tackling all forms of antisocial behaviour. That is why we will introduce an antisocial behaviour Bill in the current Session. In addition, we have announced new proposals to deal with unauthorised encampments and the problems of antisocial behaviour that can sometimes arise from them.
    Ms Drown: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. We have been promised some more detailed guidance—I understand that my hon. Friend's Department is working on it with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister—and we had expected to receive it during the summer. When will we receive that guidance? Although many travellers pass through Swindon and cause us no difficulties at all, some serious antisocial behaviour has been associated with travellers, and we would like to have the guidance to be able to improve the way in which that is managed.
    Beverley Hughes: My hon. Friend and, indeed, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Mr. Wills) have made me aware that they have a particular problem in their area. She knows that, in relation to unauthorised encampments, we have promised new legislation to evict from unauthorised sites where local authorities have authorised sites. The strategic and operational guidance to police and local authorities will be forthcoming very shortly and, in addition, there will be funding to build more authorised sites.

    Young Offenders
    Mr. Andrew Love: What measures he is taking to tackle persistent youth offenders. [82319]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Wills): We are tackling the causes of persistent youth offending through our work to overcome social and economic exclusion, and we are coupling that with tougher action to bring home to persistent offenders the severe consequences that will follow continued offending, including antisocial behaviour orders, acceptable behaviour contracts, parenting orders and local child curfews.
    Mr. Love: May I commend the excellent work being done by the Enfield youth offending team, which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary visited earlier this year? Its restorative justice programme is nipping in the bud the sort of behaviour that leads to antisocial offending. What steps is my hon. Friend taking to expand that type of programme so that we can address the sort of antisocial behaviour that leads to youth offending?
    Mr. Wills: My hon. Friend is right. We have to take a range of measures to deal with this problem. The sort of measures that he mentions are very welcome, and we know that they are beginning to work. The proof of the success of the measures that we are taking is that we have reduced the reconviction rate by 14.6 per cent. during the past five years, which is important, and that we have delivered on our pledge to halve the time between arrest and sentence. My hon. Friend will agree that those measures are working. We want to see more of them, and we will continue to fund them.
    Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: Does my hon. Friend agree that the social inquiry reports that are sometimes produced in court when young offenders appear before magistrates and in other courts are inadequate? Does he also agree that, because the wider family context is often relevant, it would be helpful in
    610
    the raft of legislation that is to follow to make family reports available to criminal courts as well as family courts?
    Mr. Wills: My hon. Friend makes a very important point, and we will certainly consider it very carefully in framing the legislation.

    Police
    Gareth Thomas: What plans he has to increase and enhance the role of support staff in the police. [82320]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Hilary Beni): We are keen to enhance the role of police support staff. Community support officers are already being deployed in London, and we expect up to 1,200 to be working by the end of March. Today sees the implementation of section 38 of the Police Reform Act 2002, which enables chief officers of police to designate suitably skilled and trained support staff to exercise certain police powers.
    Gareth Thomas: I am grateful to the Minister for that response. On the issue of community support officers, does he share my puzzlement that although many police forces are actively recruiting community support officers, as they believe that that will improve the effectiveness of their force, North Wales police have decided not to do so, ostensibly because of lack of funding? Would he agree to discuss this issue with me in the near future?
    Hilary Benn: I would be pleased to discuss the matter with my hon. Friend. Under the scheme, as he will be aware, forces were invited to bid. From memory, 27 forces were successful, all of which bid first time round. A new round of bidding will occur in the new year. Speaking for myself and my constituency, I cannot wait to see the arrival of the community support officers who will be deployed in West Yorkshire, because of the benefit that I know that my constituents will derive from their presence.

Northern France
3.31 pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett): With permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to make a statement on illegal immigration from northern France.
As the House knows, since the beginning of June I have been in negotiations with the French Government to tackle illegal immigration from France, focusing on making substantial improvements in border controls, improving security at freight depots and the removal of the magnet of the Sangatte centre. This morning, I held further talks with the French Interior Minister, Nicolas Sarkozy.
I am very pleased to tell the House that we have today agreed that the Sangatte centre will close by the end of December, and will be handed back to the owners, Eurotunnel. That is four months earlier than originally anticipated. As the House knows, the centre has been a magnet for illegal trafficking of immigrants since October 1999. More than 67,000 people have passed through the centre since that date. Its closure is, therefore, an extremely welcome achievement and a major contribution to stemming the tide of clandestine entry into the United Kingdom.
I wish to place on record my appreciation of the positive way in which Mr. Sarkozy has approached these negotiations over the past six months and for the good faith that he has shown throughout our talks. I am grateful, as I know those concerned will be, for the decisive action that he has taken against illegal immigration in the Calais area, including the deployment of 1,000 gendarmes and substantial enhancement of security measures.
The French Government have taken away and re-housed some 500 people so far. Just as importantly, however, I have agreed with the French Government a range of measures to establish immigration controls and border security operations in northern France, effectively moving border security to France. The extension of those measures to other ports along the French coast and, in future, to Belgium ensures that instead of dealing with the symptoms, we address the causes of our present difficulties. I can also tell the House that we have opened discussions with the Netherlands.
As the House will recognise, this is a transformation in our border security. It is far better to stop people entering the country illegally than to have to send them back, with all the time wasting and expense that that entails. These measures build on the progress already made. The security measures at Coquelles and Frethun have now been strengthened. The number of clandestines arriving from Frethun has fallen from almost 400 in April to a handful in October. By Christmas, 100 per cent. of the freight traffic travelling through Calais port each and every day will be searched.
Co-operation between our security and law enforcement services has led to the arrest and disruption of six major trafficking gangs operating in northern France over the past few weeks. Almost 250 people have been arrested for people smuggling this year. Immigration officers have been operating in Calais since
612
20 August. This operation will develop rapidly following today's agreement into a full, joint immigration control as early as possible next year. These actions have been significant in sending a signal, and today's announcement will complete the message to those seeking to traffic human beings across Europe to the UK.
To ensure that we play our part in getting Sangatte closed immediately and, of course, for good, I have agreed that up to 1,000 Iraqis can come to the United Kingdom, not as asylum seekers but on work visas. This is a one-off exercise. They will be temporarily housed for up to three months while we undertake job matching. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions for his co-operation. In this way, we will ensure that those who might have reached Britain clandestinely will now pay taxes and national insurance and will not be subject to continuing support from the British taxpayer. We will also take a limited number of Afghans under family reunification, determined by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. The remainder of the Sangatte population, together with those with whom the French have already dealt, as well as anyone subsequently arriving in the area, will be handled by the French authorities.
I can also tell the House that I intend to ensure that the UK's economic migration channels are available to those from countries that currently generate significant unfounded asylum claims. Legal economic migration strengthens our economy and underpins our coherent policy of managed migration. I believe that we should all unite against those who are currently arguing for a complete block on all immigration to this country, and I challenge the shadow Home Secretary to join me in this regard.
This agreement with the French Government is a further piece in the jigsaw of radical reform to our asylum, immigration and nationality programme. Taken together with the new Act—which was passed against considerable opposition, especially in the House of Lords—it will give us the capacity to manage properly entry into this country. I do not today pretend that we have reached the end of the road. We have only just passed the new legislation and we have only just reached agreement with the French. We cannot, therefore, be expected yet to have achieved the results that will come to fruition only from the implementation of these policies. This is a substantial step forward, however, which no one predicted just six months ago.
I want to finish with this warning. We can put legislation in place, we can reach agreement with our French counterparts, and we can debate these issues in the House, but they will come to nothing without a substantial change in the administration of the system. I am making it clear today to the immigration and nationality directorate that we expect a step change in the operation, efficiency and competence within the system and in how it is handled. I shall hold to account senior managers in my Department for an entirely different approach and a step change in the results that we now expect to be achieved.
Mr. Oliver Letwin: I am grateful to the Home Secretary for a marginally early copy of his statement.

613
We welcome the closure of Sangatte. The camp was a symbol, as Mr. Sarkozy said today. But why is the symbol considered so important by the Home Secretary? Was not the camp a symptom rather than a cause? Was it not set up because the asylum seekers were in northern France rather than vice versa? How will its closure reduce the number of asylum seekers coming to northern France?
Turning to the price paid by the Home Secretary, on what legal basis is he intending to issue work permits to 1,200 erstwhile Iraqi asylum seekers? If those people were eligible for work permits, why were they not awarded such permits before the camp's closure? Why are the French authorities so keen not to admit those applicants to France?
More generally, the House will want to learn what impact the Home Secretary believes the measures in his statement will have on net inward migration to the United Kingdom. I cannot wholly rid myself of a suspicion that he is highlighting Sangatte, and that he has wished to highlight Sangatte for some time, to distract attention from the number of people entering and remaining in this country and from the administrative shambles that that number reveals.
In a piece of slightly jaded parliamentary rhetoric, the Home Secretary asks me to join him in resisting calls to block all immigration, but that is not the question we face today. He presides over a system that has allowed, and is allowing, record unlawful net immigration. There were a record 29,000 asylum applicants in the last quarter and only 3,500 removals, which resulted in 25,500 new net additions from asylum in that period. With roughly 70 per cent. of asylum applicants finally refused asylum, we face the prospect of 700,000 additional people, who are failed asylum seekers, coming to this country and remaining in it for the next 10 years.
When we face that situation, why is the Home Secretary talking about a total block? He is nowhere near a total block. Despite his heartfelt pleas from the Dispatch Box to his Department to perform better, and despite drawing down £1.8 billion in supplementary spending increases for his Department, he is nowhere near achieving even a respectable approximation to an effective partial block. I fear that no amount of fanfare about a single camp in northern France will distract us from drawing attention to that fact or will distract the country from noticing it.
Mr. Blunkett: I am not sure whether that was a welcome for the closure of Sangatte and the measures that we are taking.
The right hon. Gentleman asks whether the closure is a symptom or a cause of the problem. I draw his attention to a wise phrase:
"If asylum seekers knew they could no longer use France as a gateway to the United Kingdom, fewer of them would make their way there in the first place."
If Conservative Members agree with that they agree with their leader because those were the words of lain Duncan Smith in his article at the end of May in the Daily Mail. Sangatte is clearly a magnet. That is why the French and this Government want it closed. It is also
614
why we have linked it to massive improvements in border controls along the French coast and why we are now working with Belgium and the Netherlands. That was never achieved by the previous regime.
What is more, the French Government, who have a nominal connection with the Conservative party, agree entirely with my stance. They believe that what we have agreed will make a significant difference. They think that it is necessary and have widely welcomed our co-operation in making it possible.
The right hon. Gentleman asks why we chose to grant permits to Iraqis. In some regions and parts of the world, it is possible to determine that a significant number of people want to take up the opportunity to work. We also know that it is not possible to send people back to some regions, even when their asylum claims are unfounded, and that if we do not allow entry in an ordered and managed way, they will come into our country clandestinely, claim asylum, be a burden on the support system and clog up the works of the immigration programme.
So what are we doing? We are lifting the burden on taxpayers, organising the system properly and providing for our economic needs by giving people the opportunity to work. I should have thought that hon. Members from all parties would welcome that, and that is why I asked the right hon. Gentleman to join me in condemning those, whose voices are louder and louder, who are against all legal, never mind illegal, immigration into this country. I heard such comment, by one who is very close to the Conservative party, on the "Today" programme this morning. I have read it in the newspapers. I read it almost every other day now in The Times, and I have to say that, in the case of Anthony Browne, it borders on fascism.
It is time that we challenged the Conservative party on where it stands because only in September the shadow Home Secretary, when challenged on the radio about whether he would take steps to get here if there was a blockage, talked about hanging on to trains and said:
"Sure. Absolutely. I think we need to recognise that people who seek to better themselves by engaging in desperate efforts to get to places where they can work hard are not morally in the same category as a scrounger who seeks to be a parasite."
The people whom we are inviting here are not parasites; they seek to work. They seek the right to be here legally, which the right hon. Gentleman has raised in the House on a number of occasions, and I am giving them that right.
Today we are unblocking a major problem for the French and British Governments. Of course, I could have wimped and let Sangatte dribble out while people came across the Channel prior to us being able to make substantive change. The change that has made a difference today is the shifting of the border controls from England to the French coast. We have shifted the immigration and security checks and ensured that people will not get here. Stopping people entering clandestinely has to make more sense than trying to process them and send them back whence they came.
We have not spent £1.8 billion more from the reserve. If the right hon. Gentleman wants a sensible debate, I will give him one, but let us have no silliness about 700,000 unreturned entrants to this country. Otherwise,

615
we will have the kind of rabble that we have seen this afternoon, who cannot welcome agreement, who do not want a sensible, rational way forward and who will back the far right when it suits them to scare people into believing that managed migration is the same as clandestine asylum seeking. The two are separate; we are dealing with them as separate things and putting in place a managed programme to resolve a long-standing problem.
Simon Hughes: The Home Secretary will know that Liberal Democrats believe that the United Kingdom, like all European countries, should honour its obligations to allow people to put their case for asylum and to accept them when they have a good case. The evidence shows that this country, like many other European countries, needs a net increase of immigrant workers to meet the needs of our economy.
If the Home Secretary is saying that he will make a renewed effort to sort out the problems in his Department, that is welcome, but we will believe it when we see it because we have heard it said for many years.
Does the statement and the deal with the French mean that those who want to put an asylum case will be able to do so? Will the United Kingdom take any of the people currently in northern France who want to put an asylum case, or will they be allowed to stay in France or go elsewhere in Europe? Please will the Home Secretary give positive consideration to the ideas I discussed with the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration a day or so ago, namely, that instead of the nonsense of trying to lock one door, which results in people going somewhere else—locking another port, which results in people trying another route of entry—we try an intelligent Europe-wide system whereby people are processed in the same way wherever they come to the attention of the authorities, and the responsibility for all asylum seekers who enter the European Union is shared fairly across all EU countries?
Lastly, will the right hon. Gentleman consider a way of dealing with the press, which whips up the belief that an increasing number of people will come to this country or stay here legally, by saying that that those asylum seekers who are of working age could be considered as the first group of those who will meet our economic working needs, and then we will consider as a country how many other people we require to meet our work force needs? If he were to give the House a figure for how many people a year we need, that would be very helpful.
Mr. Blunkett: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his welcome. I shall take his first and last points first. I do not intend to take people from France as asylum seekers. I intend to take the Iraqis as I described, for work purposes, and I intend to take people for family reunification from among those Afghans who have been identified by the UNHCR.
I do not intend to confuse asylum claims with economic migration routes. I do not intend to say to those who have been asylum seekers, "We will take you as the first batch of economic migrants", because that would only encourage people to believe that if they managed to get here and claim asylum, they would be able to work. That is why we took the measures that were announced last Friday.
616
I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the need for Europe-wide action. I hope that by the end of December we will have agreed Dublin 2. I do not believe that that goes far enough or that it will resolve our problems, but it is a further step towards recognition by the EU as a whole that the problem affects us all, that it reflects worldwide movements of people, and that it reflects differences between the ways in which people have been dealt with across Europe. That is precisely why I passed substantial measures in the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. I hope that we can make rapid and much better progress. Nicolas Sarkozy and I debated that again this morning, because we both believe that a Europe-wide agreement is needed.
Mr. Gwyn Prosser: I congratulate my right hon. Friend and his team on achieving a sensible, practical and fair settlement for the closure of Sangatte, and on delivering a raft of other important security and border control measures. However, when the management and accommodation of the British consignment of migrants is dealt with, will he take account of the fact that places such as my constituency, Dover, which already houses an induction centre, a removal centre and accommodation for almost 200 young asylum-seeker children, are already experiencing great pressure? As the Prime Minister said last year, we have already borne more than our fair share.
Mr. Blunkett: My hon. Friend's area has borne more than its fair share, which is why I am sure that he will welcome the transfer to the French coast of immigration and security controls. I am absolutely certain that that will alleviate a substantial part of the problem, when taken together with the massive security now in place around the passenger and freight depots in France. A year ago, people said that that was impossible—they said that we would not be able to do it, that the French would never agree, that we would never get those measures in place, and that people would continue to come from those areas.
We still face a major challenge. Distributing those who are organised and managed into this country under the agreement will be important, and I give an assurance that they will not be managed and organised into the Kent coast.
Mr. Julian Brazier: I thank the Home Secretary for that final assurance. Does he accept that a failure by the House to have a proper and realistic discussion of the matter is the surest way to fuel the very worst forces out on the streets? Does he acknowledge that more than half the people who claimed asylum last year did so in-country and so have nothing to do with the process in France, and that the real solution to the sheer volume of work that is causing the bulk of our problems must be to have a rapid method of ejecting those who enter legally, overstay and, when they are finally picked up, try to claim asylum?
Mr. Blunkett: Yes, and that is precisely why, in the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act, I introduced measures to deny people the financial support and housing that they would otherwise claim if they had not made a claim at or close to the point or port of entry. Many of the people we are talking about as in-country

617
applicants have been trafficked in, spent time in the country, and then make a claim, which is entirely wrong—we all agree about that. My earlier reply was given entirely in response to the hooting that started when I announced that we were going to take people as legal economic migrants. We must be absolutely clear—if we are all united against clandestines, we are not all united on legal immigration on economic grounds to this country. That issue is now dividing us. It may not divide the shadow Home Secretary and myself, but it clearly divides him from members of his party.
Glenda Jackson: Is this a one-off acceptance of legal migrants, exclusively for people from Iraq and Afghanistan—dangerous but by no means the only dangerous parts of the world? While I welcome the Home Secretary's call for a step change in the immigration and nationality directorate, will it be accompanied by additional resources, both financial and trained staff? Will he make the same call for a step change and improvement in the National Asylum Support Service?
Mr. Blunkett: On the last point, I consider those support services to be an integral part of the immigration and nationality directorate, and want to seek substantial changes in them. Yes, this is a one-off—I have made that absolutely clear—designed to close Sangatte. We should remember that there were going to be several Sangattes only 12 months ago. Headline after headline said that we were not going to close Sangatte but instead would open several such centres along the French coast—wrong. Sangatte will be closed by the end of December, and we should rejoice in that.
Let me make one thing clear. Yes, the immigration and nationality directorate will get the money that it needs, and has had several thousand additional posts over the past three years. Using the money wisely, however, managing properly and taking decisive management action on failure and lack of productivity is something that everyone in the House now wants.
Derek Conway: The Home Secretary's hopes that he expressed this afternoon will be shared, I trust he accepts, on both sides of the House. Nobody wants him to be anything other than successful. That is particularly true in my constituency of Old Bexley and Sidcup, where we have many asylum-seeker families who are perfectly decent people just trying to achieve a better role in life. However, many of my constituents will think that the Government are selling out. If the Home Secretary challenges the figures produced by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) on unreturned entrants, will he now give the House his own figures?
Mr. Blunkett: As the hon. Gentleman probably knows, I am conducting a major attack on illegal working, and I am running a consultation on entitlement cards. Given the obvious support for major action on that, I assume that the Conservative party, including the Front Bench, will now come out unequivocally in favour of entitlement cards and assist with that discussion. Let me make it clear that we do not
618
accept the 700,000 figure, because it has been plucked out of thin air. However, we accept the need for a proper analysis of clandestine entry and the level of illegal working. We are working with the TUC to tackle that and introduce proper measures to secure the system for the future. I will do my best to ensure that we get that right.
Mike Gapes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that at a time when a report on human rights abuses in Iraq has just been published, it is rather strange that members of the Opposition appear to be unhappy that this country is giving young men who have fled the tyranny of Saddam Hussein an opportunity to work and to make a contribution to our society? Is it not extremely worrying, when millions of people throughout the world are suffering and are refugees and asylum seekers in many countries, that some people are so narrow minded that they believe that we should do nothing to help individuals fleeing such tyranny?
Mr. Blunkett: Yes it is.
Mr. Roger Gale: Those of us who campaigned for a long time for the closure of Sangatte will welcome the Home Secretary's achievement because we believe that it may facilitate the traffic of freight and passengers through the channel tunnel. However, the right hon. Gentleman's other comments are breathtaking in their arrogance. Why should 1,200 people be suddenly transformed, at the wave of a Home Office wand, from asylum seekers into work seekers, and granted work permits ahead of scores of others? Given the Home Secretary's answer to the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Prosser), why is the Department trying to establish a reception centre for even more asylum seekers in Folkestone? Has the right hon. Gentleman got the Chancellor's agreement to pay the county of Kent all the money that the arrangement will cost the taxpayers and council tax payers of the United Kingdom, especially those of Kent?
Mr. Blunkett: My budget will fund whatever temporary costs arise from the need to receive people and move them to job match through the agreement that was reached this morning. The costs will be much less than what we would have paid—on average £18,000, including legal aid—for putting those who would have come here to claim asylum through the process. We all accept that the 67,000 people who went through Sangatte in the past three years undoubtedly made their way to the United Kingdom. That was their purpose in struggling across Europe—to paraphrase the words of the shadow Home Secretary on a Radio 4 programme in September. We have therefore saved rather than spent resources.
Mr. Kevin Barron: The effective moving of the border for checks against human smuggling is welcome. So is the closure of Sangatte, which, as everybody knows, has for many years been a magnet for people who enter the country illegally. What are the implications for Iraqis and people from Afghanistan who are currently here?
Mr. Blunkett: I am pleased that my right hon. Friend welcomes the change. Changing the border controls to

619
France is significant. The system of assessing individual asylum claims will continue in the usual way. Those who have not been assigned asylum claims will be considered in future for special humanitarian protection. However, as I made clear in the statement, we are keen to establish legitimate immigration routes for economic purposes so that people who want to create a better life do not present themselves as asylum seekers facing death and torture. If we can do that—we are doing it for 175,000 people this year—and meet the needs of our economy, we will square the circle.
Mr. Francis Maude: I am glad that the Home Secretary has moderated his tone from that which he deployed earlier, which many Members found offensive.
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that many hon. Members perceive a good case for selective and controlled economic migration, and are passionately keen for Britain to maintain its noble tradition of giving asylum to those who are genuinely fleeing persecution in other countries? For those reasons, we are anxious for real control to be exercised over those who are not genuine refugees. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that regardless of whether Sangatte is open or closed, a system that deems that people who have passed through a safe country in the European Union are prima facie not refugees because they have forgone their opportunity to seek refuge in France or Belgium, should return them immediately to their country of origin?
Mr. Blunkett: I agree with the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's comments. It is a pity that he did not notice the shadow Chancellor screaming at me when I spoke about extending economic migration. There is a contradiction within the Conservative party, and I know that he will want to deal with it decisively in the Reform Group. I do riot, however, entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman's last point. It is very difficult to say that we will return someone to a country that is under siege—a country such as Iraq, for example—and it is therefore very difficult to say that the first country of entry should be the one that carries the whole load. That is why, building on Dublin 2, a sensible Europe-wide agreement will have to be reached on what is generally called burden sharing. In that way, we can make sense of what is currently a nonsensical situation.
Mr. Chris Pond: Is my right hon. Friend aware that although my constituents are certainly not opposed to people coming here to build a better life for themselves, and to fill many of our skills shortages, they are opposed to illegal immigration and abuse of the asylum system? They will, therefore, support the fact that he has been working with Mr. Sarkozy and his other European counterparts on dealing with the problems of asylum and illegal immigration that affect all parts of Europe, rather than simply exploiting the issues as some Conservative Members have done this afternoon.
Mr. Blunkett: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend.
Mr. Peter Viggers: Does it cause the Home Secretary any concern that so many economic migrants come to this country from areas and countries in which, organised crime is a way of life?
Mr. Blunkett: It certainly concerns me if those who come here perpetrate, organise or are involved in acts of crime. I have made it clear both to the police and to the immigration service that if people who are here without citizenship—people here on work permits, or for whatever other reason—commit crimes or are involved in mafia-type activities, we should seek to remove them from the country as fast as possible.
Mr. Stephen McCabe: I totally agree with my right hon. Friend that a controlled immigration policy that seeks to match skills with labour shortages is the sensible way forward, but I want to ask him a question that I suspect some of my constituents will be asking me before the end of this week. It is about the 1,000 or so Iraqis. These are people who almost certainly travelled across Europe in the company of criminals and gangsters, and originally claimed to be asylum seekers but now claim to be economic migrants. Given that this country could be at war with Iraq in the relatively near future, how successful has the screening of these people been? How do we know who we are admitting to the country?
Mr. Blunkett: The great advantage of doing this in an ordered and managed fashion is that we can actually screen those people. We are undertaking security screening of those coming into the country, which would not be possible with those who reach our shores clandestinely. I take my hon. Friend's point that people will be concerned and will want to know that we have done that effectively. I want to make it clear that we are not taking any Iraqis who have claimed asylum. None of the people I am taking has claimed asylum in France. If they had I would have insisted, under article 12 of the original Dublin convention, that their claims be processed in France. That would be the case for anyone who had attempted to claim asylum there.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman is demanding a step-change in the operation, efficiency and competence of senior officials in his Department. Is that not an astounding admission of failure in the Department of which he is the political head? Is it not an extraordinary transfer of responsibility? Are not he and his Ministers responsible for policy and its implementation? If he cannot achieve that, should it not be he, rather than senior managers in his Department, who is held to account?
Mr. Blunkett: Something would be sadly wrong if a Home Secretary came to the Dispatch Box and pretended that black was white, and that everything was fine in the Department, when he knew that it was not. I would have thought that it was a refreshing change for a Minister to come here and say that everything is not right, and that we are doing something about it. We have just appointed a new director-general for the immigration and nationality directorate. We have also changed the whole operational system and, at last, managed to get a grip on the failed computer system that

621
was put in by the Conservative Government in 1996. Let me make it clear, however, that we are accountable for policy and its implementation, and we expect managers to be accountable for the administration and efficiency of the system. Ministers do not direct; they do not appoint or sack. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will know from his extraordinary time in the then Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—which he will remember vividly, because he refused to resign over the most disgraceful carry-on and incompetence imaginable—that Secretaries of State sometimes have to say publicly that they will no longer put up with incompetence and lack of productivity that everyone else knows exist.
Ann Clwyd: My right hon. Friend knows that I have criticised his policies on occasion, but I am pleased to offer my support for his robust defence of his policy today. Anyone who has read the Foreign Office report on human rights abuses in Iraq can only be moved by the terrible abuses that have occurred to some Iraqis, and anybody who has been to Afghanistan recently, as I have, will not be surprised to know that some Afghans wish to leave that country as well. I therefore fully support my right hon. Friend; I also support the points that he made at the beginning of his statement. It ill behoves the sons and grandsons of immigrants on the Opposition Benches to scream hysterically every time the word "immigration" is mentioned in the House.
Mr. Blunkett: I could not agree more.
Mrs. Angela Browning: The Home Secretary has admonished my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), but at least my right hon. and learned Friend was subject to a public inquiry, which no one on the Labour side dared to undergo when they got the country into the most appalling mess—and he was vindicated by it.
In the Home Secretary's talks with the French Government on securing the northern coast of France and the channel coast in this country, has he discussed foot passengers who might enter this country via the Channel Islands? When Sangatte is closed, what changes can we expect for passengers travelling from France to the Channel Islands and then from the Channel Islands to the UK? He will know that there is no passport requirement when people enter this country via that route.
Mr. Blunkett: I have not discussed that, although I certainly will, and I am grateful to the hon. Lady for drawing it to my attention. As for her defence of her right hon. and learned Friend, the only point I was making is that those who live in glasshouses should not throw stones.
Andrew Mackinlay: Before the Home Secretary leaves the Chamber, will he beef up his comments on Belgium? Zeebrugge is just 30 minutes down the road from Calais and every night illegal immigrants come to this country from Zeebrugge and
622
other ports in Belgium and the Netherlands, unchecked by the IND, which is not present at the smaller ports around the UK. That is a big problem. I know that people seep in all the time along the river frontage in my constituency, so I hope that my right hon. Friend will invite Lord Carlile's committee of inquiry on our borders to revisit the idea of setting up a ports police to supplement and buttress the IND, Customs and Excise and the county police forces. Such a force is desperately needed and would be a great help, not instead of the measures that my right hon. Friend has announced today, but as an addition to them.
Mr. Blunkett: When we debated the order on proscribed organisations I promised my hon. Friend that I would examine that point. I am doing so, as it is important and, as he rightly says, Lord Carlile has referred to it in the review. Nicolas Sarkozy and I met the Belgian Minister, Mr. Duquesne, at the end of September for a trilateral discussion. We agreed at the meeting, and I have since signed with the Belgians, an undertaking to set in place joint controls, including controls at Zeebrugge and at the Eurostar entry point in Brussels. I hope that we can get those in place as quickly as possible.
Mr. John Randall: The Home Secretary's announcement regarding Sangatte is welcome, but will the UK become less attractive for illegal immigrants? After all, those desperate people have crossed safe European countries, presumably because they regarded the UK as a better destination than France, Germany or Italy.
Mr. Blunkett: Yes they did, which is why some common reception policy and a common distribution pattern across Europe are sensible. That is also why we, through our balanced policy that separates clandestine asylum seekers from legitimate legal entrants, have sought to distinguish and develop one while clamping down on the other. I hope that that policy, through the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, has sent the right message.
Mr. Jim Cunningham: How long will the work permits last—two years, three years, 10 years? What criteria will my right hon. Friend use?
Mr. Blunkett: Much depends on the job that someone takes in a job match. We can offer a longer time to those who take what is clearly permanent work. We will want to renew work visas as we renew a range of other visas. Many people from around the world who have been here for a very long time before gaining nationality have simply asked for a renewal. I am happy to allow that, as part of a process of integration, welcoming and ensuring social cohesion. The more people feel that they are part of our community and can take on language and citizenship skills, the better.
Mr. Desmond Swayne: In view of the expense of our contribution to the liberation and reconstruction of Afghanistan, surely the best place for reunited families is there. Otherwise, do we not risk sending a further powerful signal to that country that we are a soft touch?
Mr. Blunkett: I think that aiding people to return and reconstruct their country is good common sense.

623
The French are now doing it, and so are we. I have asked the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to find out how many of the 200 or so who are there would fall into the category of family unification. That is not clear at this stage, but I do not think there would be many. We should take such people, on what are perfectly open, legitimate and well tried grounds.
Claire Ward: What specific skills or qualifications will my right hon. Friend look for before issuing work permits? In the light of his responses to Members representing Kent constituencies, what assurances will he give local authorities in the broader south-east, including Hertfordshire, that potential extra pressure or costs resulting from his decision will be met by his Department?
Mr. Blunkett: Under the reception provision that we are establishing, we will pay. When people have been job matched and move around the country—we expect that movement to encompass the whole of the United Kingdom—they will sustain themselves. The great advantage of offering people a chance to fill vacancies of all sorts is that we will not need to sustain them any longer, and neither will local authorities.
As I said earlier, we have withdrawn the right to switch suddenly from one form of entry—one type of visa—to an asylum claim. I think that will reassure not only communities but local authorities that they will not face such costs.
Mr. John Bercow: Irrespective of the merits or demerits of the proposed admission of the Iraqis—on which it is indeed wiser at this stage to remain open-minded than to fulminate in a bucolic fashion—will the Home Secretary now answer a question posed by my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary and tell us what the legal basis of his decision is?
Mr. Blunkett: We are assured by officials—and believe me, I would not have allowed an agreement to be reached between two Governments had I not been assured of this—that we have a legal power to grant work visas to those people, and the right to do so. Work permits have been granted separately in the immediate past in relation to specific jobs. There is nothing to stop us bringing people in and finding them jobs. So that there is no misunderstanding, let me point out that we have a good precedent. After all, the mass advertising in the Commonwealth in the 1950s that led to the Windrush coming to this country took place under a Conservative, not a Labour Government.
Dr. Brian Iddon: I am dealing with an ever-rising number of young Iraqi men who are Kurds. They have been through the IND system, and their official status is "awaiting deportation". They are destitute, without money or housing. I deal with at least 20 such men, and I know of at least 50 in Greater Manchester. They want to work, and it is important that my right hon. Friend make it clear to them today whether he will welcome their applying for work permits.
Mr. Blunkett: No, I will not. I have made it clear that I want to establish centres in such people's regions of
624
origin, to which, if they are economic migrants, they can apply sensibly. We will open discussions with countries in those regions, including the border of northern Iraq, to ensure that we can do that. If we simply transformed failed asylum seekers into economic migrants, we would immediately damage the signal that we are sending. People would believe that once they reached our shores clandestinely and had their application refused, it would be okay because eventually they would still be able to work.
Mr. David Cameron: I know that the Home Secretary believes that false asylum applications are attempts to jump the immigration queue, because I heard him say so. With that in mind, does not the proposal that he has agreed to today represent officially sanctioned, state-sponsored queue jumping on a giant scale? What message does that send to all those who have legally applied for residence here, and are waiting patiently?
Mr. Blunkett: I should make it clear that the people I am taking have not arrived in this country as clandestines, and that they have not made an asylum claim in France. It is on that basis that I am able to make this offer, and there is a logic to it; otherwise I would not have made it. If I were to offer clandestines the immediate opportunity to work, I would be criticised; if I were to offer failed asylum seekers the right to work, I would be opening the floodgates. I am taking a logical decision to deal with a problem rationally. I should say once and for all to those who commentate but never decide, and who can criticise but who take no responsibility, that if they have a better, clearer and more sensible way of dealing with this problem in reality—rather than fulminating at the French, wishing that the problem would go away, or pretending that such people would not come as clandestines and then claim asylum—they should come forward with it.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: The Home Secretary has made a welcome, constructive and civilised statement, but may I press him as to who is going to screen the Iraqis, and exactly for what purpose?
Mr. Blunkett: Our immigration services will undertake screening of status, together with officials from the Department of Work and Pensions, once those individuals have been received. In conjunction with security and law enforcement officials, we will check such individuals' status, so far as is possible. That is what people would expect us to do.
Mr. John Flume: We are living through the greatest revolution in the history of the world in telecommunications, transport and technology. As a result, our world is much smaller, and for that reason immigration from deprived countries is far greater. Does the Home Secretary think that, in addition to the positive work that he is doing to deal with the problem, there should be substantial international co-operation in planning how to assist people in deprived countries?
Mr. Blunkett: Yes I do, and so does my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development. In the past six months the UNHCR has

625
assured us that it will transform its operation from what I described as in effect a non-governmental organisation, into a transnational governmental organisation that provides support in working out ways to deal with existing humanitarian and economic pressures in what—as the hon. Gentleman rightly points out—is a world of mass communication. In such a world, people know about how others live and where they live, and about lifestyles, in a way unheard of even a few years before. That has increased the responsibility, through the UN and other transnational organisations, to tackle the problem in a unified fashion.

Points of Order
4.24 pm
Ann Clwyd: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I draw the House's attention to the statement published today by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on Saddam Hussein and crimes and human rights abuses. Indict, an organisation that I chair, is quoted as a source on several pages of the document. I wonder whether we are to have a statement on the document. It raises many important questions that we should have the opportunity to debate with the Foreign Secretary on the Floor of the House, particularly as Indict has given the my right hon. Friend and the Government information that can bring some of these accusations against the regime in front of a British court. Why have the Government not acted on the conclusion that they have come to in their own document?
Mr. Speaker: There is a written ministerial statement today: No. 5. As for an oral statement, I have had no indication of one.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. On page 7 of the document is the statement that the Iraqi national football team had the soles of their feet beaten. This has been repeated time and time again. When I was in Baghdad I asked for information, and I have asked for other people's information about it, but information comes there none. Such statements may or may not be true, but should the House of Commons not have an opportunity at least to ask for further background information?
Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair.
Glenda Jackson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There is no written statement from the Home Office about a statement made by the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration on several national news broadcasts on Friday evening about a radical shift in Government policy with regard to exceptional leave to remain. Regrettably, no mention was made of this in today's statement, and my concern—apart from the fact that I am mindful, of course, of your rulings on this issue, Mr. Speaker, and of what I regard as a discourtesy to the House—is the great concern now felt by many of my constituents who have been given exceptional leave to remain in this country. As there is no written statement, Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether you have had any information about whether there may be a statement forthcoming on this "radical shift" in Government policy.
Mr. Speaker: I have had no approach on that matter.

Opposition Day
[UNALLOTTED HALF-DAY]
Opposition Day

  Policing (Northern Ireland)
  4.27 pm
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I beg to move,
  That this House notes the continuing terrorist activities of the IRA; does not consider its representatives fit to participate in the government of part of the United Kingdom; deplores attempts to undermine further the integrity of policing in Northern Ireland by granting more concessions to Sinn Fein-IRA; and opposes offering non-elected convicted terrorists places on district policing partnerships.
  What I say about IRA terrorism can be applied equally to terrorism committed by so-called loyalists. I have been on the receiving end of the acts of such terrorists for a long time in their publications, and their attacks on property have included my property. My church manse was bombed, bullets were shot through my bedroom window and other attempts have been made on my life, not by the IRA—although it has made attempts on my life—hut by loyalists. I want to make it clear, therefore, that although the motion condemns the IRA and does not deal with loyalist terrorism, I apply the same condemnation to those terrorists.
  The motion before the House is different. It deals not with terrorists, per se, but with terrorists who are given a place in the government of part of the United Kingdom.
  It is indeed vital that the House discuss this matter because IRA-Sinn Fein continue to engage in a cycle of violence. Everyone in the House knows that. Everyone in the House should be seriously concerned about the targeting, training and recruiting business and the complete disregard of all calls for the disbandment of—
  Helen Jackson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I should like to make a little progress. The Democratic Unionist party initiated the debate, but other Members will be able to speak. If the hon. Lady has put her name down, I am sure that the Chair will call her. I ask her please to give me a little more time so that I can get into my speech.
  The notion is that Sinn Fein-IRA are on ceasefire and that the House should congratulate them on that. Nothing could be further from the truth, however, and I utterly deplore the reference in the Government amendment to the
  "enormous strides towards a more peaceful society in Northern Ireland",
  because we could visit some people who certainly would not think that there had been any peaceful strides.
  I attended a meeting with the Prime Minister and the former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the right hon. Member for Hamilton, North and Bellshill (Dr. Reid), at which the Prime Minister tried to sell me the colossal falsehood that we were at peace in Northern Ireland. Fortunately, I had with me a copy of a certain document. I did not show it to the Prime Minister but I read him some facts from it. I told him that bombings in Northern Ireland over the previous 12 months had
  628
  increased by 80 per cent. I told him that shootings had trebled since the agreement and that unsolved crimes had reached a new high. In Londonderry, the IRA shot a bus driver while he was driving a group of pensioners.
  Mr. Stephen McCabe: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I realise that the hon. Gentleman did not show his document to the Prime Minister, but, as he is now quoting extensively from it, will he make it available in the Library?
  Rev. Ian Paisley: The Library already has a copy and—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. The point of order was addressed to the Chair. I advise the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe) that the matter is entirely up to the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley).
  Rev. Ian Paisley: If the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe) can hold on for a while he may find the end of my story quite amusing.
  I told the Prime Minister that the IRA beat up a young man in south Armagh, leaving him with injuries that doctors told us were the worst they had seen throughout all the troubles. Violence has increased since the agreement.
  Between 1995 and 1998, there were 450 shootings, but between 1999 and 2002 there were 820. Between 1995 and 1998, there were 123 bombings, but between 1999 and 2002 there were 561. The number of bombing devices used between 1995 and 1998 was 156, but between 1999 and 2002 it was 699. The increase in violence has taken a quantum leap.
  The former Secretary of State looked at the Prime Minister and told me that he did not think that my figures were correct. I was glad that I had not shown them the document from which I was quoting although I had it with me. I have it with me today. What is the document? The Secretary of State commended it himself: it is the annual report of the Police Service of Northern Ireland. I handed the Secretary of State a copy and told him: "You are trying to undermine your own figures because they do not suit you."
  That was scandalous, yet the motion asks us to say that everything is wonderful. In fact, everything is far from wonderful. I was in the Minster of State's office last Monday, and she handed me three documents. The first was a draft clauses document containing amendments to a future police Bill. She said, "This is a Government document, this is our thinking." The second document was entitled "Text for consideration", and she said, "This is not a Government document; these are the matters that IRA-Sinn Fein want dealt with, and we are issuing them so that people can have a look at them."
  The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Jane Kennedy): I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that I said that it was a Government document, containing suggestions for Government amendments that we might table to a police Bill, subject to conditions that he knows and that we discussed at the time.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: There is not much difference between that and what I said. In fact, I said it to the

  629
  Secretary of State and asked a civil servant to confirm that it was what I said. I do not want to misrepresent the Minister one iota. I want to get to the truth of the matter and help the people who have been terrorised in Northern Ireland.
  The third document was a police review announcement. It said:
  "We are not persuaded that the time is right to introduce changes in these areas. In particular, the removal of the disqualification of ex-prisoners could, in our view, happen only in the context of acts of completion such as those envisaged by the Prime Minister in his speech in Belfast".
  I asked the Minister what that meant, but we could not determine what it meant—she could not tell us. I cannot blame her, because the next day we met her boss, the new Secretary of State, and asked him the same thing: we said, "Will you explain to us ignorant folk from Belfast what this means?", but he could not explain it.
  On Wednesday, I went to a still higher authority and said:
  "The Prime Minister is aware that in the past two days my party has met the Minister with responsibility for security in Northern Ireland and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. We put one question to both: what is an act of completion? Does it consist of IRA-Sinn Fein repudiating and ceasing violence and being disbanded, or does it simply mean that they can make a statement that they will give up violence? Can the Prime Minister tell us what he believes it means?"
  The Prime Minister said:
  "I can. It is not merely a statement, a declaration of words. It means giving up violence completely in a way that satisfies everyone"—
  I take it that I am one of the everyones in the House and elsewhere, and that all the law-abiding citizens of Northern Ireland are included—
  "and gives them confidence that the IRA has ceased its campaign, and enables us to move the democratic process forward, with every party that wants to be in government abiding by the same democratic rules."—[Official Report, 27 November 2002; Vol. 395, c. 309.]
  One would think that that statement was plain enough, but I am afraid that we must again ask the Minister to tell us exactly what she means.
  We have had very strong statements from the Prime Minister before—some of them written on a wall during the referendum campaign and some in Hansard—but when it came to it the strong words were forgotten. The Prime said in the House that
  "we want the total disarmament of all paramilitary organizations…Meanwhile, it would obviously be a travesty of democracy if parties associated with paramilitary organisations held Executive office in the assembly while they continued to be engaged in or threaten terrorism."…[Official Report, 22 April 1998; Vol. 310, c. 811.]
  We all know that the IRA has threatened violence. We see the IRA committing acts of violence every day. It was put into the Executive, although the Prime Minister gave us the assurance that it would not be and that it would be "a travesty of democracy"—so it is—to allow those who lead a terrorist organisation to be in government in any part of this country.
  Again, in the House, the Prime Minister said:
  "I have also always made it clear that we regard Sinn Fein and the IRA as inextricably linked.—[Official Report, 3 June 1998; Vol. 313, c. 366.]
  630
  If they are inextricably linked, how can they be divided? Those are not my statements; the Prime Minister made them. He told us then that no IRA-Sinn Feiner would be in the Executive. He also went further, for when they got into the Executive he made it clear that they would be put out if they did not keep to their ceasefire, yet when the ceasefires were violated they were not put out.
  In fact, what we have is a long document issued by the Government. I accept that it is still a Government document, but that makes it even worse in my opinion because it is to do with concessions and buying off the IRA. The Prime Minister needs to tell us in Northern Ireland what he really means to do. Of course we can hear and see many things, and the way the wind is blowing is interesting.
  No one has voiced his views more strongly than the leader of the official Unionist party. The right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) told us recently that those people could not get back into government until the IRA was disbanded, but he evidently changed his mind last night and our morning papers say today that
  "he indicated that practical measures like decommissioning weapons and ending paramilitary activity would be sufficient"
  to get those people back into government. We have another fudge, after many fudges, falsehoods and pledges from the leader of the official Unionist party, so what is going to happen?
  If anyone in the House thinks that the IRA will go away, they should disabuse themselves of that notion immediately. It is updating its weapons. Today is a good day to debate the matter, as three of its members are on trial in Colombia. When they were captured, however, we were told that they were not IRA men but tourists, even though they had forged passports. What tourist goes abroad on a forged passport? We were told that one of them did not represent the IRA in Cuba; subsequently, it was discovered that he did. Leading IRA men, including prominent ones, flew out to see them. What were they going to do? Were they going to have their first meeting? No, they were going to greet their brothers in terror and give them their support. A worldwide campaign has now been launched by IRA-Sinn Fein to say that the courts in Colombia cannot give them justice, that the whole thing is rigged and that they will not attend the courts. How like their approach to Northern Ireland—and that is a part of the United Kingdom!
  IRA-Sinn Fein sent their top representatives to the FARC-controlled jungles in south America. Everybody knows that. It also rearmed from Russia and Florida. Only the other day, guns of the most modern making, which had never been seen previously, were discovered, and arrests were made of those who had them in their possession. Leading people were telling us, however, that nothing had happened with regard to Florida. Leading political, judicial, security, forensic and loyalist figures are now being targeted using intelligence data files. The House should be aware of the terror of mothers and children when their husbands and fathers leave home in the morning to go to their place of business, because their security files, containing all their details, are in the possession of the IRA. That is a most serious matter. I have every sympathy with the men who have run the prisons of Northern Ireland over a vast

  631
  number of years—some of whose colleagues have been shot, brutally treated and murdered—who do not seem to be getting the support from the Northern Ireland Office that they should be getting at present.
  A major line of inquiry has been identified in relation to the break-in at special branch headquarters in Castlereagh. Weapons have been smuggled from Florida for the purpose of upgrading the stockpile. About a dozen individuals have been murdered in Northern Ireland since the signing of the Belfast agreement in April 1998. A role as judge and jury in the community has been adopted consistently in the form of beatings, shootings and other forms of intimidation. Orchestrated, organised violence in east and north Belfast has culminated in the shooting of five Protestants in the east of the city. Most recently, information has been stolen from the Northern Ireland Office and from Stormont; the chief administrator has been charged, he has not been allowed bail, and he is awaiting his trial. That is the track record of IRA-Sinn Fein. Is not that the action of people who are not fit for Government? Is it not also a condemnation of the fact that, at this very moment, the Government are discussing with IRA-Sinn Fein the possibility of putting on to the police boards people who are not elected members but have criminal records and have served prison sentences because of their IRA activities? Think about that: it is happening as I speak.
  Another change represents a major concession. An almost semi-parallel police board will meet in north Belfast. It will have different powers from the boards that meet elsewhere in Northern Ireland. Part of Belfast will be under the control of a board that, if it is constituted in the way that is proposed, will be controlled by IRA-Sinn Fein. It will control the policing of west Belfast and part of north Belfast.
  We are in a very serious situation. In the days of conflict, we had the police to rely on and could also rely on those who kept their word with regard to what they said the police would do. I know that charges have been made against members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary in the same way as charges have been made and proved against members of the British Army, but one does not condemn a whole force because of rotten apples in the barrel.
  The constitution of the policing board is another important matter. I was greatly struck by remarks that the Secretary of State made last week. He published an article in The Irish News about the new police proposals. He said that policing would not finally be complete until the day that they—the IRA republicans—include themselves. We are now shut into a policy that means that we will not have full policing until the IRA is included. That notion is obnoxious to the people who have suffered and to the very principles of democracy.
  David Burnside: Does the hon. Gentleman agree with the recent unanimous resolution of the Ulster Unionist Council on the proposals for the police boards? If unelected terrorists are put on to the district policing partnerships, the Ulster Unionist party's representation on the policing board will be placed under serious question. Will he unite with the Ulster Unionist party in withdrawing from that board?
  Rev. Ian Paisley: In a speech, I made public what we would do. We would be out and, this time, I hope that the hon. Gentleman's party would follow us and take immediate action. I was about to develop that point in my speech.
  When we were called in by the former Secretary of State and asked whether we would put our representatives on the policing board, I said, "We could consider that provided you aren't going to make a deal afterwards with IRA-Sinn Fein and bring them in by the back door." He said to us, "If you don't join the policing board now"—it was the last day on which we could join—"you will not be on it until there is an election." I said, "Thank you, but answer this question. If the IRA don't join it, will it have to wait for an election before it gets on the board?" He said, "That is right." However, that is not what is being negotiated now. We were brought in under false pretences. We were given a promise on which the IRA has not delivered and is not going to deliver. I say unequivocally that it will drive real Unionists out of the policing board. Perhaps that is what it wants to do.
  Helen Jackson: I respect the hon. Gentleman's party and his leadership of it. In what circumstances can the membership of the district policing boards include people who may have been in paramilitary organisations and are genuinely moving into politics for the future? Are there circumstances in which that is possible, or is it a case of "No. Never"?
  Rev. Ian Paisley: It is "No. Never." Those people are not elected. They do not even have the support of others who are elected. The hon. Lady's Government promised us that the arrangements would work in a specific way, but they have gone back on their promise. In the Secretary of State's words, policing will not be complete until republicans are included on the board—but at what price? That is what the people of Northern Ireland want to know. They do not want the Government to issue the document. Instead, they want them to tell us frankly what concessions they made under the first document and what concessions they are likely to make under the second document.
  I am sorry that I have taken longer than I expected, but the matter goes to the root of our problem in Northern Ireland. We need proper policing. Unless people in all communities can go to bed at night knowing that they will not be attacked and, if they are attacked, that they will be protected, we will not have peace in Northern Ireland. Let us not have more whitewash of the IRA. Let us no longer tell people that quantum leaps have been taken on security, because it is not so. The Minister knows that. The facts surrounding the policing board also show that to be the case.
  Hon. Members need to pay attention to the problem. What would be their attitude if they had the same problem in their cities and constituencies? They should not be so quick to condemn Northern Ireland Members of Parliament, every one of whom lives under a threat. We have all been threatened. Many of us have been shot at and many of us are visited continually by people who say, "Mind your step." What can an individual do to mind his step in this situation? Hon. Members should ask themselves, "Would I like that to happen to my constituents?"

  633
  I salute the Roman Catholic people, especially those in my constituency, who have joined the new police service. We know what happened to one of the first who joined: the IRA attempted to blow him to smithereens outside his house. The IRA circulates the district with its literature that says, "Treat the new police service as you treated the RUC." What place has a party that does that in properly policing any civilised democratic community?
  4.59 pm
  (Jane Kennedy): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "welcomes the enormous strides towards a more peaceful society in Northern Ireland and the significant developments in policing that have been achieved in recent years; further welcomes the changes to policing proposed in the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill; in particular endorses the Government's view that the time is not yet right to allow unelected ex-prisoners to serve on district policing partnerships; and further welcomes the Government's openness in sharing with this House and the people of Northern Ireland its thinking on how this might be achieved in the future, in the context of acts of completion on the part of paramilitaries.".
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland regrets that he is unable to be here to take part in the debate. He is engaged on business in America; otherwise he would certainly have been here to respond to the points made forcefully by the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley). The hon. Gentleman's position, and that of his party, on these issues is well known and has been understood for many years. He articulates a point of view that has resonance in Northern Ireland, and I acknowledge that from the outset.
  I shall begin by reflecting on the changes in Northern Ireland in recent years. We have come a long way. Before the Belfast agreement, which I know the hon. Gentleman does not hold with, the people of Northern Ireland had endured 30 years of what were euphemistically called "the troubles". There were thousands of deaths, and thousands more lives were torn apart by the violence, sectarianism and community divisions that the hon. Gentleman articulately described. Yet after all that it was possible to reach an agreement about how to shape a better future—one in which former enemies could work together in partnership, in communities and in government. People from all sections of the community could put aside the intransigence and hatred of the past, and co-operate.
  Such a transformation required great leaps of faith from the people of Northern Ireland, and particularly, perhaps, from its political leaders. No one said that it would be easy, and the hon. Gentleman has described just how difficult it has been. I say to him, his party and the House that, as security Minister, I know better than almost anyone else in Government what the security difficulties have been. However, he says that things are as bad as they have ever been, and I suggest that that is not true.
  This year, 10 people have lost their lives as a result of the security situation in Northern Ireland. That is 10 deaths too many and those lives were lost unnecessarily. If I were a relative of any of those
  634
  individuals, I would feel precisely the bitterness and grief described by the hon. Gentleman. However, if we go back 30 years, we find that 470 people lost their lives in one year alone. The number of people who die as a result of the security situation in Northern Ireland has dramatically decreased, and that ought to be taken into account when we consider the difficult issues that face us in our attempt to maintain momentum in developing a more peaceful society.
  Although no one said that it would be easy, we believed that it would not be impossible. As the Prime Minister said on 17 October:
  "it was a brave undertaking and a vast one."
  It has taken courage and vision. Some of the steps have indeed been difficult, but there have been difficulties for all sides. The important point is that, despite those difficulties, there has been progress, and Northern Ireland today is a better, more peaceful place than it was before the agreement. It is not nirvana, and there is a long way to go, but it is a vast improvement on the situation that existed decades ago. Transformations can be slow but they do happen.
  The same is true of policing. I shall develop the arguments put forward by the hon. Gentleman and answer some of his points. As the Belfast agreement made clear, it is essential that the policing structures and arrangements are such that the Police Service is professional, effective and efficient, fair and impartial, free from partisan political control, accountable both under the law for its actions and to the community that it serves and representative of the society that it polices. The hon. Gentleman will argue that the service has been professional, effective and efficient, fair and impartial, and I agree with much of what he says, but the Police Service's structures and arrangements—its accountability arrangements and representative nature—must be capable of gaining support throughout the whole community of Northern Ireland if it is to maintain law and order, including responding effectively to crime and to any terrorist threat or public order problem. A police service that cannot do so will fail to win public confidence and acceptance.
  Patten was clear about the scale of the challenge and the need to provide a new beginning for policing in Northern Ireland. That will take time and it will not be easy, but huge progress has already been made. I suspect that if we had said five years ago that we would one day have a policing board operating on a cross-community basis, or that 50 per cent. of recruits to the police would be Catholic, most people would not have believed us, yet that has been achieved. Even when the policing board was set up, there were those who expected it to fail. There were those who did not expect the board to be able to resolve the question of the badge or the uniforms—but it did. There were those who said that the board would never be able to agree on a new Chief Constable—but, again, it did. There were those who said that the board would not be able to agree a recommendation on the future of the full-time reserve—but it did.
  The hon. Member for North Antrim might argue that all those measures are unnecessary concessions to Sinn Fein and republicans, but I believe that they are a necessary part of the reforms to policing in Northern Ireland that will enable cross-community support to

  635
  develop, grow and strengthen. Since its first meeting just over a year ago, the policing board has quickly established itself as a powerful and credible organisation with a clear interest in holding the police to account and ensuring effective policing of the whole of Northern Ireland. Despite the enormity of the challenge facing them, board members have collectively shown themselves to be committed to creating the new beginning for policing envisaged by the agreement. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to all the board members, including the representatives of the Democratic Unionist party, for their commitment and the dedication that they have shown to their duties.
  The changes have not only affected the accountability structures for policing; the Police Service itself has undergone a series of significant changes. The determination of the service, from its leadership through the rank and file to the new recruits, to deliver the changes envisaged by Patten has been impressive. Collectively, the police have shown that it is possible to move forward, to create the new beginning and to forge new relationships with all sections of the community. That is the future for policing in Northern Ireland. It is a future grounded in effective policing, with a police service carrying out its professional remit without fear or favour.
  The results of current policing arrangements are tangible. In recent months, much of the sectarian violence at interfaces in north and east Belfast—I see the hon. Members who represent those constituencies in their seats—has been nullified through good police tactics, which have also yielded 124 persons charged. I acknowledge that that has come at a cost—437 police officers have been injured as a result of the violence at interfaces—but we should acknowledge the good, professional and capable work that the police have been doing to reduce the effects of that violence.
  Such successes in policing are not limited to the violence on our streets. The House might like to know that, since September, 24 loyalists and 11 republicans have been charged under the Terrorism Act 2000. Hon. Members who attack the arrangements for policing in Northern Ireland should consider that that has a knock-on effect, whether intended or not, on each and every police officer. Again and again, it brings policing into the political domain, which is not helpful for effective policing. The hon. Member for North Antrim would be quick to acknowledge that, over the past 30 years, many of those officers have faced some hideous challenges. They have lost their colleagues to terrorist attacks. They have themselves been wounded and scarred and seen their families threatened.
  Of course, their work today could never be described as easy. Policing in any community is a difficult challenge, but policing in Northern Ireland is a particularly difficult challenge. The individuals who provide that public service deserve our support and gratitude. I know that they have the support and gratitude of the hon. Gentleman, his party and the Ulster Unionist party, but they deserve the support and gratitude of all parties in Northern Ireland. They have gained the support of the Social Democratic and Labour party in Northern Ireland and deserve Sinn Fein's support.
  636
  I agree with the Democratic Unionist motion in one respect—the implicit importance that it attaches to district policing partnerships. I should like to make that importance explicit. The Patten report was clear about the role of district policing partnership boards, and said:
  "The function of the DPPBs should he advisory, explanatory and consultative. The Boards should represent the consumer, voice the concerns of citizens and monitor the performance of the police in their districts. Like the Policing Board, the DPPBs should be encouraged to see policing in its widest sense, involving and consulting non-governmental organisations and community groups concerned with safety issues as well as statutory agencies."
  The district policing partnerships will play a vital role as a bridge between the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the local community. I pay tribute to the role of the Northern Ireland Policing Board for working towards the establishment of district policing partnerships. I know that that process is well advanced—all the district councils have selected political members, and the first interviews for independent members have been held. Indeed, they were held in the constituency of the hon. Member for North Antrim. I understand that the district policing partnerships should be in a position to have their first meetings in February. I do not underestimate the impact that that will have on local communities. Councillors will be associated with a major new role, and I know they will play their part very conscientiously.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: Has the hon. Lady forgotten that elected representatives on councils in Northern Ireland served on police boards and advisory boards in all council areas, and made a contribution that way?
  Jane Kennedy: Not at all, I have not forgotten. I am grateful for the contribution of councillors, but the new district policing partnerships will take on new responsibilities and will play an important role in developing an immediate focus and feedback between local communities and district commanders as they develop community policing in a style in which, we all hope, it can grow and flourish in Northern Ireland. I have not forgotten the contribution that has been made in the past.
  I am glad to note that the Police Service of Northern Ireland is continuing to develop the role of district command units and, in that regard, I have just referred to the role of the district commander and district policing partnerships. The service published a policy document on policing with the community last year, and an implementation plan is now being finalised for wider distribution in the very near future. It is timely, therefore, that one of the amendments to the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 in the forthcoming legislation will reinforce the importance of policing with the community as a core policing principle.
  Let me consider the forthcoming policing measure. The motion is somewhat puzzling. More than a year has passed since the Government published the revised Patten implementation plan in August 2001. In it, we made a series of commitments to legislative change. The Government's aim is to develop a modern police service that is effective and widely accepted throughout the society that it serves. The changes for which the draft clauses provide will achieve that.
  Some hon. Members' reactions to last week's statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State disappointed me, but it would not be the first time that

  637
  I had been disappointed in my life in politics. The draft clauses that we published last week contained little that was new. They focused on the commitments in the revised implementation plan and some specific points that were included at the request of the board, on which the Democratic Unionist party has three seats, in the context of the recent review of policing arrangements. All the issues were discussed in the context of the policing review. Again, I pay tribute to all those who contributed to the review, including the DUP.
  The substance of the announcement was therefore yesterday's news. It simply set out the way in which the Government intended to deal with the commitments in legislative terms. Some hon. Members have tried to focus attention on the additional text for consideration that was published with the draft clauses. The hon. Member for North Antrim drew specific attention to it. Although I am the first to recognise that some of the issues are sensitive for many people in Northern Ireland, especially the question of whether former prisoners should be allowed to apply for appointments on district policing partnerships—there are different views throughout the House on the subject—its consideration is yesterday's news or even older.
  Lady Hermon: I appreciate that the Government are wedded to implementing the Patten report in full. Can the Minister pinpoint the recommendation in Patten for convicted terrorists to sit on district policing partnerships?
  Jane Kennedy: We undertook to review the question as a subject that emerged from the discussions at Weston Park. We published our intentions in August 2001.
  In publishing two separate texts, we tried to be clear and open to the House and to the people of Northern Ireland on the way in which we would take the matter forward. My right hon. Friend and I have made it clear that we would do that only in the context of the acts of completion that we discussed last week and that the hon. Member for North Antrim debated with the Prime Minister.
  David Burnside: I thank the Minister for confirming through her lack of response to my hon. Friend the Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) that the recommendation was not in the Patten report. Will she also confirm that there was no agreement with the Ulster Unionist party on those proposals at Weston Park?
  Jane Kennedy: We made commitments at Weston Park and we believe that it is essential that we honour them if we are to fulfil our aim of developing a police service in Northern Ireland that is effective, efficient and widely accepted by all the communities.
  David Burnside: All except the Ulster Unionists.
  Jane Kennedy: The hon. Gentleman will have the opportunity to make his point later. I appreciate—
  Mr. Andrew Hunter rose—
  Mr. Hugo Swire rose
  Jane Kennedy: Let me make the point that I appreciate the sensitivity of the issues for many in Northern Ireland. That applies especially to the question of the former prisoners. I am sure that we will debate it at length because it is such a matter of principle. However, the proposal is not new. In publishing two separate texts, we sought to draw the sting from the argument and avoid the accusation that we were doing a secret deal and planning to act secretly and in private. The proposal is published and hon. Members can read the way in which we would deal with the matter in the right circumstances.
  Mr. Hunter: With respect, this is not just a matter for the hon. Member for South Antrim (David Burnside) to mention in his speech. Do the Government accept that the Ulster Unionist party agreed to the proposition that they are putting forward? What is the Government's understanding of the UUP's position?
  Jane Kennedy: I think that the UUP will make its position clear.
  Mr. Swire: Will the hon. Lady assure the House that there were no discussions at Weston Park that could lead to the possibility of an amnesty for prisoners on the run, or of that category of people being allowed to serve on policing boards in future?
  Jane Kennedy: No, there were not, and if the hon. Gentleman reads the implementation plan, he will see that we also undertook to examine how we might resolve this issue. Everything that we have published in the recent draft clauses and in the text for consideration has grown out of that implementation plan. He will have noted that there is nothing in those texts that deals with those deemed to be on the run; that is a separate issue, which we are discussing and considering separately.
  During the passage of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 my noble Friend Lord Falconer made it clear in defending the current bar on ex-prisoners joining the district policing partnerships that it was the Government's hope that the sensitivities surrounding this issue would eventually subside. Clearly, that is not the case at the moment, but we will discuss the issue at length as we debate the legislation.
  Lady Hermon: As regards timing, it ill behoves the Government to table this amendment at this time, given that we have just had a series of very serious breaches of security, relating to the jurisdiction not only of Colombia but of the Republic of Ireland, and to Castlereagh, as well as the discovery of a serious spy ring at the heart of government in the Northern Ireland Office. Given that series of events, this is not the right time to introduce these proposals.
  Jane Kennedy: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for making that point. When we discussed these issues at Weston Park, we committed to considering this matter. Our consideration has covered both how the issues might be dealt with and whether the time is right to do so, which is the point that she has just made. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is not yet persuaded that the time is right to introduce changes in these areas, and it is precisely for that reason that we have published

  639
  the text separately. We have draft clauses that we hope will form the basis of a Bill, and separate texts that we may consider taking forward. We are not, however, going to take them forward at this time.
  Mr. McCabe: Will my hon. Friend explain how it can be tolerable for an ex-prisoner who renounces violence to stand for, and be elected to, the Assembly—and, perhaps, at some point, be responsible for policing in Northern Ireland—when it can never be tolerable for such a person to sit on a district policing partnership?
  Jane Kennedy: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, no less, made it clear that the concept of Sinn Fein or of former republican prisoners participating in policing while maintaining a private army was absurd. We could not be clearer than that. It is within that context that we are having this debate, notwithstanding all the sensitivities that it causes to arise.
  Helen Jackson: This is the crux of the matter. Will the Minister accept that the tabling of this motion puts the onus back on to members of Sinn Fein to include themselves—in the words of the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) in reply to my earlier intervention—and to take the crucial final steps towards moving into politics?
  Rev. Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I correct what the hon. Lady has said? At that stage, I was quoting the Secretary of State and those were not my words, but his. I made that absolutely clear. I do not want her to put the Secretary of State's words in my mouth. I shall talk to her outside the Door and tell her why, if she wants to know.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has answered the point.
  Jane Kennedy: Moving swiftly on, an editorial in the Belfast Telegraph last week said
  "when the guns have been silenced for good, anything is possible."
  The political scene in Northern Ireland has already changed almost beyond recognition, and our predecessors in the House may not have believed that much of what has happened would be possible. Having seen so much change, I believe that the House needs to retain an open mind about what may be possible in future. Just because something seems unlikely to any of us as individuals does not mean that it is impossible. We narrow our horizons and limit society's scope for development and progress if we close our minds to such possibilities.
  With that in mind, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I concluded that it would be right to show the republican movement in particular, but also the rest of society in Northern Ireland, how we might seek to achieve legislative change in future, in the context of the acts of completion envisaged by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at the Custom house in Belfast in October.
  By publishing the texts in such a way, we can be completely open and transparent with the House and with the people of Northern Ireland. We can open up the debate to focus on what checks and balances would be
  640
  needed to ensure that those changes could take effect without undue risk to policing. These are not easy issues, and without substantive debate with the elected representatives sitting in the House and more generally, we cannot be sure of having explored every avenue and having put in place all the necessary checks.
  Only those who fear the change to a truly peaceful and democratic future for Northern Ireland have anything to lose from that debate taking place openly, for, in the current climate, those clauses remain hypothetical proposals. The basis on which they could become reality relates to the context of acts of completion in a situation where the men of violence have turned their back on the past in such a way as to give everyone satisfaction and confidence, as the hon. Member for North Antrim said in respect of his reply from the Prime Minister.
  It may be, of course, that such a day never comes, but the people of Northern Ireland have achieved so much in the past few years that pessimism is misplaced and optimism about the future essential. That does not mean that we should either be foolhardy or ignore the risks, but it does mean that we should not shut the door to the possibilities. Therefore, I believe strongly that it is important for the debate on the text to take place.
  I welcome the opportunity to discuss these issues today; I know that we shall have many more opportunities in the weeks and months ahead. I hope that the hon. Member for North Antrim accepts that we discount neither the views that he expresses nor, indeed, the views of any of those in his party. We acknowledge the position that they take, and they are perfectly entitled to hold such a view.
  I hope that hon. Members take the opportunity to focus on the substance of the proposals rather than use them simply for political point scoring. The hon. Member for North Antrim should not assume that only Northern Ireland Members have an interest in those matters. He well knows that Members representing seats in England and Wales have constituents who were directly affected by the violence of the past. It matters to us all that these big issues are resolved. The future of Northern Ireland's policing is worth our serious consideration, and I know that it will receive serious consideration here today.
  5.29 pm
  Mr. Quentin Davies: Before I say anything else, let me deal with the issue of Weston Park. The Minister ought to know—but if she does not, let me tell her very straight—that Weston Park, and the so-called agreements that the Government claim to have reached at that meeting, have absolutely no parliamentary or legislative authority or endorsement whatever. The Government did not allow the House to debate those matters or to vote on them; they did not even have the courage or the forthrightness to make a statement about the meeting. There is therefore not the slightest even moral commitment to those agreements on the part of any Member, apart from Ministers if they so will it.
  The Minister has revealed that she does not even know whether one of the parties that took part in the Weston Park meeting is a party to one of the so-called agreements. That makes clear beyond peradventure that the word "agreement" is thoroughly inappropriate in this context, and that the Government are deluding themselves in a way that I find rather troubling.

  641
  Having said that, I want to pay tribute to the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) for initiating a debate on a crucial subject in Government time. The subject is crucial for at least two reasons. Northern Ireland is the part of the United Kingdom in which public order is most at risk, most frequently at risk and most consistently at risk; and, as we all know, the whole issue of policing is a major part of the peace process and of the necessary talks that we all hope will lead to a definitive settlement in Northern Ireland.
  I felt that much of what was said by the hon. Member for North Antrim was excessively pessimistic and negative. I agree with the Minister that he suggested that nothing had improved since 1998, which is not warranted by the facts. I also felt, however, that—in the best traditions of the Government over the past few years and months, and certainly over the past few months during which I have played my current role—the Minister was excessively sanguine. I know that she does not want to be complacent. From time to time she says—with, I am sure, complete sincerity—that she has no intention of allowing herself to be complacent. However, by reciting the particularly sanguine mantra that she has recited on many occasions, she puts herself in great danger of inducing unjustified euphoria in herself or in her ministerial colleagues.
  The picture is mixed. Some things have gone surprisingly well in Northern Ireland. I entirely agree with what the Minister said about the policing board, which is a shining example of that. I touch wood, as I do of necessity when at the Dispatch Box, but none of us could have expected the board to work as well as it has so far. It is encouraging that it got to work so rapidly and in such a businesslike fashion. It is also encouraging that it was able to resolve issues that, although largely symbolic, were nevertheless difficult—the uniform and cap badge, and the appointment of a new Chief Constable.
  Lady Hermon: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is essential for the proposed policing legislation not to undermine the central importance of the board, which is working so well? In particular, does he agree that it should not be undermined by an extension of the police ombudsman's powers?
  Mr. Davies: I agree with the general principle. I will not go into the details of the legislation today because this is a consultation period and we are still waiting for the Constantine report, which as far as I know has not yet been completed. It was supposed to be delivered at the beginning of December, but I have not seen it.
  I had intended to meet members of a number of relevant organisations in Northern Ireland today, but was unable to do so because of the debate. They include the chief constable, the policing board and the Police Federation. Although I have some ideas about what the hon. Lady has said and what the Government have proposed, I think it would be discourteous to make any pronouncement on behalf of the official Opposition without listening—in confidence and informally, of course—to what those important stakeholders in the whole process might have to say.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that the Police Ombudsman—who is a woman—will be
  642
  allowed to go backwards, or is she going to move forward? Our worry is that, under the proposals, it seems that she will have powers that can take her back into the past, whereas she should be dealing only with the present and the future.
  Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman again invites me down a long road, but I will not go down it now. However, I should say, since he has given me the opportunity to do so, that I admire the way in which the Ombudsman has tackled her task. She has already developed a reputation for independence in Northern Ireland. That is a great asset—in fact, it is an indispensable characteristic for the proper discharge of that function.
  Mr. John Hume: I want to repeat what has been said. The time has come to leave the past behind us, because if we keep on dragging it up, we keep on dragging up the problem. We should therefore look to building a new future together, but in leaving behind the past as it relates to the behaviour of the Unionist parties, and so forth, we should do the same in relation to all behaviour, and build a new future together.
  Mr. Davies: I totally agree with the hon. Gentleman—whatever we do, we must do it even-handedly and fairly. He has heard me use those two terms time and again in the past year, and we must always be reminded of them, but unfortunately they have sometimes been forgotten in many contexts. I should say that I am struck whenever there is agreement between himself and the hon. Member for North Antrim. It would be a brave man in Northern Ireland politics who wanted to take on both of the hon. Gentlemen on a particular matter.
  There are other matters that have gone favourably. In particular, I want to congratulate all concerned in the Police Service of Northern Ireland on the way in which the new recruitment programme has proceeded. That we should over-ride normal human rights criteria by establishing a quota for the two religious categories in recruiting to the Police Service of Northern Ireland is of course an anomaly. However, the Opposition strongly endorse the need—temporarily, at least—for that anomaly, so that we can try to get away from the distortions that we inherit from the past.
  Lady Hermon: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Davies: I shall, but if the hon. Lady will forgive me I shall not do so too frequently as I do not want to take up too much time.
  Lady Hermon: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way to me again. I understand that the Conservative party is in fact a pro-agreement party. The agreement twice makes provision for guaranteeing equality of opportunity, irrespective of religion. Why is policing legislation allowed to override the agreement by permitting religious discrimination in the recruitment of police officers?
  Mr. Davies: The hon. Lady is absolutely right—the Conservative party very much supports the Belfast agreement. She is a distinguished lawyer, and I thought that she would try to catch me out on this particular

  643
  inconsistency. However, I thought that I answered the point before she intervened, by acknowledging that the position is anomalous. If she wants to tell me that I am being illogical, she will win the argument. Unfortunately, to solve practical problems in life one sometimes has to accept anomalies and contradictions. Where a choice exists between two courses of action, neither of which is entirely logical or desirable in itself on first principles, one has to make a pragmatic judgment such as the one that I have set out. I should emphasise that, in doing so, it is very important to be aware that such an anomaly exists, and that a distortion is being introduced to counterbalance a worse one; one must not try to pretend that it is something other than a distortion or an anomaly. In any event, the provision is justified only over a temporary period; that is the basis on which it has been introduced, and on which we support it.
  Some aspects of Northern Ireland policing have not been going so well, however. The Minister, with a tendency towards a certain euphoria in these matters, skated over these issues. I am sorry that she did because she has fundamental responsibility for them, and I know that she conducts her responsibilities with enormous conscientiousness. She is very much aware of the facts; she probably genuinely worries about them every night and morning, but she does not want to come before the House of Commons—it would be contrary to the whole culture of new Labour to do so—and set out the facts, which are uncomfortable and disturbing.
  The fact is that police numbers are badly down. The Patten report provided for a police force of 7,500 men and women on the assumption of the establishment of peace and normality in Northern Ireland. The hon. Lady will have the exact figures—I do not—but the regular force in Northern Ireland is less than 7,000. That is a matter of considerable concern, and for the hon. Lady not to mention it was slightly artificial. Of course, we have a full-time police reserve, and I congratulate the Government on doing what we pressed them to do for months in renewing the contracts of the full-time police reserve when they came up in September. However, that only gives us a three-year time scale and it is very important to look forward to ensuring that the policing numbers in Northern Ireland are sufficient to meet the tasks that are, sadly, much greater and more formidable than Patten assumed they would be four and a half years after the agreement.
  Morale still appears to be low in the Police Service of Northern Ireland. I hope that I am wrong here and that the Minister can give me the right figure, but, according to newspaper reports, on average one man or women in ten in the PSNI reports sick at any one time. If so, it is very worrying, and I hope that something can be done about it.
  The Minister is also keenly aware of the constant threat of disorder and intermittent violence in inner-city areas in Northern Ireland, particularly Belfast. I am thinking particularly of Short Strand and west and north Belfast. Sometimes one thinks that the various measures taken to de-escalate the violence are working, but suddenly there is the disappointment of another outbreak. That is very worrying. I do not want to go into this in too much detail, but I should like to say something in public that I have already said to the Minister in private and to others in Northern Ireland—
  644
  the House will appreciate who I might be speaking to on these matters. It is important that we make it a matter of urgency greatly to increase the number of CCTV cameras in inner-city areas in Northern Ireland.
  Against this variegated background, which has both light and shade, the question is what the Government are doing about policing. They have been behaving very erratically. Following the initial consultation on the Patten report two years ago, the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), who is not in his place this afternoon, went out of his way to reassure Unionists. In his statement to the House of 19 January 2000, the right hon. Gentleman specifically downgraded the role of the district policing partnerships and deferred any decision on giving them powers to raise money to buy in additional policing services, which was in the original Patten report. In the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000, the right hon. Gentleman then introduced a number of safeguards in the relationship between the policing board and the chief constable to ensure that operational independence would be preserved. In an effort to reassure Unionists, he also introduced the disqualification on those with criminal convictions from serving as independent members of DPPs.
  Those are two areas in which the Government now propose to make changes in the reverse direction. They plan to reduce the grounds on which the chief constable can appeal to the Secretary of State to block reports and inquiries and to make it easier for the policing board to initiate such inquiries. The motion before the House makes it clear that the Government intend, subject to certain provisos, to relax the disqualification against convicted terrorists serving as independent members of DPPs.
  Mr. Tom Harris: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene. I know that he has given way on a number of occasions, so I will keep this brief. Are there are circumstances in which he would allow convicted former terrorists to take part in local police partnerships, given that the Government have already made a commitment that the peace process must be utterly completed before that goes ahead? In those circumstances, would he accept that such a change should be made at some point in the future?
  Mr. Davies: I think that I have had slightly more experience of conducting negotiations than the people who are currently responsible for Government policy. If we are going into wider negotiations with a view to reaching a comprehensive and timetabled settlement, as I have been urging on the Government for a long time, it is not sensible to put all one's cards on the table in advance. It is much more sensible to ensure that one puts one's cards on the table only when others are doing the same. There is something fundamentally wrong with the tactics pursued by Members on the Treasury Bench. The hon. Gentleman has been assiduous in his attendance at and participation in debates on Northern Ireland, which I welcome, so he knows that I have been developing my critique for a year. Indeed, the Government may even have accepted certain aspects of it—although they are not likely to give me any credit. However, there seems to have been some partial acceptance and I shall say a little more about tactics later in my speech.

  645
  The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart should get a good mark from the Whips because he cleverly intervened just as I was drawing attention to the most embarrassing aspect of the Government's behaviour—the blatant contradiction between the policing policies adopted by the right hon. Member for Hartlepool only two years ago and those that the Government are currently proposing. There has been a complete U-turn.
  The Minister will recall that when the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 was going through the House, the Government were constantly accused by nationalists of resiling from Patten in order to propitiate the Unionists. However, with this U-turn, the Government are being accused by Unionists of the contrary—of resiling from the Act to appease nationalists. If that is not contradictory, I do not know what is.
  I warn the Government against proceeding in that fashion because they are underestimating the intelligence of the people with whom they are dealing. The Government should not continue to underestimate the intelligence of the public as regards any aspect of policy and governance anywhere in the United Kingdom, even though they do so constantly, but they make a great mistake in doing so in Northern Ireland—as I am sure that the Minister, privately, realises already. The political intelligence of people on both sides of the divide in Northern Ireland is especially acute, because politics is an existential matter and people follow it extremely carefully.
  I hesitate to make my next point, although it needs to be said: people on both sides in Northern Ireland have an especially clear vision of history going back over many centuries. They are extremely conscious of their history as they see it. When one is presented with two different accounts of the history of the same place, it is often difficult to relate them. It is like looking at a mountain from opposite sides; one has to remind oneself that it is the same mountain.
  A feature of those readings of history is that in both cases there is a story of endless trickery or betrayals—or attempted trickery or betrayals—by the British. It is thus not very clever of the Government to do something that further undermines confidence in their straightforwardness or consistency.
  The Government should carefully think through their policies. They will not get away with easy card-shuffling tricks when they are dealing with people in Northern Ireland, as they should know by now.
  I do not believe for a moment that the Government have any intention of being duplicitous. They do not want to be two-faced, but they are in a frightful muddle because they have been going about the peace process in entirely the wrong way.
  The current muddle is only part and parcel of the general muddle that the Government have got themselves into over the peace process. The trouble is that they have used a tactic of making unilateral concessions and trying to do partial deals with one party, and then finding that they have upset another party, then trying to appease the others and then—my goodness—finding that someone else has been left out
  646
  and needs another favour, and so on. That is a hopeless way of conducting the peace process, but it is exactly what has happened over the past four and a half years, and it is a major reason why we have failed to make the progress that could have been expected following the Belfast agreement.
  Yet again, I beg the Government to rethink and to consider once again the need for interlinkage. The Minister of State has heard this from me many times before. No one in Northern Ireland will make a step forward without knowing what portion of the total price to he paid that move represents, what others will do in return, and by when, and what will happen if the commitments are not fulfilled. Everyone has to see the end-game and be part of a comprehensive deal, or we will have no definitive settlement.
  That is why partial proposals on individual aspects are a mistake. It would be far better for the Government to keep their cards close to their chest and hold discussions with all parties to find an agreement, which of course will never be completely satisfactory to everyone, but which they could all live with on a contingency basis. If I were Secretary of State, that is the point at which I would define my proposals, and not before.
  Jane Kennedy: When we undertook to examine how we could deal with the question of the disqualification from joining DPPs applying to former prisoners, it was in the context that Sinn Fein would support the new beginning to policing, but it failed to do that. We are now discussing a new set of circumstances in which it would not only support that new beginning but take the other enormous steps that we have debated. We believe that, in that context, it would be entirely appropriate to discuss the changes to legislation that we have proposed.
  Mr. Davies: Northern Ireland Office Ministers have demonstrated in recent weeks that they understand some interlinkage and contingency that are essential in this process, and there is no doubt that the way in which they have proposed changing the legislation is far better than the way in which they would have done it just a few months ago. To that extent, they have learned the lessons of the disappointments of the past four and a half years, and of course I welcome that.
  The Secretary of State was clearly in a difficult position, because the Government's legislative programme was in place before he assumed his new responsibilities. It would have been difficult for him to go back to first base, although that might have been desirable. He has presented a Bill with some proposals on policing, while the Government are publicising other proposals so that people can discuss them and understand that they might be enacted if certain conditions are fulfilled—they are contingent on certain "acts of completion" by Sinn Fein.
  I welcome that element of conditionality and contingency, which is exactly what I have been calling for for a year. Congratulations. I am very happy. However, it is unfortunate that this is only a partial learning of the lesson. If the Minister of State thinks through the logic of what she and her colleagues have done, she will see that everything should have been contingent, because there are so many issues involved,

  647
  quite apart from policing, including decommissioning, the military presence in Northern Ireland and the restoration of the institutions in Stormont. Those issues are all linked and it would be a frightful mistake to take any one element and say that we can deal with it separately or legislate on it in advance, before a comprehensive settlement is put together. That would be to limit the Government's flexibility and give away some of their limited currency for nothing in return, which is a foolish tactic in any context. Reducing flexibility would also make it harder for other parties to come up with imaginative solutions.
  In my view, the Government are about a quarter of the way in the right direction on tactics after four and a half years. I do not know whether that is an encouraging situation, although it is certainly more encouraging than if there had been no progress at all. It is still a long way from the concerted, strategic thinking that we need to handle a peace process as complicated and as important as the one that we have in Northern Ireland.
  5.56 pm
  Mr. John Hume: I entirely agree with the Government's assertion in the amendment that we have made substantial progress in creating peace on our streets. There is no doubt that the atmosphere is totally transformed from what it was a few years ago, but a 300-year quarrel—the past 30 years have been about the worst—is not healed in a week or a fortnight. There is no instant solution; there is a healing process, and what is required is a framework for that process. We have that in the Good Friday agreement. The healing process is under way, and there is no doubt about that. For the first time in our history—the importance of this has been underestimated—the people of Ireland as a whole, north and south—
  Rev. Ian Paisley: Aha.
  Mr. Gregory Campbell: Not again.
  Mr. Hume: Yes, this is important. This is only the second time I have said this, and the hon. Members did not even bother to listen to me the first time.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Hume: Yes, there should be order over there.
  For the first time ever, the people of the north and the south voted overwhelmingly on how they wished to live together. It is the duty of all true democrats throughout Ireland to implement the will of the people. That vote sent a clear message to the IRA. Historically, it has always said that it is acting in the name of the Irish people. If it now wants to do that, there must be a complete and absolute end to its violence, which it is clearly working towards, and more importantly, it must end its existence as a paramilitary organisation and devote its energies to building a new and peaceful society. [Interruption.]
  That vote also sent out a challenge to Unionists who oppose the agreement because, also for the first time in history, the whole of nationalist Ireland accepts the
  648
  principle of consent, which is a fundamental principle of Unionism: that there can be no change in Northern Ireland without the consent of the majority of the people. [Interruption.] It is no good saying that the principle of consent works only when one agrees with it. If the Good Friday agreement, which the people voted for, is brought down, it will be necessary for the two Governments to work together alone to solve the problem—and where might that leave the Unionists? It is the duty of all of us to implement the will of the people, and that means implementing the Good Friday agreement in all its aspects.
  The first principle of the agreement is respect for difference, and who can disagree with that? There is no victory for either side in the agreement; there is total respect for both identities. The second principle involves institutions that respect those differences—a proportionally elected Assembly, and all sections are there, and a proportionally elected Government in Northern Ireland, and all sections are there.
  The third principle—the healing process—is that the representatives of all sections should work together in our common interests, which does not involve waving flags at one another, but the real politics: social and economic development and, as I always say, spilling our sweat together, not our blood. As we work together, we will break down the barriers of the past and a new society will evolve based on agreement and respect for difference. That is the challenge that faces all people who truly want to solve this problem, but those who want to play Rangers versus Celtic matches all the time and are looking for victory will never solve anything by continuing down the road that they are taking.
  6.1 pm
  Mr. Gregory Campbell: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) and I wish to draw attention to the loss of morale that has occurred in the Police Service of Northern Ireland in very recent years, but before I do so I want to respond to some of the issues raised regarding the statistics on violence.
  The Minister referred to the level of violence that existed in the early 1970s. I often hear Government spokespersons, from the Prime Minister downwards, referring to the vast improvement that there has been in Northern Ireland, and they compare it to the early 1970s. With that comparison, they will get no disagreement from us. More than 400 people were killed in the early 1970s and significantly fewer people are being killed now, but the point is that the number of people being killed in the middle 1990s was declining year on year, until we had the Belfast agreement.
  Mr. Tom Harris: Would the hon. Gentleman contradict the figures that show that, in the three years leading up to the signing of the Good Friday agreement, 343 people lost their lives as a result of terrorist activities and that, in the three years following that agreement, the figure was 53?
  Mr. Campbell: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. The figures from the chief constable's report show that, in each of the three years before the agreement and the three years since, the statistics in

  649
  relation to bombings, shootings, kidnappings and explosives all show not just marginal increases of 5, 10 or 20 per cent., but increases of 100 per cent. and, in some cases, 300 per cent., so violence is increasing when compared with the period immediately before the agreement.
  I want to make it clear that this is a comparison not of Northern Ireland in 2002 with Northern Ireland in 1972, but of Northern Ireland today with Northern Ireland immediately before the Belfast agreement. With that comparison, there should be no dispute and no argument. The statistics show that more people are being injured and shot, that more bombs are being planted and that more violence is occurring now than before the agreement. There ought to be no dispute or argument about that.
  I now want to move on to police morale. The Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) referred to police recruitment, and I have to raise that issue again. Whenever we in Northern Ireland have a merit principle for police recruitment, every member of each law-abiding community is quite content and is prepared to support that recruitment principle because it is based on merit. So the best-qualified people, irrespective of their religion or politics, are recruited to become police officers to combat crime. Unfortunately, because of the Government's insistence on the 50:50 rule, we are not getting that. Instead, hundreds of people from the Unionist community who are suitably qualified, law abiding and want a career in policing are being told that they cannot have that career because of their religion. That is abominable, and it ought to be detested and opposed by every Member.
  Lembit Öpik: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that when I asked that very question during Northern Ireland questions last week, the Minister did not give the answer that I was looking for: specifically how she and the Government would address the very injustice that the hon. Gentleman describes?
  Mr. Campbell: I fully accept the hon. Gentleman's point, and it is not before time that the Government should address that specific point. The rule cannot be defended or justified. Every aspect of common law and any approach to the merit principle would suggest that the 50:50 rule must be abandoned.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: Is it not a fact that the chief constable is having difficulty in getting recruits from the United Kingdom because of the 50:50 rule? He told me that personally when I met him with my party.
  Mr. Campbell: Yes, the lack of recruits is precisely part of the problem in Northern Ireland. Part of the reason that criminal activity has increased is that fewer police officers are available on the ground, because hundreds of suitable applicants are being told that they are not acceptable purely on the ground of their religion. That is utterly reprehensible.
  Mr. McCabe: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Campbell: I will give way once more.
  Mr. McCabe: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I shall be very brief. I follow
  650
  his objections to the recruitment policy, but what would be his answer to the third report from the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs, which pointed out the problems of religious imbalance and said:
  "without some radical change in the force"—
  it was 1997–98, so the reference was to the RUC—
  "it will take a generation to redress the religious imbalance."?
  How would the hon. Gentleman tackle the issue if not by this approach?
  Mr. Campbell: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is simple: by the full implementation of the merit principle, so that every member of the Roman Catholic community in Northern Ireland and every member of the Protestant community in Northern Ireland who wants a career in policing can understand, when they complete their application forms, that their religious persuasion will play no part in their rejection or acceptance as police recruits, but that that will depend only on their ability to do the job.
  Lady Hermon: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Campbell: No, I am afraid that I will not give way any more.
  My answer would be the full implementation of the merit principle and that principle only. That might involve taking longer to redress the balance, but at least the entire community could be confident that people were being selected entirely on the grounds of their ability and merit.
  I now want to move on to some other matters that the Government appear to be prepared to contemplate today. We have included the integrity of policing in our motion. Her Majesty's Government's ongoing discussions with those who represent fully armed terror give no grounds for confidence in the Unionist community that the integrity of policing will be re-established having been undermined as a result of low morale, low numbers, 50:50 recruitment and increasing violence. We are hearing continuous rumours about the on-the-runs and the propositions being hinted at there. The lives of hundreds of prison officers are in jeopardy. They have been visited by the police and told that their names were found on computer files located in the spy ring at Stormont affair. Those people are in fear of their lives as a result of this entire scenario.
  In concluding my remarks, I have to refer to the issue of Weston Park, which has been raised several times. The Minister was approached and was asked several times to give her view regarding agreements entered into as a result of the negotiations at Weston Park. It would appear that, at the second time of asking, she was unable to confirm or deny which parties were party to the agreements that have flown from it. I remind the House that it was as a result of agreements at Weston Park that the institutions were re-established after they had been suspended on a previous occasion. The right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) was not only party to but benefited from that reinstatement. At the time of Weston Park, when the discussions about policing and on-the-runs were ongoing, not only were we told by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann that issues in relation to other substantive points would not

  651
  be brought to a conclusion, but that one issue, and one issue only, was on the table at Weston Park—decommissioning.
  Unfortunately, we now see the reality of what has happened as a result of Weston Park and the current scenario in which Unionist communities across Northern Ireland are completely opposed to the implementation of the Belfast agreement because of what they see happening to the police. The police are supposed to represent all of the community, and they can do so if and when the Government restore the integrity that the Royal Ulster Constabulary once had, which has been lost as a result of the many decisions that have been taken by the Government, both inside and outside the House.
  6.11 pm
  Mr. Stephen McCabe: When I heard the opening remarks of the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley), I wondered whether he was rehearsing a broadcast as we move towards election time. It reminded me of the many times that I saw him on television when I was a youngster growing up in Port Glasgow. He always displayed the same characteristics—leaping from rally to rally with his bowler hat and his flowing sash, always threatening to bring down an institution and always claiming no surrender.
  Listening to him today, although I do not intend my comments to be rude, I was saddened that, after all this time, and after all the loss that has occurred, his position has not changed at all. I find it distressing that he recognises no difference between the hideous killings that occurred throughout the 1970s and 1980s and the current position. I recognise that there is a problem with crime in Northern Ireland, and it strikes me that some of the problems that we witness currently have surfaced since the agreement, as the level of real, organised crime, which has posed as something else in the past, is now being exposed. We should have common cause in wanting to tackle that. The hon. Gentleman has done us no favours, however, in his lack of movement today.
  I wonder, when I listen to the hon. Gentleman, whether he would recognise an "act of completion" if it fell before him. I was brought up in the Presbyterian tradition, too, but I was brought up to believe that forgiveness is part of the system and that human beings can change. I wonder whether he recognises that.
  Mr. Nigel Dodds: The hon. Gentleman talks about recognising an "act of completion". Will he define "act of completion"? The Prime Minister will not define it, and the Minister refused to define it at Question Time last week.
  Mr. McCabe: I am referring to "acts of completion", and my assumption is that they take more than a single step. I realise that the hon. Gentleman and I may not share that viewpoint, but if we want to move forward, we may have to be prepared to accept that. That seems a basic point.
  In terms of the changes about which we heard in policing partnerships and the board, I thought that the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) perhaps did the Social Democratic and Labour party a
  652
  disservice, as it strikes me that the Government may have changed their position. I would be the first to concede that there has been a change in the position enunciated previously by the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson). The SDLP now seems to be playing an active role in the policing board. If, through its active and genuine participation, it has been able to suggest changes that will improve the situation, we should welcome that. I would not regard that not as an outrageous 180° U-turn, but as the kind of process for which we should aim, in which people involve and include themselves. If they can suggest changes on the basis of that behaviour, I would welcome it.
  Mr. Quentin Davies: I do not think that that is outrageous, and I did not use that term or imply that. I merely think two things. First, it is a U-turn, and I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman has recognised that. Secondly, for the reason that I mentioned, it is tactically inept and pragmatically undesirable.
  Mr. McCabe: We will have to disagree on both counts. I do not think that a change automatically signals a U-turn, and I do not agree that it is inept to accommodate change when people are playing a useful participative role. The kind of politics in which I believe suggests that when people are prepared to participate and play a useful and constructive role, we should listen to them and take them on board. I do not see anything inept about that. Indeed, were more people in the hon. Gentleman's party prepared to behave in that way, there might not be so few of them present in the Chamber, and so few of them in Parliament generally.
  The lesson that Sinn Fein should take from the behaviour of the SDLP is that a road exists, if it is prepared to recognise it. It should follow a similar route. It should be prepared to make it clear that it is totally committed to the democratic process and wants to make the policing arrangements work—I am speaking of Sinn Fein as a party. At that point, if Sinn Fein was prepared to participate in the policing arrangements in Northern Ireland, I would welcome that, as I would see it as a significant step forward.
  In terms of the wider question of the arrangements with regard to other groups and paramilitary groups, the position is straightforward. It has been made clear that those groups will not be able to participate in any shape or form until we have had the essential "acts of completion". I would certainly include in those a complete declaration that the war is over—
  Mr. Stephen Pound: Which has been made.
  Mr. McCabe: I would like the handing-in of weapons and an end to the violence, too.
  David Burnside: If there are convictions of members of Sinn Fein in relation to Colombia, Castlereagh or the present investigation into the spy ring, does that exclude it from the Executive or district policing partnerships?
  Mr. McCabe: Given that none of those matters has yet been determined, it would not advance the situation were I to speculate on it.
  To return to what I was saying, there is hope if we adopt an open approach. I am a little bemused by the Democratic Unionist party position—I confess that I always have been, so that is not new for me. As I understand it, however, the DUP is committed to devolution, although it has a tendency to destroy any institution that offers that way forward. In a funny way, it is the mirror image of Sinn Fein, because it is the party that wants to be half-in, half-out. It does not want to take part in any of the broad round-table talks in which movement might occur across the board—it wants back-door meetings with the Prime Minister and others to see if it can advance its case. I do not understand exactly what its problem is. It seems to me that it could make a commitment. It may wish to spend its time in this debate looking for a narrow definition of "acts of completion", but it could follow the Prime Minister's other statement. It could give the commitment that it is in favour of making the institutions secure and stable. For a party that believes in devolution, that would be an advance on its current position.
  On the policing arrangements, I am surprised that the police do not get more credit for what they have achieved. The new chief constable attended the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee recently, and my impression is that he has made a first-rate start. He has shown his capacity to deal with both sides. Whether he is dealing with loyalists posing as gangsters or the other way round or whether he is dealing with republican spies, the chap has shown us that he is prepared to do what he was put there to do. We should congratulate him on that.
  We should also be pleased by the significant rise in Catholic recruitment to the Police Service. The Select Committee was right to say that that was a major impediment to the performance of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. Unless measures are taken to tackle that problem, it will take a generation for change to take place. As in keeping with other things that the DUP party would like, I recognise that the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Campbell) would rather wait a generation for change to take place, but we do not have that time.
  Lady Hermon: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee found that the main cause of low Catholic recruitment to what was the RUC was the intimidation of Catholic families and Catholic members of the police force? If that intimidation were to be eradicated and reduced, that, rather than discriminatory recruitment policies, would encourage young Catholics to come forward.
  Mr. McCabe: It is true that intimidation was a significant factor, but I do not recall it being the only one. It is also true that the Committee concluded that it probably was not advisable to wait a generation for change. That point must be taken on board.
  I want to return to the problem of ex-prisoners. It is pretty clear that such people could not join the district policing partnerships at the present time. However, my understanding is that that is not what is on offer.
  654
  What is on offer is the possibility that, at some point in the future, ex-prisoners may be allowed to join the policing arrangements. As I said in an intervention on my hon. Friend the Minister, if we can tolerate ex-prisoners standing for the Assembly and perhaps being part of the Executive if they clearly dissociate themselves from violence and paramilitary means, I can certainly envisage a situation in which ex-prisoners could also play a part in the policing arrangements.
  I was bemused by what the hon. Member for North Antrim said about the current legislation, but my understanding is that it requires political and independent members of the district policing partnership to hold office until the next local elections, which are scheduled for May 2005. I therefore do not understand how the change that he fears could occur. There is some provision for additional appointments to be made to the Belfast board, but that is primarily because of issues that relate to the volume of work. The central anxiety may have been exaggerated.
  Mr. Hunter: We have sex registers for paedophiles. Their offences are so hideous that they should be remembered. Therefore, will the hon. Gentleman explain why there should not be a comparable system for former terrorists who have committed equally horrific crimes?
  Mr. McCabe: I understand that the hon. Gentleman has good reason to have strong feelings on this subject. However, if we were to keep registers of all the former terrorists who go on to play a constructive role in active politics across the globe, some people whom we now welcome here as statesmen would not get to play any role in politics whatever. We must be prepared to move on. When people are willing to renounce violence and to use exclusively democratic means, I am prepared to recognise that, and I hope that most people would, too. I would like to see the day when the Assembly and the Executive have the power to control policing in Northern Ireland. That is the day when the people of Northern Ireland will embrace their police force and have faith in it.
  6.25 pm
  Lembit Öpik: It is always interesting to hear the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley). Only yesterday I was walking in his constituency, and on the ancient stones of the Giant's Causeway. I was with my friend Ian Morrice, and he asked me what the hon. Gentleman was like. I said that he was indeed honourable and sincere, and held very strong positions that he described extremely clearly. I fear that I was so full of praise for the hon. Gentleman that Ian Morrice, who is planning to marry his fiancée Wendy in December, might invite the hon. Gentleman to conduct the ceremony. In that case, it would most definitely be a marriage made in Antrim.
  I have also learned that the hon. Gentleman's opinions are totally internally consistent. What he concludes follows logically from where he starts. I have come to the view that where I differ from him—I do not differ from him on all matters—it is because of his inbuilt assumptions. As others have already acknowledged, the hon. Gentleman and the Democratic Unionist party represent a considerable proportion of

  655
  the Northern Ireland community, who agree with the positions that he takes. For that reason if no other, it is important that we hold our debates with a spirit of respect for the proposals outlined in the motions.
  Over the weekend a degree of uncertainty has been thrown over the Northern Ireland peace process. Several newspapers reported that the IRA was poised to announce a series of major moves, including comprehensive decommissioning, but those stories were subsequently denied by the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Mr. McGuinness). The confusion is not surprising, or uncharacteristic of Northern Ireland politics, but it certainly makes today's debate poignant, not least because it forces us to ask questions about the degree to which the Good Friday agreement is central to the process and needs to be fulfilled. The paramilitaries have a significant role in rebuilding the fragile trust that the peace process has needed, which now exists in a slightly eroded form.
  Policing in Northern Ireland takes us to the heart of some of the measures in the agreement that the various parties say have not been implemented as was required. However, even here there is a complicating factor. We do not have the luxury of considering completion with regard to policing alone, but must consider the other factors that have been mentioned in the debate. The IRA's alleged spy ring in Stormont, the embarrassing arrests in Colombia, and some of the other issues that have been mentioned, make it clear that we must define an act of completion before it can realistically be achieved.
  With all that going on, it is hardly surprising that those sceptics who do not believe that the IRA will lay down its arms for good have to some extent been successful in forcing the suspension that we are faced with at the moment. Suspension was the least worst option, given that collapse was the alternative, but at all times in our discussions we return to questions of policing and to consideration of what the Government and the parties in Northern Ireland have done to make it possible for policing to be reformed so as to create consensus across the communities in Northern Ireland.
  We must consider to what extent the DUP's motion should attract support. When the hon. Member for North Antrim defended the words in the motion that say that the DUP does not consider Sinn Fein's representatives
  "fit to participate in the government of part of the United Kingdom",
  he is making a strong statement. He goes beyond my position, but my assumptions are different at the outset.
  I subscribe to the view taken by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), reiterated to a large extent by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe). Just because someone has a past does not mean that he cannot have a future. What qualifies Sinn Fein representatives to take their place in a Government in Northern Ireland is partly their ability to lead those who resist participating in the police force, and persist in participating in terrorism, towards a peaceful outcome.
  The hon.—and, indeed, reverend—Member for North Antrim knows more than I do about the difference between saints and sinners, but surely no one would suggest that members of Sinn Fein present
  656
  themselves as saints. However, there are leaders who are capable of bringing people towards accepting the Police Service of Northern Ireland as a more appropriate form of policing than the punishment beatings and other forms of intimidation that, sadly, have been used by some to justify the continued armament and organisation of paramilitary forces in both halves of the community.
  Lady Hermon: Would not it be helpful if the Sinn Fein leadership immediately condemned outright any attacks on PSNI recruits, whether Catholic or Protestant, instead of hesitating and constantly sitting on the fence?
  Lembit Öpik: Our discussion of Northern Ireland is becoming more nebulous, but the relevance of the hon. Lady's question is to underline how difficult Sinn Fein has found it to bring the hard-liners towards the moderates. It would be helpful if Sinn Fein gave not only a commitment to renounce the punishment-beating ethos that has dogged such a large proportion of Northern Ireland life, but an explicit statement that there should be no intimidation of any Catholic or nationalist who wanted to join the police force. Sadly, underlying intimidation makes it difficult for nationalists who want to join the police force to have the courage to do so, and their fear is understandable.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: IRA-Sinn Fein have officially issued and circulated a leaflet—the information has also been put on posters in their areas—telling their people to treat the new police service in the same way as they treated the RUC. That is an official document, issued and paid for by that party, and the policy is advocated by all their spokesmen, including their leader and deputy leader.
  Lembit Öpik: The hon. Gentleman makes an honest point. My interpretation of that action is slightly different. I think it tells us that just as we see open divisions among hard-liners and moderates on the Unionist side, we also see the symptoms of a mirror-image tussle going on between moderates and hard-liners on the republican side. One could conclude that everyone in Sinn Fein is a hard-liner, but I take a different view. Some moderation, which has had a stabilising effect, has been achieved by the people in Sinn Fein who have chosen to participate actively and publicly in the political process.
  I want to make an interesting analogy, which comes from watching the news in my younger days. I remember the hon. Member for North Antrim commenting on something called the third force, which was widely publicised as an armed militia on the Unionist or loyalist side. That was many years ago. He gave the impression of having an association with that armed militia, although I am not suggesting that he explicitly promoted violence in any way. One reason why the third force did not become a cohesive paramilitary force in its own right under that name was because the hon. Gentleman was willing and able to maintain stability among Unionists and loyalists. In effect, he did what I should like members of Sinn Fein to do. I want them to encourage an adherence to the Police Service of Northern Ireland in preference to an adherence to a militia that organises itself outside the law.

  657
  In addition, we have the opportunity to draw comparisons with the struggles among Protestants. The Ulster Volunteer Force and the Ulster Defence Association still enjoy a considerable degree of organisation and are behind some of the trouble that persists. If we are balanced about the discussion—we have talked about symmetry in Northern Ireland politics—we have to recognise that Sinn Fein is not alone in trying to bring its paramilitaries to order.
  David Burnside: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the hard-liners within Unionism, of whom I am proud to be one, whether in the Ulster Unionist party or the Democratic Unionist party, do not sit on the army council of any armed terrorist organisation, whereas Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness sit on the army council of the Provisional IRA, which is carrying out crime and terrorism?
  Lembit Öpik: I do not know enough about what goes on outside the Chamber of Stormont to know who is in what position, although I fully understand why the hon. Gentleman raises suspicions about the presence of those individuals on the army council of the IRA. However, that is not the key issue. If the supposition is correct, individuals such as Gerry Adams have a direct line of influence on hard-liners, who need to be convinced to come into the police service. I believe that a proportion of Sinn Fein members acknowledge that a peaceful political approach will deliver their outcomes more effectively than the paramilitary approach advanced by the IRA.
  I am sure that my assumption differs from those of Members of the Democratic Unionist party and I suspect we will not get alignment on this, because it is at the heart of the debate. Our responses to it will define how we choose to vote on the motion. If one believes that a large proportion of people in Sinn Fein and the IRA still think that violence will get the result they want, one should vote with the DUP. I think that the organisation has moved on, and for that reason I am sceptical of the DUP's position.
  The issue of concessions is interesting. The motion refers to concessions that have allegedly been made to buy off the IRA. I do not have a problem with making concessions to the IRA if they are defined as political progress towards equality in communities rather than a financial bribe. This is a matter more of semantics than of bribery. Any Government would negotiate towards peace by providing greater incentives for peace than for the continuation of violence. I suppose that is why we differ on that aspect of the motion.
  I also take issue with the motion's stance on allowing terrorists on to district policing partnerships. The case against that approach has been well made and I do not need to repeat it. What is interesting, however, is that the Government have made progress in defining more explicitly what needs to happen before ex-prisoners are allowed on to the policing partnerships. I am not sure that that was done on purpose, but the debate has moved on from whether there are cast-iron requirements to defining what those are. It is all about acts of completion now. As has been said, we have yet to
  658
  see what the Government mean by acts of completion. To his great credit, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green made an effort to define those acts. I have no doubt that Ministers will invite him to discussions, either to embrace his ideas or to shut him up. I am not sure whether the Minister of State is shaking her head at the former or the latter, but it cannot be both. The words "acts of completion" are vital, and we must have a clearer definition of them before those who are sceptical about Sinn Fein activity—and, perhaps, those who are sceptical about the amount of back-room dealing by the Government—are satisfied that there is transparency in these matters.
  It is clear that in their amendment the Government are congratulating themselves on the openness of their dealings. I suspect that many of us feel that there was more going on at Weston Park than there should have been. [Interruption.] I speak euphemistically, but I hear nodding from behind me, which suggests that I have more than a modicum of support, because it takes some effort to nod so loudly that one can be heard. There is an unanswered question, which, let us face it, concerns on-the-runs. I am concerned that a link could arise between our achievements in policing and the resolution of that issue. The Government need to learn that there must be symmetry in private as well as in public, because everything discussed in Northern Ireland will eventually come into the public eye.
  I turn now to the question of where we go next, and quotas. The Minister of State will know that I asked her a question about quotas at Northern Ireland questions, and the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Campbell) made a similar point a few moments ago. It is widely recognised that the police in Northern Ireland have not been effective in recruiting from the population at large, and there has been a lack of trust between the police and certain sections of the community. The two problems are clearly linked, and Patten rightly recommended changes to tackle both of them.
  I was pleased to hear from the Minister last week that 35 per cent. of those applying to join the PSNI over the past year came from the Catholic community, and I share her hope that that will continue. However, she did not answer my question about what will happen when the 50:50 rule goes wrong. The example that I gave concerned what would happen if a proportion of recruits, from one side or the other, dropped out? Would it be necessary to sack or make redundant individuals from the other side of the religious divide to maintain symmetry? What is the Minister's answer to the question—asked, I think, by the hon. Member for East Londonderry—about what will happen to the many people, allegedly on the Unionist side, who feel rejected on the basis of the 50:50 rule? I am not suggesting that we need to review legislation, but it would be appropriate for the Minister to give us some answers when summing up the debate.
  I was rather surprised that, in response to an intervention by the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon), the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) said something like, "If she wants to tell me that I am being illogical, she will win the argument." Logic is important in framing legislation, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman was not saying that if he were Secretary of State he would on occasion support illogical legislation.

  659
  The greatest illogicality—or perhaps simply a great surprise to me—is the fact that although the Liberal Democrats worked with the Conservatives, the Ulster Unionists and the DUP to oppose the 50:50 quotas when they were proposed during the proceedings on the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000, the hon. Gentleman now seems to be saying that the Conservatives have changed their view and accepted the quotas. That sounds, to use his phrase, like a 180-degree U-turn. People are entitled to change their view, but I am not sure what has changed to encourage the Conservatives to embrace that principle. We have already heard the strong opposition to it from the hon. Members who sit behind me. If the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford or one of his colleagues responds to the debate, perhaps we could have clarification on that point.
  We all agree that policing in Northern Ireland is a tough, dangerous job. It is about bringing law and order to a place where disputes are sometimes settled with fatalities. I support the work of the police in Northern Ireland and pay tribute to their courage. I know that the overwhelming majority in the police are not sectarian and have always been committed to peace.
  I hope that the acts of completion will be clearly defined by the Government, and that they will be delivered and matched by acts of good faith on the other side. Ultimately, politicians must make judgment calls, and although we have heard cynicism and scepticism about what the IRA intends to do, the ball is in its court; it can deliver something that will deliver peace. If it is to do that, however, and if the Government are to live up to the words in their amendment, acts of completion must be clearly defined.
  6.45 pm
  Mr. Tom Harris: I follow the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) by stating that the debate should have offered a more positive statement on the progress that has been made in Northern Ireland, but it gives hon. Members an opportunity to pay tribute to the immense bravery and commitment of the members previously of the RUC and now of the Police Service of Northern Ireland. I cannot imagine that there is a more difficult policing job anywhere in the United Kingdom than on the streets of Belfast and Londonderry. Every Member of the House should be extremely grateful for the work of the police during the many years of the so-called troubles.
  The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Campbell) said that police morale is particularly low at the moment, and I do not doubt that. I question whether unhappiness about the 50:50 recruitment policy is a greater cause of low morale than being the target of terrorist bullets and bombs, as was the case in the 1970s and 1980s. I should have thought that even with unhappiness about the recruitment policy, morale in the new police service is not as low as it was when terrorists regularly and systematically targeted officers.
  It is said that there is great rejoicing in heaven over a sinner repenting, and I am sure that, on the 50:50 recruitment policy, the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) falls into that category. I do not want to make political capital out of that. Surely on a matter such as Northern Ireland we should be prepared
  660
  to look again at statements that we have made and consider them seriously in the light of current events. I hope that if the Government had decided that they had been wrong on one issue or another, they would have the courage and honesty to come to the Dispatch Box and say so. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on doing precisely that.
  When it comes to being positive about the police service, we should bear it in mind that there have been several landmark events in the past couple of years, including the opening of the Office of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland in November 2000, the enactment of the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill and the establishment of police district commands in April 2001. On a matter that is pertinent to my other comments, last year the Chief Constable announced that he would be able to recruit more than 300 new officers, when the original target was only 260. Despite the reservations of some Opposition Members, the police service managed to recruit 40 more recruits than it told the Secretary of State it would be able to, even with the 50:50 restriction.
  Mr. Dodds: The hon. Gentleman referred to the morale of the police service and asked whether it is lower now than it was when people were being shot and so on. I am sure that he will accept that morale is low because many members of the service feel that they have been betrayed. What would the hon. Gentleman say to the chairman of the Police Federation for Northern Ireland, who expressed his disbelief at the plan suggested by the Secretary of State and claimed that it would prevent ordinary, decent people from joining the district policing partnerships? He said:
  "An independent appointee who has terrorist baggage is by definition far from independent. Appointing such people devalues the meaning of the word."
  Mr. Harris: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's intervention. I had intended to refer to that point later in my comments, so perhaps he will bear with me.
  Landmarks of the past couple of years include the appointment of the Northern Ireland Policing Board to replace the Police Authority; in November 2001, the first recruits under the new arrangements entered training, the policing board assumed its powers, and the Royal Ulster Constabulary changed its name to the Police Service of Northern Ireland for operational purposes, changing it formally on 5 April 2002. Most important, the Social Democratic and Labour party took up its responsibilities to participate in policing arrangements in Northern Ireland after decades of refusing to take part on behalf of its constituents. I congratulate the SDLP on doing so. The DUP's motion appears to reflect a desire to exclude more people from such arrangements, but we should be taking steps to ensure that Sinn Fein, too, faces up to its responsibility to participate in the policing board.
  I shall now explore the motion in more detail—perhaps in so doing I shall reply to the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds). DUP Members are urging the House to oppose
  "offering non-elected convicted terrorists places on district policing partnerships."
  I am curious about their objection: is it to non-elected members, or to people with terrorist convictions? If the latter. I am not sure what position they have taken until

  661
  now by agreeing to sit with Sinn Fein in the Executive and the Northern Ireland Assembly, and only abandoning it—[Interruption.] When the cameras are not there the DUP Ministers have worked well with Sinn Fein Ministers in the Assembly.
  Lady Hermon: It will help all hon. Members, especially the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Harris), to state that the reason why we object to people with terrorist convictions being members of district policing partnerships is the recommendation in the Patten report—the Government want that report to be fully implemented—that independent members of district policing partnerships should
  "provide expertise in matters pertaining to community safety."
  Can the hon. Gentleman explain how anyone with a terrorist conviction can bring with him or her expertise in community safety? That is our objection.
  Mr. Harris: I have great respect for the hon. Lady's views and for DUP Members. My point is simply that since the Government have already made a commitment not to appoint people with terrorist convictions to the policing partnerships at present—the time is not yet right—it would not be useful for the House to debate what qualifications such people need. The Government have said that the time is not yet right for such people to be appointed, and I for one am happy to accept that commitment.
  I have no doubt that I will be asked—I can see the question on the lips of Opposition Members—what my definition of completion is. The hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) mentioned the disbandment of the IRA, but that is not part of the Good Friday agreement, so if that is what his party seeks it is seeking something that is not to be found in the detail of the agreement.
  I am aware that at least one of my colleagues wants to speak, so I shall try to be brief. We in Scotland are used to members of nationalist parties continually talking down Scotland in general and its economic achievements in particular. I hear an echo of that in the DUP motion. The text of the motion is not rooted in reality. As my hon. Friend the Minister of State said, the process of achieving normality in Northern Ireland was never going to be completed overnight, but it is disingenuous of DUP Members—especially the hon. Member for North Antrim, for whom I have a great deal of respect and who is not nearly as scary in real life as he appeared to be when as a boy I saw him on television—to suggest that the threat to individual lives in Northern Ireland is greater now than it was when the Good Friday agreement was signed. That is simply not true. Look at the economic statistics, the jobs that have been created and the confidence created by the Good Friday agreement—not by the Government, but by the agreement and by the people of Northern Ireland who signed up to it. The confidence that that has inspired in the single community of Northern Ireland is something that we should respect, not talk down.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? He need not be afraid.
  Mr. Harris: I give way.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind the fact that never in the history of Northern Ireland has so much information been in the hands of Sinn Fein-IRA? That information is in the form of 1,000 documents containing people's names, addresses, details of their motor cars, the names of family members, where they are employed, what time they leave home, and so on. All that information is, for the first time, in the hands of the IRA—1,000 documents about people who serve the Government. Is that not a cause for people to be really concerned about what is happening?
  Mr. Harris: If the hon. Gentleman is referring to the alleged spy ring at Stormont, we all share his concern. It is a matter that should concern the security forces and does concern the Northern Ireland Office. However, his party stayed in the Northern Ireland Assembly for a long time before that event took place. In his speech today, he mentioned other events such as the Castlereagh break-in and the arrests in Colombia, but throughout that period his party—rightly—stayed in the Assembly. I have to ask whether the DUP walk-out a few weeks ago had more to do with the run-up to Assembly elections in May next year than with genuine concerns about recent security developments.
  I ask the House to support the amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. The motion does not reflect political reality in Northern Ireland, except as a cynical exercise in very early electioneering.
  6.57 pm
  Mr. Peter Robinson: This has been a useful debate. I hope that the Democratic Unionist party will have many more Opposition days—this is the first occasion on which my party has secured an Opposition day debate.
  I shall respond to some of the points made during the debate, but I hope that the House will let me make a few comments on my own account first. There are four main elements in the motion, the first of which is an awareness of the continuing terrorist campaign in Northern Ireland. I join my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) in denouncing loyalist violence. More and more, the Unionist community is seeing that loyalist paramilitaries are more interested in securing their own self-interest than in securing the Union or the position of the loyalist community. Their activities should immediately be brought to an end—they bring nothing but dishonour to the cause that they claim to uphold.
  Much has been said about the extent of terrorist activity on the part of the Provisional IRA. During the course of its so-called ceasefire, its members have murdered many people and have been involved in the shooting or paramilitary beatings of hundreds of people. We all know of its gun-running from Florida, its training activities with FARC guerrillas in Colombia, the raid on the Castlereagh special branch headquarters,

  663
  and its spying activities at Stormont—all from an organisation that purports to be on a ceasefire, an organisation that the Government continue to try to appease.
  The recognition by the Government of the need to suspend the Assembly marked their recognition that Sinn Fein-IRA were involved in unacceptable activity. It is difficult to understand the Government's logic—they suspended the Assembly because of bad behaviour by the IRA, but will restore it by making concessions to the IRA. When the Government accept that the IRA has not behaved, I cannot accept that it is prudent to make more concessions to get it to behave; that is simply attempting to buy the silence of the Provisional IRA.
  Lady Hermon: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is unacceptable that four elected Sinn Fein Members absent themselves from the House, and therefore do not make themselves accountable to Parliament for the activities of their armed wing in Colombia, Castlereagh and elsewhere? Would he not welcome them taking their seats and making themselves accountable to all of us and their constituents?
  Mr. Robinson: The Provisional IRA representatives who were elected to the House refuse to take the Oath and come to the House, but I believe that they should enter the House only if they are prepared to take an Oath to Her Majesty the Queen and abide by the principles set down by the Government of exclusive involvement in peaceful and democratic means. That is the way forward and should be the route of entry to the House and any other elected Chamber in the United Kingdom.
  The Prime Minister lectures the people of the United Kingdom about how unacceptable terrorist activity is when it relates to the activities of al-Qaeda or other terrorist organisations throughout the world. It is therefore rather hypocritical of him to accept in his own backyard those same activities being carried out by organisations associated with those terrorist groups—he cannot send out both messages at once.
  Several Members have found it difficult to accept the part of the motion that says that Sinn Fein-IRA are not fit to be in government. I should have thought that the argument was self-evident: an organisation cannot purport to represent the people of Northern Ireland through a Minister who is in charge of education but at the same time is a member of the army council of the Provisional IRA. What trust and confidence can anybody have in the representatives of Sinn Fein-IRA being part of the democratic process when they know that they are attempting to undermine the very principles of democracy on which the Assembly was established? It is a matter not simply of trust and confidence but of confidentiality and setting an example. The Provisional IRA is clearly still active in terrorism and has not accepted the principle that to enter the democratic process one must be exclusively committed to peaceful and democratic means.
  The reality is that the IRA is not shaping up for peace. In the past few months, there have been personnel changes at the top level of the Provisional IRA. There has been a significant change in the army council: the most ruthless killer and thug in the ranks of the
  664
  Provisional IRA—Sean Gerard Hughes, who has been linked to many murders on this side of the water and in Northern Ireland—has been brought on to it. He has been linked to the south quay bombing in Canary Wharf, which brought the previous IRA ceasefire to an end in 1996 and in which two citizens were killed. He was also responsible for the murder of 12 soldiers at Warrenpoint, the mortar bomb in Newry and the killing of Justice Gibson and his wife. Does it sound like the IRA is putting a dove on its army council? If a dove was anywhere near Sean Gerard Hughes, he would kill it, but not until he had tortured it—that is what he has done to many of the victims of his organisation, and he was directly linked to those murders.
  It is clear that the IRA is not shaping up for peace but is putting one of its most ruthless terrorists on to its army council, which is not consistent with the picture that the Government are attempting to paint of the intentions of the Provisional IRA and its political representatives in Sinn Fein.
  Other behaviour by the IRA is not consistent with the picture painted by the Government. It still intends to use the principle of the threat of violence and its execution, turning the tap on and off to extract concessions from the Government. I agree entirely with the Conservative spokesman about the Government's tactics. Even if I agreed with the direction in which the Government say they want to go, I would never use their tactics. We have seen how they used those tactics in relation to decommissioning and terrorist prisoners. They let all the prisoners out and hoped that the IRA would come along and decommission its weapons. The Government made no attempt to extract concessions through the process.
  Once again, the Government are using those same tactics. We are upfront, but the Government suggest that they will do something for Sinn Fein if it does something in return. Sinn Fein, however, will simply pocket that concession, and will look for something new from the Government to make the concessions that it wants. The Unionist community does not regard those things as concessions—it does not believe that disbanding an organisation that should not have been there in the first place is in any way a concession either to it or politics in general. Nor does it believe that it is a concession to hand in illegally held guns, as they should not have been possessed in the first place. The Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and, indeed the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office have got it entirely wrong by making further concessions to the IRA.
  The Social Democratic and Labour party, one of whose members has made a brief appearance today, has referred to the police being used as a political football. It, however, used the police as a political football by dragging them into the Belfast agreement. The only problem for the SDLP is that it does not want anyone to unravel what it has managed to put together as part of a political deal. The police have been used abysmally recently, and their morale has indeed hit rock bottom. The sickness rate, which has been referred to today, indicates the low morale in the Police Service.
  I, of course, am opposed to the making of terrorist concessions—it is not right that convicted terrorists should be members of a policing partnership, as that will not encourage anyone else to join those partnerships.
  Mrs. Iris Robinson: Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be the ultimate insult to allow former terrorist prisoners to be part of the district policing partnerships, given that one of Sinn Fein-IRA's main objectives was to kill and maim police officers? To this day, they continue to gather information on police personnel.
  Mr. Robinson: Of course I agree. Some of the arrangements for district policing partnerships are about a relationship between the partnership and the police. How can the police have confidence in a policing partnership whose membership includes people who have targeted and killed their colleagues in the past? Confidence and trust cannot exist in those circumstances. If the rules that the Government are attempting to change to bring convicted terrorists on to policing partnerships had been in place a year ago, I suspect that Denis Donaldson could have sought and gained membership of a policing partnership. The Government suspended the Assembly because a spy ring came to light and Government details got into the hands of a terrorist organisation, yet the Government suggest putting terrorists on police partnerships, where they can gather more information. That seems a peculiar rationale, and it stands logic on its head.
  The Minister suggested that a leap of faith was required. She related that to what is generally known as taking a risk for peace. One cannot take a risk with the lives of people in Northern Ireland. The issues that we are considering are much too important; the Government cannot afford to take risks with them. The Government would be in a position to determine whether Sinn Fein had delivered on its end of the bargain, which they are trying to establish only after a period of time.
  Some hon. Members said that if someone has a past it does not mean that they do not have a future. As a Christian, I believe that. I believe that lives can be transformed and that people can be redeemed. However, the first signal of redemption is repentance. Sinn Fein-IRA has shown no repentance. The second signal is changing one's life. There has been no change on the part of Sinn Fein. The Government could assess only after a long time whether it deserved the sort of concessions that they propose in the second schedule to the draft Bill and that they have offered to Sinn Fein-IRA.
  I do not wish to take time from the Under-Secretary's reply, but I want to respond to one matter. It was suggested that the Democratic Unionist party should make its position clear about whether convicted terrorists should be part of an Executive. It was implied that we were comfortable with that, but we voted against it in the referendum and we voted in the Assembly for the exclusion of Sinn Fein. As an Assembly Minister, I never attended a Cabinet meeting. I did not go to the Executive because of the presence of Sinn Fein-IRA. I could operate in the role only because decisions could be made entirely in my Department. The Democratic Unionist party's position is clear: there is no place in government for those who are inextricably linked to violence and those who represent an unrepentant and armed terrorist organisation. That is unacceptable in the Executive and in policing partnerships.
  7.12 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Angela Smith): We have had a long debate in which many views have been aired. I thank all hon. Members who contributed. Like the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), I welcome the discussion and the exchange of views. There are several opinions that I cannot share, but I respect the depth of feeling about them, and the reasons for their expression.
  Hon. Members should welcome the Government's openness in publishing an additional text for consideration with the draft clauses. The Government are right to be open and transparent about their thinking. They are also right to be firm in making it clear that no moves will be made about former prisoners sitting on district policing partnerships as independent members except in the context of acts of completion.
  The proposal depends on acts of completion. My hon. Friend the Minister made that clear this evening, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State stressed that last week, and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister emphasised it in his speech in Belfast in October and in response to the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) in Prime Minister's questions last week. It is worth repeating the Prime Minister's words. In October, he said that republicans must
  "make the commitment to exclusively peaceful means, real, total and permanent … We cannot carry on with the IRA half in, half out of this process … There is no parallel track left. The fork in the road has finally come."
  In response to the hon. Member for North Antrim on 27 November, the Prime Minister said:
  "It is not merely a statement, a declaration or words. It means giving up violence completely in a way that satisfies everyone and gives them confidence that the IRA has ceased its campaign, and enables us to move the democratic process forward, with every party that wants to be in government abiding by the same democratic rules."—[Official Report, 27 November 2002; Vol. 395, c. 309.]
  David Burnside: What are the acts of completion? The Government set a date of 2008 as the deadline for the completion of decommissioning. That does not inspire confidence.
  Angela Smith: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman cannot accept the assurance. The Prime Minister's words are clear. He referred to exclusively peaceful means that are real, total and permanent and that satisfy everyone and give them confidence. I do not understand how we can be much clearer about the Government's intentions. I am sorry that hon. Members are not prepared to rely on that.
  Let me consider specific questions.
  Lembit Öpik: Will the Under-Secretary give way?
  Angela Smith: I shall try to take questions later, but I am short of time and I want to respond to hon. Members' points.
  The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) praised the Government for publishing the additional text for consideration. He said that it was right to do that. I was struck by the comments of the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume). He said that we

  667
  cannot heal in a week or a fortnight but that the healing process was under way through the Good Friday or Belfast agreement. He outlined the challenges, which were evident from our debate.
  My hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe) and for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Harris) praised the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the chief constable for their work in tackling violence and criminality wherever they occur and whoever perpetrates them. The work of the organised crime taskforce shows the Government's commitment to tackle organised crime from paramilitaries or any other source.
  The hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) asked about the Patten report and former prisoners serving as independent members on district policing partnerships. Patten did not recommend that they should or should not serve. He said that district policing partnerships should have a mix of political and independent members and that the rules for independent members might be put on equal footing with those for political members. Former prisoners can already serve on district policing partnerships as councillors. They are therefore eligible for appointment as political members, but the Government have made it clear that that is conditional on acts of completion in the future. The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford welcomed that comment.
  Lady Hermon: I am grateful to the Under-Secretary for giving way and am pleased to see the Minister on the Front Bench for the winding-up speech.
  I want to draw to Ministers' attention the careful wording that Chris Patten used on the day that the report was published. He warned
  "strongly against cherry-picking from the Report."
  He clearly recommended that
  "independent members should be selected to represent business and trade union interests and to provide expertise in matters pertaining to community safety."
  Angela Smith: The hon. Lady picks out a point from the Patten report that will be discussed in the long and detailed debates on the Bill.
  The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford welcomed several points in my hon. Friend the Minister's speech. I welcome his comments about the policing board and the way in which it has operated. I regret that I could not welcome all of his remarks. He accused us of underestimating the intelligence of the people of Northern Ireland. I assure him that, from the short time that I have been a Minister in Northern Ireland, I am not likely to do that.
  The hon. Gentleman also accused the Government of easy card shuffling tricks. The issues are complex and such accusations are unhelpful. The Belfast agreement is not for renegotiation. He should consider how far it has brought us and what we have gained from it.
  The hon. Gentleman asked about police manpower. The Patten report said that there should be a minimum of 7,500 officers on the basis of peace and normality in Northern Ireland. Paragraph 13.9 states that
  "the approximate size of the police service over the next ten years should be 7,500 full-time officers."
  668
  There are currently approximately 6,900 full-time regular officers and almost 2,000 full-time reserve officers. Since last November there have been 580 recruits and more than 200 are currently in training. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will welcome that.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart and the hon. Members for East Londonderry (Mr. Campbell) and for North Down asked about the 50:50 recruitment policy and whether it applied to civilians. Paragraph 15.9 of Patten makes it clear that the ratio should apply to officer and civilian recruitment. It is a shame that the hon. Member for East Londonderry cast aspersions on the merits of officers who are recruited under the 50:50 policy. I assure him categorically that there has been no dilution in the quality of police officers. I hope that he will accept that.
  Mr. Jeffrey M. Donaldson: Will the Under-Secretary give way?
  Angela Smith: The hon. Gentleman has not been present for the debate and I am therefore reluctant to give way to him.
  Concern has been expressed about 50:50 working. If the measure does not work, the Act makes provision for it to be set aside, but there is no evidence that 50:50 recruitment is not working. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) asked whether, if a Catholic trainee resigned, a non-Catholic trainee would also have to resign. It is patently absurd to suggest that that would be the case. There would have to be no such resignation.
  The hon. Member for North Down made a point about intimidation. I take on board the seriousness that she attaches to that issue, and I commend her for doing so. Intimidation is clearly a major factor, and we all want to see it end immediately. There are other factors involved in these issues, however, including a lack of identification with the Police Service, and the fear of a loss of contact with family, friends and community. I have to say that a lack of encouragement from community leaders also plays a part. It is time for leaders from all parts of the community to encourage support for the police, and also for them to stop coming out with this nonsense that we have somehow diluted the ability of the police by introducing 50:50 recruitment. The PSNI can recruit enough trainees: 540 have been recruited this year, even though Patten envisaged only 370.
  The hon. Member for North Antrim asked whether 50:50 recruitment would prevent the chief constable from recruiting officers from Great Britain. Such recruitment occurs at constable level, so the chief constable is not prevented from bringing in experienced officers from elsewhere, and we must ensure that we bring in such officers more quickly. If the policing board were to ask for an exceptional measure to help to facilitate that, we would, of course, consider such a request very carefully, but there is no obstacle to the chief constable bringing in on secondment officers from Great Britain at any level. I hope that that answers the hon. Gentleman's question. He asked whether the ombudsman's powers to investigate would be retrospective; that is not our intention. He also asked whether her powers had been restricted. We do not

  669
  believe that the draft clauses have that effect. It seems right, however, that, in circumstances in which she may play a similar role to that of the policing board—for example, in investigating police policies and practice—she should be subject to the same caveats in relation to information that she may seek from the chief constable.
  I would like to thank all hon. Members for their contribution to the debate. It has been a helpful debate in the context of the Bill, but, without the agreement—some hon. Members have made it clear that they are very unhappy about the agreement and do not support it—there would not have been the relative peace that we have seen in recent years. I accept that the situation is imperfect, but it is certainly better than what we have experienced in years gone by. In my first week in Belfast, a bomb was defused in the city centre. On the Friday evening, I was stopped and welcomed by a Belfast resident who discussed with me what had happened that day. She said, "When I heard about the bomb today. I wondered whether we were going to go back to how it was." She told me how scared she had felt that this could herald a return to the situation in which she had grown up. She did not want her children to grow up in a similar environment. It says far more than any statistics I could read out at the Dispatch Box that she felt that her children's lives were different from the life that she had had as a child.
  The critical condition that must be met if the agreement is to operate fully is that we obtain an assurance from all those involved that they are committed to the exclusive use of peaceful means. I repeat the Prime Minister's words from his speech on 17 October, in which he said that republicans must
  "make the commitment to exclusively peaceful means, real, and total and permanent",
  and that we cannot carry on
  "with the IRA half in, half out of this process".
  The fork in the road has come.
  In our view, the future of Northern Ireland is best guaranteed by the fullest possible implementation of the agreement, which, crucially, means democratic politics, with violence entirely removed from the picture. That is what the House wants, and I also think that it is what the people of Northern Ireland want.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 6, Noes 298.

  Division No. 14]

  [7:24 pm

  AYES

  Burnside, David

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Dodds, Nigel

  Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Hunter, Andrew

  Mrs. Iris Robinson and

  Paisley Rev. Ian

  Mr. Gregory Campbell

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Bailey, Adrian

  Alexander, Douglas

  Baird, Vera

  Allen, Graham

  Banks, Tony

  Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

  Barron, rh Kevin

  Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

  Battle, John

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Bayley, Hugh

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Beard, Nigel

  670

  Beckett, rh Margaret

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

  Beith, rh A. J.

  Farrelly, Paul

  Benn, Hilary

  Fisher, Mark

  Benton, Joe (Bootle)

  Flint, Caroline

  Berry, Roger

  Follett, Barbara

  Best, Harold

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Betts, Clive

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Blackman, Liz

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Blizzard, Bob

  Foulkes, rh George

  Borrow, David

  Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Gerrard, Neil

  Breed, Colin

  Gibson, Dr. Ian

  Brennan, Kevin

  Gilroy, Linda

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L

  Godsiff, Roger

  Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

  Goggins, Paul

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Bryant, Chris

  Grogan, John

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Hain, rh Peter

  Burden, Richard

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Burgon, Colin

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Burstow, Paul

  Hanson, David

  Cable, Dr. Vincent

  Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

  Caborn, rh Richard

  Cairns, David

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Caplin, Ivor

  Healey, John

  Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

  Heath, David

  Challen, Colin

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Chaytor, David

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Chidgey, David

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Hodge, Margaret

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Holmes, Paul

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

  Hoon, rh Geoffrey

  Hope, Phil (Corby)

  Clelland, David

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

  Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

  Coaker, Vernon

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Coleman, Iain

  Howells, Dr. Kim

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

  Cooper, Yvette

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Corston, Jean

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Cousins, Jim

  Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

  Crausby, David

  Hutton, rh John

  Cruddas, Jon

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Illsley, Eric

  Cummings, John

  Ingram, rh Adam

  Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack (Copeland)

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jamieson, David

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Jenkins, Brian

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Davidson, Ian

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

  Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Keen, Alan (Feltham)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Keen, Ann (Brentford)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Kemp, Fraser

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Dobson, rh Frank

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Kidney, David

  Doran, Frank

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Edwards, Huw

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Efford, Clive

  Lamb, Norman

  671

  Lammy, David

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Purchase, Ken

  Laws, David (Yeovil)

  Quin, rh Joyce

  Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Leslie, Christopher

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

  Raynsford, rh Nick

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Linton, Martin

  Reid, rh Dr. John (Hamilton N & Bellshill)

  Love, Andrew

  Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

  Rendel, David

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  McCabe, Stephen

  McCartney, rh Ian

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  McDonnell, John

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Rooney, Terry

  Mclsaac, Shona

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  McKechin, Ann

  Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Ruane, Chris

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Ruddock, Joan

  McNulty, Tony

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  MacShane, Denis

  Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  McWilliam, John

  Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Salter, Martin

  Mallaber, Judy

  Sanders, Adrian

  Mandelson, rh Peter

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Sawford, Phil

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

  Meacher, rh Michael

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Michael, rh Alun

  Skinner, Dennis

  Miliband, David

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Miller, Andrew

  Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Mole, Chris

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Moonie, Dr. Lewis

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Moore, Michael

  Soley, Clive

  Morley, Elliot

  Spellar, rh John

  Morris, rh Estelle

  Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

  Mountford, Kali

  Stevenson, George

  Mudie, George

  Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

  Mullin, Chris

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Stoate, Dr. Howard

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

  Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  O'Neill, Martin

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Öpik, Lembit

  Tami, Mark (Alyn)

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

  Palmer, Dr. Nick

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Pearson, Ian

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Perham, Linda

  Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  Thurso, John

  Plaskitt, James

  Tipping, Paddy

  Pollard, Kerry

  Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

  Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

  Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

  Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

  Truswell, Paul

  Pound, Stephen

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

  672

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Winnick, David

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

  Woodward, Shaun

  Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

  Woolas, Phil

  Ward, Claire

  Worthington, Tony

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

  Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

  Watts, David

  Wright, David (Telford)

  White, Brian

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

  Mr. John Heppell and

  Willis, Phil

  Mr. Jim Murphy

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
  MR DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House welcomes the enormous strides towards a more peaceful society in Northern Ireland and the significant developments in policing that have been achieved in recent years; further welcomes the changes to policing proposed in the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill; in particular endorses the Government's view that the time is not yet right to allow unelected ex-prisoners to serve on district policing partnerships; and further welcomes the Government's openness in sharing with this House and the people of Northern Ireland its thinking on how this might be achieved in the future, in the context of acts of completion on the part of paramilitaries.
  Mr. John Gummer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Have the Government approached you wishing to make a statement about the significant changes in the way in which they intend to deal with smallpox? They appear to have made at least two statements to the press, but none to the House of Commons. Could you ask whether there has been a mistake and the message has not yet reached Mr. Speaker?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): I know of no such statement.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Why did the House not divide on the amendment to the motion, although strong voices were saying "No"? Has the House so little power now that even a tiny minority cannot express its freedom?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman ever has any difficulty in expressing his thoughts. It is for the Chair to decide whether Divisions are called.

  Convention on the Future of Europe
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Before I call the Secretary of State, I must inform the House that Mr. Speaker has not selected any of the amendments tabled to the Government motion. Let me also say that the debate is limited to three hours. There are four Front-Bench speakers—five including the Liberal Democrat—and Back-Bench speeches must be limited to 12 minutes. I hope that Front-Bench speeches will be as brief as possible; if not, there will be very little time for any Back-Bench speeches.
  7.42 pm
  The Secretary of State for Wales (Peter Hain): I beg to move,
  That this House endorses the strategy of Her Majesty's Government in the Convention on the Future of Europe to establish structures for a Union of sovereign member states; rejects the alternative of a federal superstate; and resolves that the Order of 12th June 2002 relating to the Standing Committee on the Convention be renewed for the current Session of Parliament.
  I am grateful for the opportunity to speak as the Government's representative on the convention, which is designing a new political architecture for a new Europe. The debate also gives me an opportunity to be accountable to the House, and in that spirit I will be generous in accepting interventions.
  We are at a defining moment in the history of the European Union, and the convention has two great tasks. The first is to make a success of the EU's biggest ever enlargement, with 10 countries joining our 15; the second is to reconnect the EU with its citizens. Within 18 months, 10 new countries will be able to share in Europe's success story—50 years of peace, stability and prosperity, and extraordinary achievements such as the single market and the single currency. But the institutional architecture devised for six nations is barely working for 15, and must be reformed to work for 25 or more.
  As the Prime Minister said in his speech in Cardiff last week, we need a new constitutional order for a Europe reunited after the bitter legacy of the cold war. Our vision is of a Europe of sovereign nation states cooperating to tackle shared challenges such as pollution, international crime, terrorism and the need for economic growth. Our vision is of a Europe with full employment, social justice, democracy and human rights—a Europe that is a leader in the world, with Britain as a leading European power; a Europe that is a global force for good, aiming to banish international poverty, injustice and oppression.
  Alan Howarth: The social stresses generated in the weaker areas of the eurozone by the single interest rate and the single currency will obviously require substantially increased transfers of public expenditure from the richer to the poorer countries in that zone. Under what political authority has the convention envisaged that such transfers should be approved, and what arrangements for democratic
  674
  accountability has my right hon. Friend told the convention that he considers constitutionally acceptable?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before the Secretary of State answers, let me repeat what I said earlier about interventions and responses to them.
  Peter Hain: I welcome my hon. Friend's question. Let me simply say that the single currency has not featured in discussions in the convention, at least so far.
  The convention is a new way of doing business, with representatives of Governments not from member states but from candidates, and European and national parliamentarians. It was set four tasks by the Laeken European Council last December.
  Llew Smith: Does the Secretary of State recall the fine articles he used to write saying that the single currency was unacceptable, that decisions were being made by bankers who were neither elected nor accountable, and that voting would become increasingly irrelevant?
  Peter Hain: As I said, the single currency has not been discussed in the convention. I will happily answer the question, however. The single currency is a reality in Europe. Whatever debates we had 10 years ago, we must face up to that. Will Britain remain isolated for ever—if the Opposition's policies are adopted—or will we make a common-sense decision based on economic circumstances? That is the question.
  Mr. Graham Allen: Just before my right hon. Friend finishes his very short speech—[Laughter.] My right hon. Friend said that this was a defining moment in European history. Will he elaborate a little on how the Government see Parliament's role in endorsing a European convention, and also how he sees the electorate's role in defining a constitution that may govern them for many decades?
  Peter Hain: One reason for my presence tonight is Parliament's importance in the debate. That is why I am accountable to Parliament. As my hon. Friend knows, however, if any treaty emerges from the convention's discussions following an intergovernmental conference it will be a new treaty, which, in the normal way, will require legislation here. The House will determine its position on that treaty. In the meantime, I think a debate is needed. That is why I spoke at a Foreign Office convened conference of local authorities last week and why I am joining any discussions that it is practical for me to join, as are other members of the convention team representing the House.
  Mr. Allen: Will my right hon. Friend also answer the second part of my question—about the involvement of the people who will be governed by this constitution? Every western democracy that has had a constitutional settlement has involved the people. However difficult it may be, will my right hon. Friend consider how that can be achieved?
  Peter Hain: The people are involved, through Members of Parliament such as my hon. Friend. That is the proper way to deal with matters such as this.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: The Secretary of State has emphasised the importance of democracy and of Members of Parliament expressing their views. Can he explain a rather unusual motion passed on 12 June, which states that the Standing Committee on the Convention is not allowed to express an opinion of any sort on the work done by the commissioners, and can pass only a motion saying that it has considered the report from the United Kingdom representatives to the convention? If the Secretary of State believes that Members of Parliament should express a view, would it not be right to allow the Committee to express a view on whether what has been decided is good or bad for the people, or irrelevant in some respect? Is it not an insult to democracy to establish a Committee that is prevented from expressing a view of any sort by a motion?
  Peter Hain: I am trying to make progress as you asked me to, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I will take interventions.
  Parliament decided on the procedure, which is open and democratic. We have our own parliamentary representatives, who are present in the Chamber this evening, and the hon. Gentleman and everyone else will have a chance to question them. Indeed, they have already given evidence to a Joint Committee.
  As I was saying, last December the Laeken European Council set the convention four tasks: to achieve a better division and definition of EU competences, simplification of the EU's instruments, more democracy, transparency and efficiency, and consideration of a new constitution. British representatives are playing a full and constructive role, and I welcome the contributions of Members of both Houses.
  As the Government's representatives on the convention, Baroness Scotland and I have participated actively in its plenary proceedings and working groups. We are thinking radically and building alliances for British ideas to secure reform, in order to create our kind of Europe, but we are also listening. We have not gone into the convention with a rigid British blueprint; we have asked questions and entered into real discussions about reform, rather than simply repeating the same old nostrums. Where there are arguments to be fought on points of principle, we are getting stuck in. Where good ideas are proposed, we are embracing and fine-tuning them to make the system deliver what our citizens want.
  Mr. David Chaytor: In the context of good ideas that need to be proposed, does my right hon. Friend agree that the future of the 1957 Euratom treaty, which has dominated energy policy in Europe for the past 50 years, needs to be on the convention's agenda, with a view to being included in the discussion at the intergovernmental conference in 2004?
  Peter Hain: A friend of mine raised this issue with me for the first time over the weekend, and I am sure that it will be considered in convention proceedings if there is scope for doing so.
  At the moment, too many people believe that the process of taking decisions in the EU is impenetrable and distant, that there are no clear means by which they can influence these decisions, and that the bureaucracy
  676
  in place to implement them is complacent and inward-looking. People have lost a sense of what Europe is for—a point amply demonstrated by increased votes for anti-European parties during this year. So we need a new sense of Europe's purpose, to reconnect Europe to its people. This means identifying what citizens expect from the institutions that govern them and acknowledging that they will look principally to their national Governments to deliver answers, but demonstrating that co-operating with our European partners in many policy areas can add value, and that—where it does so—a willingness to pool sovereignty is in our national interest.
  Joyce Quin: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the European Union has adopted many important measures that affect citizens, in areas such as equality rights, the environment, working conditions and so on? Does he further agree that the work of the convention should be about helping citizens to understand what measures have been adopted and their effect, and has he any plans to push for an easily digestible form of what the EU is about for our citizens, rather than the complicated treaties that exist at the moment?
  Peter Hain: My right hon. Friend makes very telling points, particularly her suggestion for a concise new constitution to replace the current tangled web of impenetrable treaties. That is an objective that we must try to secure.
  Mr. John Bercow: If better definition of competences, greater democracy and an enhanced role for national Parliaments are key objectives of the right hon. Gentleman, can he please identify for the House a single example of a European Union directive or regulation that has been repealed under the terms of the protocol on subsidiarity and proportionality in the treaty of Amsterdam?
  Peter Hain: It is precisely because we need to ensure that the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality are properly enforced and policed that we are proposing a new mechanism, to which the convention has agreed in principle. That is a British idea, which I shall explain to the hon. Gentleman in a minute.
  We already pool sovereignty with the United States of America and others in NATO, because by doing so Britain has stronger defences. Pooling sovereignty in appropriate policy areas can make nations stronger; so, too, in the United Nations, the resolutions of which have the force of international law. Everybody, including Britain, has to respect them, but as a permanent member of the Security Council, we get to make the laws. We also pool sovereignty in the World Trade Organisation and the International Monetary Fund, in international treaties such as that banning land mines, and in the European Union. By pooling sovereignty, the British people have greater influence in building a safer, more stable world.
  Pooling sovereignty can mean compromises. That is sometimes hard for certain commentators and politicians to understand, but real people know that in real life, we cannot always get exactly what we want. Nor can other countries in these international bodies,

  677
  but we can better advance British interests by being right at the centre of NATO and the United Nations—and, indeed, of the European Union. That means creating a new, delivery-oriented EU, identifying and focusing on the policy areas in which the EU can contribute, and creating a decision-making framework to drive this through in an efficient, transparent and democratic way.
  David Winnick: Do the United Kingdom Government totally dissociate themselves from the outburst against Turkey by the former President of France, who chaired the convention, and should not Turkey be welcomed as quickly as possible, once it meets the necessary conditions? Were not those remarks from the chairman of the convention totally wrong and anti-Turkish, and do they not seem to betray a belief that Europe should be a fundamentalist Christian affair?
  Peter Hain: The answer to all my hon. Friend's questions is yes.
  We must preserve Europe's ability to adapt quickly to new challenges, and to address old issues in new and innovative ways. It is the flexibility of our current system that enabled us to react to the new political realities, following the attacks of 11 September. The world changed, and the EU was able to reflect that change by agreeing on common policies and mechanisms to fight terrorism together. Acting together through the "justice and home affairs" agenda, with the Commission taking the lead, we can improve security for all Europeans.
  We need a new European Union constitution, which, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin) said, must be clear and concise. It must have a short and inspirational preamble. It must clarify what the EU is, what its objectives and values are, and who does what. This would help to bridge the gap of understanding between the EU and its citizens. It would also mean a better-organised EU that is even better able to deliver practical benefits for citizens.
  Mr. Chris Bryant: Does my right hon. Friend think that such a constitution might act as a very real and necessary brake on the Commission when it decides to interfere in the business of member states?
  Peter Hain: Yes I do, and that is one of the purposes—although not the exclusive one—in designing this new constitution.
  The chairman of the convention, Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, has presented to it his draft outline constitutional text. Flesh now needs to be put on the bones of this skeleton. The drafting of individual chapters and articles will begin after Christmas, and a consolidated text is likely to be issued at or near Easter. The Giscard text mirrors our thinking in a number of key areas. It is founded on the basic premise of a union of sovereign states, not a blueprint for a federal super-state, and it aims to settle the relationship between the EU and its member states for the foreseeable future, halting the sense of permanent treaty change that disturbs so many of our citizens. The draft text also
  678
  reflects our proposal for a subsidiarity mechanism whereby national Parliaments can monitor new EU proposals to ensure that it is acting only where it needs to act. Assessing subsidiarity involves a political judgment, which should be vested in national Parliaments. In practice, they will be e-mailed new Commission proposals for determining any breach of subsidiarity or—equally important—any breach of the principle of proportionality: whether new legislation, even if laudable, is too heavy-handed and intrusive. This new early-warning mechanism would make national Parliaments the watchdogs of subsidiarity and proportionality.
  Mr. Allen: May I ask that my right hon. Friend seek the services of a poet, rather than someone who is competent in Euro-babble? Many hon. Members will fear that, if such descriptions are going to get longer, those outside this place will not understand them.
  In my right hon. Friend's view, will the concept of subisidiarity be justiciable by local authorities and regional authorities within the countries of the European Union, rather than merely the nations—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order.
  Peter Hain: My hon. Friend does raise an important point. We are in favour of subsidiarity being determined not by the courts but by elected political representatives—a point that is also important in respect of proportionality. As he knows, national Governments and Parliaments have the right to go to the European Court of Justice, and that factor will doubtless form part of the outcome. However, we should not encourage the courts in a rush to judgment in determining these matters.
  Mr. Bercow: I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way again. I am sure that he wants his answer to the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) to be complete. Will he confirm that the protocol on subsidiarity and proportionality says that the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality shall respect the general provisions and objectives of the treaty, particularly as regards the maintaining in full of the acquis communautaire and the institutional balance, and that it shall not affect the balance between national law and community law? That is the reality; that is the record. Will he confirm it?
  Peter Hain: The answer is yes. I am always impressed by the hon. Gentleman's ability to recite from articles, treaties and legislation without a text in front of him.
  We are pleased that the draft text also includes the idea of an elected President of the European Council, which we and others have been advocating in the convention. However, there are a number of proposals that we do not support, such as changing the name of the European Union. It is a successful brand name. Giscard's suggestion of a United States of Europe implies a federal superstate, and his Europe United sounds more like a football team. Significantly, nobody supported a name change when that was discussed in the convention.
  Dr. Nick Palmer: Does my right hon. Friend agree that in addition to the points that he is

  679
  making against a name change, there is a danger that the process will be seen as focusing on cosmetic inessentials? What people really hope for from this process is a community, a union, that they understand. They see what the powers are and how they can influence them, and they do not care that much what the name is.
  Peter Hain: I think that they do care about the way in which it is delivered, but my hon. Friend's essential point is correct. People want to see outcomes, practical benefits and clarity in the way that the European Union works and the accountability of its institutions to citizens.
  For the EU of 25 and more to function effectively and efficiently in the future, we need more than a constitution that sets out the status quo. We need reform, and some of it needs to be radical. We want to maintain the institutional balance and strength in the European Union by making all of its institutions more effective. We have to begin with the Council of Ministers, because although democratic legitimacy should reside in many different parts of the EU's structures, democratic accountability lies first and foremost with the Council.
  The EU's strategic direction should come from heads of Government in the European Council. The institution should also provide stronger political leadership. People expect their head of Government and Ministers to represent their interests and will hold them to account in their national Parliaments, media and elections, but how can a Council of 25 or more Governments drive the EU's strategic agenda?
  The Council as it is today is not operating coherently or efficiently. The rotating presidency, for example, was originally devised for a community of six member states. When there are 25, each member state will hold the presidency once every twelve and a half years, or eight times a century. The presidency system has enormous attractions. It gives every member state, large or small, an equal stake in running the union. However, if a much larger EU is to be effective and cohesive, the six-monthly musical chairs presidency needs replacing with a much longer period to establish and deliver strategic objectives.
  Ann Winterton: Surely the whole point of the EU is that the Commission is the driving force. The Council of Ministers cannot override the Commission, as we shall shortly see in respect of fisheries. Is the Minister suggesting that in future the acquis communautaire will not be binding on every member state?
  Peter Hain: No, of course I am not suggesting that, but the Council should be the political engine.
  Ann Winterton: It is not.
  Peter Hain: Exactly—that is the point. That is why we need to reform it, making it stronger and more coherent.
  One way of improving coherence might be to have four countries each chairing two of the eight Councils of Ministers for perhaps a year or longer. That would enable greater continuity and more systematic consultation between the Council, the Commission and
  680
  the European Parliament than the musical chairs system allows at present. It would be essential to have a rotation system, of both Councils and countries, to ensure equality between member states. At any one time there should be three small countries and one big one making up the team presidency, since there will he 19 "smalls" and six "bigs" in the enlarged European Union.
  Mr. Andrew Tyrie: Do the Government favour removing the power of initiative from the Commission to create legislation and placing it with the Council of Ministers?
  Peter Hain: No, we do not propose removing the right of initiative; it is important to retain it.
  The chairmen of the individual Councils should work together as a steering group—a team presidency—to ensure that the strategic direction given by the European Council was implemented. The work of the team presidency steering group would need effective coordination by an elected President of the European Council, as we and other member states have suggested, serving for five years to match the life of the Commission.
  Mr. Bryant: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way again. A significant benefit of having an elected President of the Council for five years would be to put an end to the stop-start nature of much of the present process in the EU. What would it do to change the relationship between the President of the Council and the President of the Commission?
  Peter Hain: The President of the Council would be a much more authoritative figure than at present, but that is not to diminish the role of the President of the Commission. They will need to work together, as already happens under the six-monthly rotating presidency system. Under these proposals, we will have a much more effective, full-time President of the Council, able to provide the coherence and strategic direction that heads of Government need.
  Reforming and strengthening the Council does not mean downgrading the other EU institutions, as some of our opponents make out—quite the contrary. I want to see a stronger Commission, enforcing the general interest at the centre of Europe's institutional architecture. Only a strong Commission will be able to retain its vital independence, acting in the interests of the EU as a whole, and not subject to political interference or vested national interests. Without a strong Commission driving through change, none of the Council's decisions would come to anything. [Interruption.] Conservative Members want a weak Europe, one that cannot help defend us against terrorism, fight international pollution and deal with the need to generate jobs and greater growth throughout the European Union, with which we have 60 per cent. of our trade. It is in Britain's interest to have a strong Commission when it comes to asylum policy, agricultural reform, energy liberalisation and enforcing the lifting of the beef ban.
  Dr. Palmer rose—
  Peter Hain: Although the European Council is populated by democratically elected leaders, it needs

  681
  essential checks and balances, as does the Commission. That is a role for the European Parliament as much as for national Parliaments. We want to see a strong and influential European Parliament exercising its extensive powers responsibly.
  Mr. Win Griffiths: In the discussions on the convention and the concerns about giving the European Parliament a more prominent role, has there been any discussion among members about the most effective way of involving citizens in future elections to the European Parliament?
  Peter Hain: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend. Apart from being an outstanding Member of this House, he was also a Member of the European Parliament, and his expertise is particularly appropriate. His suggestion is part of the convention's agenda. [HON. MEMBERS: "Get on with it."] I will, but I am open to taking interventions, including many from Conservative Members.
  Mrs. Angela Browning rose—
  Peter Hain: My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) admirably chaired the convention's working group on the role of national Parliaments, securing consensus in the group and the wider plenary for national Parliaments to play a greater role at the EU level and to increase contacts between Members of this House and Members of the European Parliament.
  The Government have always made it clear that we support the charter of fundamental rights, which was proclaimed at Nice, as an excellent way of enshrining key values across Europe.
  Equally, however, we have always made it clear that the charter proclaimed at Nice was not suitable for incorporation in the treaty. Issues of legal certainty would need to be resolved before we could consider that. We cannot support a form of treaty incorporation that would enlarge EU competence over national legislation. New legal rights cannot be given by such means, especially in areas such as industrial law, which are matters for domestic, not European, law.
  By engaging positively in the discussions in the charter working group, my right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Scotland has been able to make colleagues aware of our views and of our difficulties. Some of our colleagues appreciated—perhaps for the first time—that they, too, would have problems with full incorporation of the charter in their countries. We have achieved a number of changes to tie rights back to existing treaty articles and to distinguish more clearly between aspirational principles and directly effective rights. Our key objective has been to insert strong horizontal articles that block the charter from being invoked to change nationally determined domestic law.
  We have agreed to nothing yet, except to consider what is on the table. Given that what is on the table has moved very much in Britain's direction, we are obviously interested in it. The convention has agreed to set up a new working group—bringing the total to 11—on social Europe. The group needs to target social
  682
  exclusion through creating more decent jobs in a dynamic and competitive European economy. It should be about pursuing the Lisbon agenda for economic reform even more actively.
  I hope that members of the convention who take part in the group will not fall into the trap of simply rehashing tired old schemes for more rigid European-wide regulation of labour relations. Instead of protectionism for existing jobs, the agenda should be creating new jobs underpinned by decent minimum standards. We support the concept of a "social Europe" but it must be economically competitive and efficient; it must generate full employment, not entrench unemployment. It must give everybody the opportunity to work, and not protect only those who are in work.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: Does the Secretary of State agree that it would help to strengthen the European Union and all that it stands for if provision were made in the constitution for member states to withdraw if they want to do so?
  Peter Hain: The hon. Gentleman will no doubt support President Giscard's draft text because it proposes exactly that.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: Does the right hon. Gentleman support it?
  Peter Hain: I do not see a problem with it. If anybody is silly enough to want to withdraw from the EU, they should be entitled to do so. I guess that the hon. Gentleman would be in the lead.
  Some critics have argued that the convention is about giving up even more national powers to Europe. That is simply not the case. The discussions that we have held about who does what, or, in Euro-jargon, "where competences lie", have not been about moving those competences to the EU; rather, the concern has been to make the current set-up clearer so that everybody knows where responsibility lies. That is a crucial element in making Europe more accountable.
  The basic premise of our confident engagement in Europe is our ability to take decisions and support ideas that are in Britain's interests. Crime and immigration are at the top of people's agendas. Tackling those issues is partly a domestic policy matter for national Governments, but there is also a strong European dimension. Moving away from the unanimity rule in some areas of justice and home affairs will enable decisions on such crucial matters as crime, drug dealing, asylum and illegal immigration, for example, to be made more easily, and action to be taken more speedily, to make all of us safer and more secure.
  Lifting our veto and agreeing to such common EU decision making on border security measures or a common arrest warrant is not selling out British interests. Quite the contrary, it is common sense. However, we have said firmly and repeatedly that we will not tolerate attempts to take fundamental decisions, for example about taxation and social security, out of the hands of national Governments. Such a move would clearly not be in Britain's interests.
  Mrs. Browning: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware of the Franco-German proposal on tax harmonisation as it was clearly spelt out on the front page of the Financial Times today. Will he use the British veto on that matter?
  Peter Hain: I understand that the French spokesman in Brussels said that no such proposal as that reported in the FT exists and that he said something even more uncharitable about the report off the record. I shall obviously not repeat that as the House is family oriented.
  Nor do we countenance a shift away from the current intergovernmental approach to the EU's foreign and security policy or to defence. Yes, those areas must be made more effective and efficient—as must the rest of the EU—but such matters must remain in the hands of national Governments, co-operating freely. For example, we have said that we could support a single legal personality for the EU but not if it jeopardises the national representations of member states in international bodies; not if it means a Euro-army; not if it means giving up our seat on the United Nations Security Council; and not if it means a Euro-FBI or a Euro police force.
  There have been, and there will continue to be, ideas in the convention with which we do not agree. Such is the nature of open and broad debate. However, we are at the centre of the debate. By engaging actively and dynamically and by working in partnership with others, Britain is helping to set and shape the European agenda, and our confident approach is getting results.
  As the world becomes more global, people are thinking more locally. People only want the EU to act when it genuinely has something to add. They want it to work on the issues where working together is better than working alone; to combat cross-border crimes, such as drug and people trafficking, but not to tell us how to police the streets; to agree limits to the industrial pollution affecting our continent, but not to tell us whether we can build roads or houses on individual sites; and to provide opportunities for our students to study abroad, but not to tell us how to run individual schools.
  The Government are clear about where we stand in Europe. We support the enlargement of the Union because it will make Britain stronger, safer and richer.
  David Winnick: My right hon. Friend was good enough to say yes to the questions I put to him earlier. On enlargement, would it not be appropriate for him, given his special responsibilities, to make it as clear as possible that Britain welcomes the strong possibility that Turkey will join the EU and for him to dissociate himself from the notorious remarks that I quoted earlier?
  Peter Hain: I welcome my hon. Friend's question. My answer is yes, we want to see Turkey join the EU. That is EU policy. Turkey is one of the officially recognised candidates for accession. The president of the convention was speaking for himself alone when he declared his opposition to Turkey's membership.
  We support the work of the convention because it is the best way to deliver the practical benefits that British citizens want: more jobs, greater prosperity, safer
  684
  streets, cleaner skies—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Congleton (Ann Winterton) shakes her head. Does she not want cleaner skies or safer streets?
  Ann Winterton: After European enlargement we shall actually have less of that famous influence in Europe that the Prime Minister is always going on about.
  Peter Hain: There speaks the true voice of the Conservative Back Benches, opposed to enlargement, to reunifying Europe and to welcoming back Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary and all the other countries that were divided from us by the cold war. Is that really Conservative party policy?
  We relish the debate about Europe, conducted in the plainest terms, because we are confident, unlike the Opposition, about rising to the challenge to deliver in Britain's interests in the convention.
  8.18 pm
  Mr. Michael Ancram: I shall try to be somewhat briefer than the Minister, given that more than a sixth of the time that we have to debate this issue has already passed.
  The debate will inevitably touch on accountability in Europe—indeed, it already has—but I would like to ask some questions about accountability at home. Who in the Government leads on the future of Europe—the Foreign Secretary, who is not here, the Minister for Europe, who is here but did not lead, or the Secretary of State for Wales, who has led tonight, but not for Wales? Seriously, if in future we want to know the Government's position on the convention, do we table questions for the Wales Office or do we still table them for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office?
  Peter Hain: That issue was made absolutely clear by the Leader of the House last Thursday, when the same question was raised. I remain the Government's representative on the convention. Is it not interesting that, since I have been in that position, Britain's agenda is finding favour and the French and Germans have put their Foreign Secretaries on the Convention on the Future of Europe? What does the right hon. Gentleman think I am doing here? I also appeared before the European Scrutiny Committee to answer questions only the other week.
  Mr. Ancram: The right hon. Gentleman may not have noticed, but he is not the Foreign Secretary. I note that the Minister for Europe is not trusted to set out the Government's policy on the convention. Perhaps that is because of what he said last week:
  Electing a right-wing conservative Government is always a disaster for any European country."—[0fficial Report, Westminster Hall, 27 November 2002; Vol. 395, c. 112WH.]
  That cannot be very clever, when nine of the 15 member states have centre-right Governments, and Austria has just decisively re-elected one.
  The Minister for Europe (Mr. Denis MacShane): The difference is that all those centre-right Governments believe in Europe, unlike the anti-European right-wing

  685
  party to which the right hon. Gentleman belongs, which will never be elected as long as it maintains its anti-European course.
  Mr. Ancram: Once again, we see the hon. Gentleman correcting his words. He should be careful about what he says, because I am sure that his remarks last week will have been noted with great care in some of the chancelleries of Europe.
  With enlargement—which we welcome—on course, Europe is at a crossroads. Its challenge is to give back to the peoples of Europe a sense of ownership over the EU institutions. A bigger European Union must not become an even more distant one. At Laeaken, it was rightly declared that
  "the European institutions must be brought closer to its citizens".
  The convention has been disappointing in that regard. It had a great opportunity comprehensively to review how Europe was working and to jettison those practices and rules that were distancing it from its peoples. It has failed to do that. In particular, it has failed to tackle the problem of remote institutions.
  Indeed, the Giscard draft treaty seeks further to centralise employment and social law, which even in the United States of America is left to the individual states—hardly a decentralising charter.
  Ms Gisela Stuart: I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should declare the debate on the institutions a failure, given that the convention has not yet had that debate.
  Mr. Ancram: The hon. Lady should listen. I said that, before it started any deliberations, the convention should conduct a fundamental review of how Europe is working. It is a great surprise to Conservative Members that, almost three quarters of the way through its time, it has not done that.
  Recently—and very flatteringly—the Welsh Secretary adopted my phrase "a partnership of sovereign states", but everything that he and the Government are doing is moving slowly but surely in the opposite direction. Whatever he may have told the House tonight, the Government are integrationist. Last week, the Prime Minister called once again for a European superpower.
  Mr. George Foulkes: No.
  Mr. Ancram: Yes, he did, and it is about time that the right hon. Gentleman understood what his Prime Minister is calling for. He also called for a unified foreign policy and for a massive abolition of Britain's remaining vetoes. For Conservative Members, that is the voice of integration. It may not be the voice of the motion, but then again the motion would delight a sackful of weasels.
  The Conservative party will continue to seek a Europe that is more accountable, more democratic, less centralised and more relevant.
  Mr. Allen: I respect the right hon. Gentleman's position, but can he imagine a form of words that would
  686
  reassure him on his greatest fears, of centralisation and a federal superstate, and see a place for those words in a European constitution, so that he need never fear what any Prime Minister or Executive might say in the future, because those words would be enshrined clearly in a constitution?
  Mr. Ancram: I will explain later why I do not believe in a European constitution, but I believe that the words that we should see are "national Parliaments". That is where the strength should lie.
  We are attempting to bring the EU closer to all its peoples. For all the Government's words analysing the problems of alienation, there have been few specific proposals to solve them. There is a worrying parallel with the common agricultural policy. For years we pressed the Government to make specific proposals on CAP reform, but virtually none has been produced. Instead, the vacuum was filled against our interests by France and Germany in October in Brussels.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) said, we saw today a report that the French and Germans are jointly proposing tax harmonisation. The Secretary of State's denial of that holds no water for me, given all the Government's previous denials that were then followed by actions that showed that the stories were right in the first place.
  We will introduce detailed proposals—I wish to make some this evening—that will, in part, reflect aspects of the work done by respected senior members of the Conservative party earlier this year, but especially the important work being done by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) and our European parliamentary colleagues who are in the convention. They will in due course produce their own recommendations, and I look forward to taking them into account.
  A reformed Europe should meet a number of criteria: it must add value, its power must not compromise national sovereignty, and it must demonstrably provide stability and prosperity. What is clear is that Europe does not need any more bureaucracy or regulation—it is already hobbled by red tape and a one-size-fits-all currency—nor does it require any more power; if anything, it has too much already.
  Mr. Bryant: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Ancram: I will give way, but this is the last time that I do so because I am very conscious of the time.
  Mr. Bryant: I feel suitably chastened and grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I just wonder whether he feels that it is none the less important for the Commission to have a certain degree of power, especially in relation to the regulation of state aid. If we are to ensure that we have the necessary long-term stability and economic flexibility, we need a strong Commission in relation to competition law.
  Mr. Ancram: I shall come to the Commission in due course in my remarks, and I will not pre-empt what I want to say.
  The EU needs to re-engage with the peoples of Europe. Giving it a constitution will not achieve that; it will only vastly increase the authority of European

  687
  institutions over the member states. We believe in a lighter approach to Europe through treaties, rather than putting Europe's future into the hands of lawyers and judges. I was interested to see the remarks of the EU ombudsman, Jacob Sōderman, who said last week that
  "it seems to me that two of the ideas put forward—a president of the European Council and Congress—would take EU decision making to even higher levels rather than bring it closer to the citizens".
  That view reflects our concerns about what is proposed at present in the convention.
  Until now, the EU has been created by treaties between sovereign member states. The institutions that those treaties have established and the relationships between member states are of a special nature, but the EU has throughout its existence fundamentally remained a partnership of nation states. A constitution would change all that. It would give the EU autonomous authority and be a crucial building block in the creation of a federal, supranational European superpower.
  Two years ago in Warsaw, the Prime Minister said that Europe did not need a written constitution and that it would not have one. Tonight, the Secretary of State for Wales tells us that we need a constitution, which, for all his protestations, could well include the charter of fundamental rights and will contain all the elements of a constitutional basis for political union.
  The Conservative party agrees with the European Scrutiny Committee that the concept of an ever-closer union is no longer desirable or realistic—for some of us, it never was. Nothing is more objectionable to the British people than the European ratchet effect—what the theorists rather splendidly call functional integrationism. We believe in an EU that is a genuine partnership of sovereign nation states. We believe that its legislative process must be a genuinely two-way affair. We want to forge a new partnership between the institutions in Brussels and national Parliaments throughout the EU.
  Noticeably, the national Parliaments receive only a passing mention in the Giscard draft treaty, yet we in the House know that national Parliaments are the bodies with which people most identify. They are far closer to their electorates than any European body could ever be. National Parliaments must be put at the heart of the new Europe if we are to meet the democratic deficit and reengage the peoples of Europe with European institutions.
  The importance and role of national Parliaments should be strengthened, therefore, and enshrined in any new treaty. It must be made clear beyond doubt that the EU has competence or shared competence only where the treaties grant it and that powers not explicitly granted to the EU remain with member states. The description of and limits to such powers granted must also be clearly defined. We support the need for a definition of competences to be included in the treaties, but not a constitution.
  I welcome the convention working party's proposals on subsidiarity, but they do not go nearly far enough. I agree with the European Scrutiny Committee that we need new procedures to enforce subsidiarity and that decisions should be made by a political watchdog, not by the European Court of Justice. National
  688
  parliamentarians should be able to intervene on subsidiarity at the level of national Parliaments and through a subsidiarity panel or watchdog. I was grateful for what I understood to be a general welcome to the proposition from the Secretary of State for Wales, as it was a proposition that emanated some time ago from the Opposition Benches.
  Mr. Bercow: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Lord Mackenzie Stuart, a former president of the European Court of Justice, is on record as describing subsidiarity as "gobbledegook"? He went on to claim that the notion that it constitutes a constitutional safeguard shows "great optimism".
  Mr. Ancram: As a Scottish advocate who practised in the Scottish courts for many years, I would be cautious about criticising a Scottish judge. In a sense, my hon. Friend is right that subsidiarity operates at the moment with the effect of gobbledegook. I am suggesting a manner in which we can make it mean something and properly enforce it.
  One way in which I would like it to be enforced is that reservations on subsidiarity expressed by, say, five national parliaments should be enough to halt a piece of legislation. We believe that all national Parliaments ideally should have an EU legislative scrutiny committee to scrutinise legislative proposals before they proceed to the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament. I see the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) smiling, but that is what happens in the Danish Parliament at the moment, and it is very effective. I believe that we can lead the way on this among other member nations.
  All national parliaments, including ours, should be encouraged to enhance their scrutiny of European legislation. We continue to propose to replace our COREPER representative with a new Minister for European Affairs. We could lead immediately by example in that area. The new Minister would face questions in the House every two weeks. That could also help, in co-operation with our European parliamentary colleagues., to prevent "gold-plating" of European proposals by national Governments.
  As for the exercise of power at the European level, we support the aim of clarifying and simplifying the treaties, but not when that entails transferring even more powers to the European Union. The intergovernmental method of decision making in foreign affairs, defence and criminal justice, through the second and third pillars of the European Union, must not be absorbed into a single EU structure. The ways in which human liberties are protected through the ECHR and our national courts are adequate. We therefore believe that there is no need for further protection. In particular, the incorporation of a legally binding charter of fundamental rights into a new treaty would lead to a vast increase in the power of the European Union over the member states and of European judges over the political process. That would further exacerbate the democratic deficit, which the convention is intended to try to fill.
  Sir Nicholas Winterton: When might the result of a referendum on a treaty be binding on Europe? In Denmark and Ireland, the people spoke, but

  689
  Europe did not accept the decision, and huge expenditure by the Governments of the day in those countries sought to reverse the decision of the people.
  Mr. Ancram: Clearly, individual referendums are matters for the countries concerned, but I share my hon. Friend's concern in the respect that it is bad for democracy in Europe, and bad in terms of trying to interest people in the political process in Europe if, when questions are asked, and the wrong answer is given from the point of view of the Government or Europe, they continue to ask the question until they get the answer that they want. That is not necessarily the right way to proceed.
  We propose, too, that there should be a rough European equivalent of the Law Commission, to examine the acquis communautaire, to identify out-of-date legislation and to slim down the 85,000 pages of EU law. We also want a simplified decision-making process. The EU currently has 30 different ways of making decisions. We propose to bring that down to just two: binding laws and non-binding recommendations. Binding laws shall, basically, deal with the rules for the single market and other essential areas. In other areas, the EU should have the power to issue recommendations for member states, which are always free to adopt higher standards if they so wish.
  We support moves to make the Council a more open institution. It has been far too secretive, allowing Governments to blame each other for unpopular laws and for added bureaucracy. Council voting should be on the record and in public. We would also like the General Affairs Council to sit every two weeks in open forum and not just deal with foreign affairs issues. The Spanish Government have led progress on this issue.
  With enlargement, the current system of rotating Council presidencies simply will not work. Something has to be done. We oppose, however, the proposal for an individual president elected by his peers for five years. Let us leave aside the Prime Minister's retirement plans—we believe that the concept is fundamentally wrong. It would do nothing to make the EU more accountable or democratic or to decentralise it. Indeed, it would do quite the opposite. We support team presidencies, with perhaps one large member state working with two small ones for one or two years. Such a reform would have many benefits. It would provide longer-range Council planning, it would be a model for international co-operation and, above all, it would not be a threat to the position of the small member states of the EU.
  Peter Hain: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his opposition to a full-time president of the Council is shared by all the federalists in this debate? They do not want such a president because they want all the power in the European Parliament and the Commission. They do not want a strong Council. How is that compatible with his vision of a Europe of nation states?
  Mr. Ancram: I will always gratefully receive support from wherever I can find it. My reason for opposing a five-year presidency has nothing to do with federalism. It is a centralising proposition that would make the post
  690
  even more remote from the peoples of Europe than it is currently. One could have all sorts of anomalies. Someone might be a Prime Minister at the time that he is elected to a five-year presidency. He might lose a general election in his country two months later, but would remain in the presidency even though he had no remit from his country to exercise that authority. There are many anomalies, so a five-year presidency would not be the right way to go.
  The Commission, too, is in need of reform. Its monopoly of legislative initiative compromises the EU's democratic standards. We want a streamlined Commission, with its powers of initiation curtailed. The Commission should move towards becoming a secretariat under proper democratic control, in which the European Parliament would have a central role to play. We would like directives to be issued once again on a genuine framework basis, with the Commission only stating the desired outcome. Methods of implementation should then be left to the national Parliaments.
  Mr. Bryant rose—
  Mr. Ancram: We would like to see a new system of full and junior commissioners, with the larger member states being guaranteed full posts. Smaller member states would have a proper voice through their junior commissioners.
  Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock)rose—
  Mr. Ancram: I shall not give way again. I want to finish my speech as I have been speaking for too long.
  We support the need for pan-European defence cooperation, but strictly and only within NATO. The Euro army should be finally laid to rest before its inadequacies embarrass Europe further.
  There is another issue that the convention should just leave alone. The continued mad clash, boosted again by the Prime Minister last week, for a united foreign policy is to fly, particularly at this time, in the face of reality. It will not happen and it would not work if it did. We have a right to our own distinct view on international matters. We should fight to preserve that right and not to compromise it.
  These are some of the ways in which we can build a European Union that is more dynamic, more adaptable and better able to play a role in the modern world. It is the antithesis of integration and centralisation. It disperses power back down the chain. I want the European Union to succeed as a partnership of sovereign nation states. However, to succeed, it must reengage with its peoples. Centralisation will never be the answer. It is interesting that politicians from the accession countries often tell me that they do not want a centralised Europe. Those countries have not freed themselves from the yoke of Soviet centralisation to submit to the same from Brussels.
  Tonight's debate is useful, but we need a far broader national debate on the future shape and structures of Europe. This debate is too important to become a narrow discussion conducted by what I would call Euro technicians. The future of the EU will fundamentally affect the lives of all the peoples of Europe, including the

  691
  people of Britain. We should ask them for their view. I would like the Government to publish a Green or White Paper upon which such consultation could then take place. The British people would make it clear in no uncertain terms just how much they believe is wrong with the European Union and how they would like to get the worst of it off their backs. They do not want the European superpower that the Prime Minister promised them last week. They want the same Europe as we do—a Europe less centralised, less intrusive and more responsive. It is time that the Government began to speak for Britain in Europe, rather than for Europe in Britain.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: I remind hon. Members that Mr. Speaker has imposed a 12-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches.
  8.40 pm
  Ms Gisela Stuart: I am not starting as I intended 10, because I have been reminded of the words of Eli Weisel:
  "It is not because I cannot explain that you do not understand—it is because you do not understand that I cannot explain."
  I was struck by what the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) said. He made me smile, not because I disagreed with him, but because if he cared to read and understand the convention documents, he would realise that the vast majority of the things that he called for have also been requested by a large number of people at the convention, including the British representatives. There is a huge amount of agreement. I wish that his desire to debate Europe were based not on calling for Green Papers and White Papers, but on listening. There is tremendous agreement on how the European Union can be improved. I accept there is disagreement on how best to achieve that, but there is no right or wrong answer at this stage. The point of the convention is to find the most satisfactory way forward.
  When the convention started eight months ago, it was not clear what we would achieve. Some people thought that we would produce options. It is now clear that we will produce something that represents a constitution. The United Kingdom has been strongly represented. Despite Cabinet changes, and my delight that we have a new Minister for Europe, I was extremely pleased that the convention representation remained the same. My right hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Peter Hain) has been strong and effective, and I would not have wanted a change, despite the fact that he is now Secretary of State for Wales.
  It should be recognised that the convention breaks historic ground. Both national and European parliamentarians are involved in treaty changes for the first time. That is a huge step forward. Treaties used to be cooked up by civil servants and approved by Heads of Government. They were then delivered to Parliament, which could say yes or no. That has changed and we are involved, but that puts a huge responsibility on parliamentarians. I use that word deliberately. If the House, as a Parliament, wishes to play its role effectively, Parliament as an institution must find its voice. It has to stop name calling across the Benches. It must take stock and think about what is at stake for parliamentary sovereignty—I also use that term deliberately—rather than national sovereignty.
  692
  The real issue is not one of federalism or centralism. Instead, it is how parliamentarians—national and European—hold the Executive to account. If we are honest, we have been far from perfect in that. Some of the limitations have been institutional. If hon. Members care to look at the report of the working group, they will see that it supports the Seville recommendation that the Council of Ministers opens its doors. It also supports not only the much better flow of information, but the idea of making far more politically intelligent use of it.
  To use scrutiny properly and not just as a replacement for sovereignty, it must have a proper political impact. When we scrutinise European legislation, it must be seen as scrutiny of the Executive. What are at stake in the convention are the mechanisms for doing that. The contention that federalists are the real threat is not true. There are true federalists at the convention, but they are in the minority. However, I must issue a note of caution to the Government. The long accepted British view is that in order to prevent the federalist influence, it is necessary to promote the intergovernmental alternative. That is not necessarily so, because the intergovernmental method can simply mean that we replace a remote federal structure with a remote group of Ministers, and although they represent majorities, they are not necessarily more accountable. How do we make them more accountable?
  The step taken on subsidiarity is hugely significant. I agree with the mutterings that I detected in the House that subsidiarity on its own is not the issue. Subsidiarity was defined in the treaty of Maastricht, and a protocol requires its observance. However, on no occasion has a decision been blocked. Evidence concerning the observance of the principle is scant, and we ask for much more evidence. The British insistence on continually combining the word "subsidiarity" with "proportionality", and our success in doing so, has emphasised the importance of that combination.
  The right hon. Member for Devizes suggested that five member Parliaments should make up the watchdog on subsidiarity. We decided that there should be a significant number, which was translated by many as being about 40 per cent. However, that structure on its own will not be sufficient. If Parliaments do not wake up to their responsibility and if parliamentarians do not develop a mechanism by which they share their experiences and exchange their views, there will simply be a process of divide and rule. The danger of the convention is that although we will refer to national Parliaments in the constitution and give them mechanisms, parliamentarians will not use them unless they wake up to their responsibility.
  European Union decision making will have to be firmly based in the national institutions. If hon. Members will forgive the analogy, the situation reminds me of putting up a tent as a child. The tent is held on the ground only if we peg it down, and national Parliaments must be those pegs, because the electorate relates to them. If all the proposals in the convention and in the working group of national Parliaments are implemented and work as they should, the sign of success for me, and the desired outcome, will be evident in my Friday night surgeries.
  At the moment, if people ask, "Did you agree with this directive?" I can honestly say, "I never heard about it. I did not know it was coming. I was never asked.

  693
  They did it." The convention, and the constitutional structure on the table at the moment, will create a mechanism whereby I can say, "I knew that it was coming. I was asked whether I wanted it to go ahead. We collectively had a say, and we said yes." We have to put an end, once and for all, to the silly division and competition between parliamentarians at national level and those at European level. We have to start to work together, but operating at different levels.
  Mr. Bercow: Does the hon. Lady envisage any reduction in the 80,000-page, 31-chapter acquis communautaire? If not, will she concede that she is effectively signing up to the doctrine of the occupied field?
  Ms Stuart: Rather than proposing, as the right hon. Member for Devizes did, to set up an institution that would review all that, I want to make a precise point about it, and I shall return to the matter.
  I turn now to the constitution. My right hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin) asked what would be a sign of the success of the new constitutional structure. For me, it would be an introductory part that is understandable by everyone, as well as more technical points. However, I would be looking for more fundamental points in the interests of logical coherence and of national Parliaments.
  The first is that if there is a clause describing how to enter the Union, there must logically be a clause describing how to leave the Union. Whether countries do that is entirely up to them. If, in the constitution, we describe precisely how competencies from member states become shared competencies and sole competencies, there must be an analogous article clearly describing the way in which those competencies can travel back. That, in my view, must be there. That is my indirect answer to the question asked by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) about whether I could ever envisage a reduction. I think that there must a mechanism for travelling back.
  I fundamentally disagree with the observation made by the president of the convention, who described the process a "refounding of the Union", the implication being that either the resulting constitution would be ratified by a country, or that country would be out of the Union. To my mind, the constitution will be a treaty like any other, to be ratified by the various countries and to come into effect only when all the member states have ratified it.
  I have a final word of caution about the courts. In the convention, I have detected a tendency to regard the courts as the final arbiter of what is or is not democratic. The courts have a huge role to play, not least in enforcing the internal market, but there is a range of decisions that are fundamentally political. It is up to politicians to express themselves in clear terms on such issues, and they should be left in the hands of politicians. Matters of subsidiarity are political decisions. In the end the courts may have a role—analogous to judicial review—in determining whether proper processes have been followed, but judges must not replace political decision makers. Several members of the convention see things that way.
  694
  By next summer we will have a draft constitution. We do not yet know whether the Heads of Government will accept it; I very much hope that they will. The House has been extremely supportive of its representatives and I am grateful for that. I regard representing national Parliaments, not only at the convention but in the praesidium, as the most important role I have been asked to perform. I shall listen with great care to the debate so that in the convention the House's representatives will be able to reflect the view of parliamentarians.
  8.51 pm
  Mr. Michael Moore: It is a real pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart), who made a thoughtful contribution. I pay tribute to her and to her colleague who also represents the House in the convention for the work that they have been doing. I do not agree with every last opinion that has been expressed, but it is clear that they have been doing a thorough job.
  We must welcome this Government-sponsored motion on the convention—the first since it began its work earlier this year. It is a shame that it has been a long time coming; it is none the less welcome now that it has arrived. The Government have stated that we should reform the European Union to create a strong and effective body. Ministers have stressed the need for Britain to be at the forefront of the debate on Europe, and argued that the convention must not represent another missed opportunity in the grand British tradition of watching developments in Europe from the sidelines.
  In his speech in Cardiff last week, the Prime Minister spoke of
  "the creation of a new Europe",
  which would be done
  "methodically, inclusively and transparently".
  That is a fine ambition, which should set a high standard for the Government to live up to, but so far there is little in the public domain to support that aspiration. There has been no White Paper—not even a Green Paper—on the Government's position on the future of Europe. What we know has emerged from this short debate, or from media reports. Those reports make it obvious that the Secretary of State for Wales has made spirited contributions to the convention as a whole, but we here in Parliament are largely in the dark about most of the proposals being made, although their tone has become clear. A White Paper has been necessary from the outset; the timing has now become rather urgent.
  As the Secretary of State for Wales said, the German and French Foreign Ministers are now taking their place at the convention. Without wishing to undermine his own contribution, I must ask why our own Foreign Secretary is not adding to Britain's firepower within the convention?
  Peter Hain: A difficulty faced by both Joschka Fischer from Germany and Dominique Galouzeau de Villepin from France is the fact that the convention is a busy responsibility. Their appearances so far have been

  695
  fleeting, and I do not think that there is any prospect of the Foreign Secretary being able to put the work in, as he has global responsibilities.
  Mr. Moore: We shall not ask what is happening in Wales in the meantime. Surely it is accepted that the Foreign Secretary would not be present at all times. If the right hon. Gentleman had listened carefully, he would know that I spoke about adding to our firepower at the convention, not replacing it.
  We support calls for the reform of the European Union. The continent is at a crossroads, with significant enlargement in prospect and the impact of globalisation becoming more obvious with every passing day. The EU's purpose has changed since the European Coal and Steel Community was founded in 1956 with six members. In size and scope, it is unrecognisable from the vision of 50 years ago. With those changes has come a growing remoteness from the people whom the EU is supposed to serve. Whether by design or otherwise, much of its activity has become inaccessible, non-transparent and unaccountable. Europe clearly needs to sort that out, but not with the fixes that have often characterised previous developments.
  As the Governments and institutions of Europe prepare for a revolution, citizens need to be put at the heart of the Union. There should be proper recognition of the principle that decisions be taken at the most appropriate level within the Union, and there should be an overhaul of the institutions to make the Union effective and accountable. The convention's proposal for a constitution for Europe is an important way of achieving those aims. The details are not fully fleshed out yet, but they offer some useful pointers and plenty of opportunity for debate. Current treaties are cumbersome, virtually unreadable and come complete with thousands of pages of supporting detail. In the real world we cannot avoid the legislative load, but in a constitution we should set out the founding principles of the Union. As the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) set out in Westminster Hall last Wednesday, we should aspire to make the constitution, if not inspirational, at least readable.
  We support the inclusion of a charter of fundamental rights in such a constitution, as that is the clearest way of ensuring that citizens understand their relationship with those who govern them, at whatever level. The Prime Minister has said that he opposes the charter and its incorporation. In a speech last week, he said:
  "we cannot support a form of treaty incorporation that would enlarge EU competence over national legislation".
  I shall ignore the fact that earlier in his speech he had said plainly:
  "we must end the nonsense of 'this far and no further"'
  A quick glance at the charter will show that the most common phrase states that any article should be
  "in accordance with Community law and national laws and practices".
  Article 16, on freedom to conduct business, and article 28, on the right of collective bargaining and action, are just two examples covered by that stipulation.
  That approach should not scare governments; if it does, that suggests that their commitment to reconnecting Europe with its citizens is paper thin.
  696
  Ministers, in their contributions to the European debate, have spoken of a "Union of nation states", neglecting or downgrading the idea that it should be a union of peoples as well. The charter may need to be amended to so that that idea is expressed in treaty language, but if we are serious in our goal of the reform of Europe it must be included. Likewise, we must ensure that the principle of subsidiarity is enshrined in the new constitution.
  Mr. Paul Tyler: Did my hon. Friend notice the merriment among Conservative Members at the very idea that subsidiarity might be included in the new constitution? However, we all remember that the former Prime Minister, Mr. John Major, promoted that idea.
  Mr. Moore: My hon. Friend has made a good and valid point—[Interruption.] May I continue?
  Decisions must be taken at the most appropriate level in Europe. We welcome the absence from the draft document of the previous refrain of "ever closer union", which sits uneasily with that principle. In passing, we reject, as the Government motion puts it,
  "the alternative of a federal superstate".
  We do not believe in such a concept. The Union is more than simply a union of sovereign states: the people must count as well. Subsidiarity is important to that end, and we need to ensure that when we make a commitment to the principle, there are proper ways in which to make it work.
  The balance between the different parts of the different policies has shifted over the years. We need a clear statement in the new treaty. We support the idea proposed at the convention of an early warning system based on national Parliaments and the European Parliament. As the hon. Member for Birmingham., Edgbaston said, we should not shirk our responsibilities in Parliament and simply blame everything on Brussels, in time-honoured fashion.
  Mr. Bryant: The hon. Gentleman has spoken at some length about subsidiarity. I am sure that he knows that the original concept derives from Catholic teaching, and a 19th century papal encyclical. To which definition of subsidiarity does he subscribe? Does he believe that the Committee of the Regions should play a more important role in the new Europe?
  Mr. Moore: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reminding us of the origins of the concept, although I hope that they are not especially relevant to the debate. The appropriate level for decision making and scrutiny should be determined according to the subject. For example, education should be tackled in individual countries. In the past few years we have accepted the principle that decisions about education should be ceded to Wales and Scotland, and we hope that that will happen in the English regions, too.
  Sir Nicholas Winterton: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Moore: I am still answering the previous intervention. On the environment, we are increasingly

  697
  realising that pollution does not recognise boundaries and must therefore be considered accordingly. However, we must reform the institutions and make them more accountable and effective. So far, subsidiarity has not been sufficiently clear.
  Sir Nicholas Winterton: I speak as the Chairman of the Procedure Committee. Does the hon. Gentleman support me and many other hon. Members from all parties who believe that the House deals with European secondary legislation in the most despicable way? We need much more effective scrutiny of such legislation, and the ability to amend it—and to reject it if hon. Members decide to do that.
  Mr. Moore: I do not want to disappoint, surprise or upset the hon. Gentleman, but I agree with him. It is entirely fair that the House should take more responsibility and be better at scrutinising. There is a desperate need for improved scrutiny at all levels in the European Union. For example, the Council of Ministers could meet in public, and the President of the Commission could ensure that his state of the union address was subjected to detailed scrutiny and put to the vote in the European Parliament. It is also important to endorse the principle of freedom of information in the European Union
  There is common agreement that Europe is at a critical point, and there is much speculation about where we will end up, not least about the United Kingdom's destination. We desperately need the blueprint to which the Minister said that he was not currently working. We need a White Paper and a commitment to further debate in the House. If we are to achieve reform, the people of Europe must be taken along with it. We must begin that process here.
  9.3 pm
  Mr. Ian Davidson: I support the Government's stated position of supporting a Union of sovereign member states and their rejection of the alternative of a federal superstate. When I listen to some of the Government's supporters, however, I wonder whether I support the Government's position more than the Government do. On some matters, we slide increasingly towards a federal superstate.
  I have never been an expert on Euro-jargon and I do not want to approach the debate in that fashion. I want to consider democracy, because Europe is the greatest example of a disconnection between politicians and the public. For some time, debates in Europe and on Europe's development have been elite-driven, top down and marked by apathy and almost hopelessness among the population. That disconnection is dangerous for democracy, because if people feel that they cannot affect the decisions that have an impact on their lives they will look for non-democratic solutions.
  It has often been said that we live in a post-ideological age, but it is almost as though a new ideology of Europeanism has infected the body politic in this country.
  Mr. Bryant: Internationalism.
  Mr. Davidson: It is more than that. I do not see Europeanism as just internationalism. Indeed, in many regards it is the very antithesis of it, because it draws in the wealthy while putting up barriers against the rest of the world, particularly in relation to the operation of the common agricultural policy and the way in which it deliberately penalises the third world. I want to reject the drive towards Europeanism that we often see coming from some of the zealots in politics. I also want to reject the anti-Europeanism—which is often just "little Englandism"—that we hear from some Conservative Members. As in so many things, therefore, I find myself in the centre, speaking with the moderate's voice of reason, and seeking a third way. As a supporter of New Europe, and of saying yes to Europe and no to the euro, I seem to be in an ideal position to lead us forward in the name of moderation.
  We need to consider not only the jargon that many of my colleagues have used, for understandable reasons, up to now; Europe needs to be translated for people in terms of its practical impact. No matter what we say about constitutions, structures arid the like, people in this country do not and will not understand why France can defend its farmers while we cannot defend our fishermen. Until Europe starts to work for people in this country in a way that they can comprehend, there will continue to be a disconnection. The need for a poet was mentioned earlier. I fear that many people might consider William McGonagall the most appropriate. For hon. Members who are puzzled by that reference, a trip to the Library might be advisable.
  I seek clarification from the Government on a number of points. We need to boil some of this down to basics. I am not clear whether any proposed constitution would stop the drive towards ever-closer union that was incorporated in the treaty of Rome, and which has been reiterated in subsequent treaties, or whether such a constitution would make it clear that the objective of European linkages was no longer, inevitably or irrevocably, ever-closer union. If ever-closer union remains the text, people will see that consistent centralisation is in progress. We need to be clear about that.
  There is no doubt that we are in the process of creating a European superstate. We already have the flag, the anthem, the drive towards an army, the move towards a president, the propaganda division, the drive towards centralisation and, indeed, the rights of initiative. I see the rights of initiative as a drive towards ever-closer union. When mention is made of the need for the Commission to have political independence, it is not clear whether that independence would be in the best traditions of our civil service—dealing with matters in a non-partisan fashion—or whether it would involve the Commission as an actor in its own right. If the Commission is to be the civil service of the Union, political independence has to mean civil service-type independence, rather than an independence that would allow the Commission to act in its own right, with its own drive and direction.
  I also want to clarify the issue of the departmentalisation, based on the French model, that the European Union has consistently pursued. I understand subsidiarity, and I support more powers

  699
  for the regions, but the departmentalisation model that the European Union is driving forward is about breaking up nation states into departments, divisions and smaller areas, and linking them to an ever-stronger centre. There would be an imbalance of power between the ever-stronger cent re and the individual departments, so departments would become supplicants rather than partners. We need to be clear about how that operation would work.
  We also need to be clearer about harmonisation. I heard with interest and some happiness the indication of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales that he is not aware of any French or German aspiration to harmonise taxes. I cannot help but think that he is perhaps ill informed on that matter, but if that is his view, it is the best understanding he has at the moment.
  We must be clear about whether we are prepared to harmonise taxes—in the first instance, corporation tax and valued added tax. I can understand why people want that as part of the creation of a single market, and its logical extension is, of course, harmonisation of personal and property taxes—the harmonisation of almost all taxes. I am not clear about whether the Government remain wedded to their view that there should be no move in that direction or whether they will carry their view in the discussions on the convention.
  The single market needs to be reined back in some areas, particularly where it impinges on issues such as health, which are restricted to or remain with national Parliaments but where the single market may have influence. I have always believed in high taxes on tobacco as a health issue, yet the single market undermines this country's policy of putting high taxes on tobacco for health reasons, as people can import cheap tobacco from the rest of the EU—there is an allowance. We must state that there are areas into which the single market will not move and that the assumption must not automatically be that the single market will prevail in clashes with other policy areas.
  I am a supporter of modernisation and there are a number of areas in which the Government must look for substantial EU modernisation before they say that they are prepared to move forward. I can think of three examples that would be immensely popular in this country. First, we need modernisation of budgets so that we can reduce the fraud, corruption and waste that the Court of Auditors consistently reports on. I cannot see why we wish to cede further powers to or move forward with an EU that is incapable of running its own financial affairs. That is an overdue and essential element of modernisation to which any Government who say that they favour modernisation in principle must stick.
  The second example is the common agricultural policy. I cannot understand why a Government who are wedded to the concept of modernisation have been prepared to accept the almost total absence of progress on modernising the CAP, which not only taxes poor people in my constituency and every other area by raising food prices to inappropriate levels but ruins agriculture in and the economies of many third-world countries. I always regarded the dumping of CAP surpluses as an obscenity at a time when much of the world was starving, yet the Government have been
  700
  unable to modernise in that area. They must consider it with substantial urgency. The third example is foreign aid, on which progress is necessary.
  My final point is on political language. A number of my colleagues disagree with me on a variety of issues, but I believe that debates ought to take place in a comradely fashion. To me, being described as an enemy by people on my own side with whom I disagree is entirely inappropriate. Saying that the
  "enemies of Labour are the enemies of the euro"
  is absurd, as it equates being an opponent with being an enemy, being anti-Labour with being anti-euro and being anti-euro with being anti-Labour. I hope that the Minister, as one who has been a member of this organisation for a considerable time, will make it clear in his winding-up speech that he rejects such partisan tribalism.
  Mr. MacShane: My hon. Friend was my friend, is my friend and shall be my friend. I cannot conceive of his being an enemy to anything except that which is evil.
  Mr. Davidson: I welcome what the Minister says. Can I take it, then, that he will go back to Britain in Europe and the Labour Movement for Europe and say that they should never produce material that describes opponents as enemies?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's time is up.
  9.15 pm
  Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson). He spotted that the harmonising and centralising drive in the European Union has become almost an ideology of its own, which not only threatens democracy but brings in its train grotesque mismanagement and even corruption from the policies and administrations that have been centralised in Brussels.
  The publication of the draft constitution that we are considering will give further impetus to those very forces. It is a hugely significant event. It means, for instance, that although this country has done without a written constitution throughout its history, a written constitution will now be imposed on it—but a constitution that we have not drafted or written ourselves.
  Until very recently the Government opposed a European constitution, with good reason. A constitution is an attribute of statehood. The draft constitution published in Brussels offers us dual citizenship: in other words, it already equates the European Union with a state. It is highly disingenuous of the Government to claim now that their previous opposition was all a mistake, and that for the first time Europe will somehow be able to achieve certainty and clarity in regard to respective powers. The truth is that the constitution that has been published will be a centralising force.
  For instance, it is clear from the draft that the intergovernmental pillars that secure and protect the intergovernmental mode of decision making in the

  701
  European Union are to go. Article 14 tells us that the Union has "a single institutional structure" in its new form. We also read that it will have a single legal personality. Those developments alone have enormous implications for foreign policy, for defence and for this country's rights and abilities to participate in international agreements. The European Union will replace the right of member states to do that, and to engage with other bodies. The same applies to justice and home affairs; they, too, will be part of the new single constitutional structure.
  I am a member of the working group in the convention, which is about to report. I am the only dissident, or the only person who will oppose the recommendations. I will do so because under the recommendations cross-border crimes of all sorts and crimes against what are described as the interests of the European Union will be approximated across all member states. In this context, "approximated" means harmonised. Moreover, the decision will be made under qualified majority voting.
  This Session, the House has before it six criminal justice Bills. They deal with extremely important matters that are of great concern to our constituents: penalties, sentencing, criminal justice procedures, rules of evidence, and whether this country should adopt double jeopardy. I oppose the latter proposal, but at least it is a matter to be debated and decided in this House. However, I have to warn the House that if, as is certain, the working group's recommendations are adopted by the convention and form part of this new constitution, all those matters and more besides—including immigration and asylum—will be decided at European Union level by qualified majority voting, and will come under the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice.
  These matters are at the heart of the nation state and of parliamentary democracy; they are about the coercive powers of the state and they raise very sensitive issues of accountability and control. They are about our common law traditions, which differ from those on the continent. Yet it is now proposed that these decisions be transferred upwards to the European Union and centralised there. What is so damaging is that the convention was set up to try to close the gap between the institutions of the European Union and the people of Europe. The European Union is widely regarded as remote and technocratic, but if we remove decisions about criminal justice, sentencing and immigration further away from the electors and from this House, that gap will widen even further, and the democratic deficit will be uncontrollable. Of course, that will play into the hands of the extreme right. Why have elections and change Governments here if it makes not the slightest difference to criminal justice, immigration policy or whatever?
  I am extremely worried by the fact that the Government representative on the working group, Baroness Scotland, who displays great charm and knowledge, has agreed to most of that, which goes well beyond established British Government positions. I have offered to help on a cross-party basis. I wrote to her three weeks ago, offering to defend what I regard as the British interest, but I have yet to receive a reply, so I
  702
  conclude that all this has been planned. The Government are, I am afraid, dissembling if they claim that this new constitution will not profoundly alter the relationship between this country and this House, and the institutions of Europe.
  The same is true of the charter of fundamental rights. Members will be aware that it was negotiated two years ago on a clear understanding that it was only a political document containing aspirational rights, and that it would not be legally binding then or in the future. These promises were given repeatedly, explicitly and emphatically from the Government Dispatch Box by the Prime Minister, and by the former Minister for Europe, the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz), who is not in his place. It was even said that copies of the Beano would be just as legally significant as this new charter of fundamental rights. The Government were, of course, right to oppose the charter's being legally binding, because when those rights become judiciable and enforceable by the European Court of Justice a huge new mechanism for centralisation and EU action will be opened up.
  Those assurances did not last very long. The working group's final report, on incorporation of the charter—I have a copy in front of me—makes it absolutely clear that it will be incorporated into the constitution, and will be legally binding. Page 3 explains that the charter will become legally binding either in the text of the constitution, or as a protocol. It states:
  "The Group as a whole"—
  in other words, by unanimity, including the Government representative—
  "underlines that both these basic options could serve to make the Charter a legally binding text of constitutional status."
  How is that reconciled with all the promises that we received from the Prime Minister and other Ministers at the Government Dispatch Box? How do we expect the public to believe what we tell them about Europe? How do we have an honest, open and straightforward debate about these matters when the Government give copper-bottomed assurances in the House that are overturned a year or two later? The Government are still not admitting it, as we heard from the opening speech in the debate. The Minister said that the charter has been changed significantly. It has not been changed significantly—that is crystal clear from the text of the working group. On technical drafting adjustments, it says:
  "It is important to note that these adjustments proposed by the Group do not reflect modifications of substance. On the contrary, they would serve to confirm, and render absolutely clear and legally watertight, certain key elements"
  Yet the right hon. Gentleman was talking as though this was a great British triumph and that everything had changed. It is simply not true. The Minister on the working group, Baroness Scotland, should have told him the truth. [Interruption.] If the right hon. Gentleman is willing to intervene, I will accept his assurances to the contrary, but let us hear it from him.
  Peter Hain: The right hon. Gentleman heard it from me earlier in the debate. We have secured in the draft

  703
  report a series of horizontal articles that stop the charter being enforced to change our domestic law. That is the key.
  Sir Nicholas Winterton: What are horizontal articles?
  Peter Hain: The h on. Gentleman should study the report and the debate rather than relying on recycled prejudice.
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I have these wonderful horizontal articles and they do not add up to a row of beans. I have just quoted from the report, to which the Minister from the upper House has signed up. It says that apart from certain technical drafting adjustments, the text that we are presented with is exactly the same. That is what has been agreed. Which is correct—the right hon. Gentleman's slightly evasive assurances from the Dispatch Box or what appears in black and white in the conclusion to the treaty?
  There is only one solution—to ask the people in a referendum. I agree with the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) and have signed his amendment to that effect. Let us ask the people what they think. My right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) advanced a good alternative treaty. I think that it could be worked on and improved, but let us ask the people who they trust and what they want—the constitutional settlement advanced by the Government, with its centralising momentum and all that is wrong with it, or a treaty between free and self-governing states of Europe along democratic lines, as proposed by my party.
  9.27 pm
  Mr. Graham Allen: It is a pleasure and a privilege to follow the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory). He and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) have represented this House and all of us in the discussions that have been taking place. It is not an easy task and they have both carried it out very well in their own very distinctive ways.
  The differences between hon. Members should not obscure the fact that Members on both sides of the House and from all political points in their party signed up to an amendment put before them asking that proper and due consideration be given to the European constitution that could govern our way of life for decades. Everyone in the House found that it was possible to sign up to that. It may be procedural; it may just be democratic. It does not go specifically for one viewpoint or another, but it reflects, I hope, a parliamentary wish that is evident in all parties, which is that this place is nothing and has no role if it cannot have a say on whether the country has a constitution. That is why there was a broad sweep of opinion, even in the brief time that was allowed for us to table an amendment that supported our Parliament and our people, in putting forward our views and having a sensible and open debate.
  I happen to be pro-European and pro-constitution, but my views should prevail only after due argument, after all of us have debated the matter and after the nation has considered the possibilities. After all, the
  704
  right hon. Member for Wells signed the amendment not because he thought that a national debate would arise and that it would find in my favour, but because he thought that such a debate would find in his favour. I am prepared to fight those battles in public, on television or in the Chamber, because I and those who share my view must win others to our position. There is no short cut. There is no way, by sleight of hand, that we can impose a constitution on the people of the United Kingdom.
  I am sorry that the shadow Foreign Secretary has left the Chamber. He made many points to which Members of all parties should pay great attention. Some colleagues may argue that those points resonate with the prejudices of British people. Whether or not that is true, they resonate with the views of British people. Many people fear that the European project is moving too quickly and without checks. The right hon. Gentleman put those points to the House clearly and openly. As I pointed out when he kindly allowed me to intervene, if he feels that we should not acquiesce to certain aspects of a European constitution they should be made clear in the constitution itself. If, like the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), the right hon. Gentleman feels that subsidiarity is a dead letter, the constitution should make clear how subsidiarity could work. If, as many Opposition colleagues believe, the role of the nation state is under threat, the constitution should make it crystal clear, in words that reassure them, that that is not so and that it would not be legal to undermine that role.
  There must be a clearly written constitution and if we are to achieve it, our Parliament must be given rights in the process. It is nice to hold a debate such as this, but it was granted on a grace and favour basis. The Government have kindly allowed us to speak on the subject. We are not debating it as of right; we are not debating it because Parliament decided that it was a good thing to do and that it was an essential prerequisite for the development of a European constitution.
  Parliament must establish certain rights in respect of the process. With great respect and admiration. I point out to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston that a constitution that arises from an illegitimate process will itself be illegitimate and can but fall at the first serious hurdle. We must build in a process for the appreciation and acceptance of a constitution and we must make clear what it stands for in words that reassure not only the British people but the majority of Conservative Members.
  I have to take some issue with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, much though I am loth to do so because he has been a strong and articulate advocate of the European project and on that matter I put trust in him above almost anyone. However, there is a clear distinction between coalescing existing powers in a treaty and forcing that treaty through the House on a three-line Whip and agreeing to a wholly new constitutional settlement for the people of this country.
  The first is a legitimate function of the Executive. That is the role and the right of the Executive—much as some of us may object on occasion. However, the second—the constitution—cannot possibly be seen either as being in the gift of the British Executive or of a collection of European Executives. It must be something that the people of this country sign up to and are prepared to accept.

  705
  I agree with the hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore) that one way forward would be a White Paper, which would open up the debate and let us all see what is at stake. The House could then get involved in proper pre-legislative scrutiny. It will not surprise the Chairman of the Procedure Committee if I say that such a process would involve all Members of Parliament, and that if it was online the whole nation could participate. If we created a constitution in that way, it would not have 40 or 50 founding fathers, as the United States constitution had, but several million founding fathers and mothers. Such a constitution would enjoy the support of the population as a whole.
  In the end, however, that would have to be endorsed by the British people in a referendum. There may be some who wish that we were not committed to the referendum on the euro—many Members, both Government and Opposition, have expressed that view—but if we accept that it is legitimate to have a referendum on that subject, it must be equally legitimate for constitution making, which cannot be a lesser process than mere monetary union, as a European constitution would influence our lives for many years to come.
  Those in government should not be afraid of partnership or of bringing the House along with them and trying to persuade colleagues; rational argument may prevail in the end. Equally, we should not be afraid of entrusting to the British people, after a thorough national debate, the decision whether to sign up to a constitution.
  We have heard again the old chestnut about judges ruling the roost. Judges are all over statute law already, but they would only ever come into this equation if politicians disagreed so fundamentally that no reconciliation was possible or if those politicians acted illegitimately. Many hon. Members could give a whole series of examples of where that has happened. In those circumstances, the judges may be a protection for the peoples of Europe, and not the problem that some fear.
  We were reminded earlier of the quotation about needing a poet to draft at least the preamble, although I think that a poet could do the whole lot. President Giscard d'Estaing's draft is up to about 300 pages of Euro-speak. It is impenetrable and makes the EU sheepmeat directive seem a racy read. We need to pull together the vision, motivation and drive that were evident in the US constitution. Although the principles of that constitution were agreed in a large committee of 40 or 50 people, Madison was then sent away with a quill pen and ink to compose something that people would be prepared to die for. Giscard's Euro-speak might cause a number of fatalities, but not for reasons of the poetry, artistry and elegance that Madison was able to contrive.
  The challenge for the Minister is not merely to find a beautiful word for that most beautiful concept in democracy of subsidiarity, so that schoolchildren can carry the idea around in their pockets and in their heads, but to find the poet—perhaps someone who is here tonight or someone in some corner of Europe—who can pull together the inspiration that will mean that people are prepared not, we hope, to die for, but to fight for a
  706
  constitution that will unite the peoples of Europe, so that when we go to France we never again have to do so with a rifle over our shoulder but can do so simply to enjoy the wonderful wine.
  9.39 pm
  Sir Teddy Taylor: The hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) makes a very important point in suggesting a referendum because the one thing that he and all colleagues in the House must be aware of is that there is a feeling of hopelessness among the general community on matters relating to Europe. People are concerned about what is happening.
  People who are sickened about it realise that they can do nothing, that their Members of Parliament are powerless and useless in these matters and that things are getting worse. Certainly, if we take the further major step to have a written European constitution, which will interfere with virtually every aspect of our work in Parliament, they will feel particularly angry if it is forced on them without their agreement. Of course a referendum is not a means to ensure that one point of view prevails, but if the people vote for something and it turns out to be horrendous, miserable and horrible, at least we can say that they have responsibility for it.
  Quite frankly, what is upsetting me is the fact that the House of Commons has not realised the extent to which power has already gone. I shall give two brief examples. Colleagues are well aware of the fact many elderly people in Britain now receive the great benefit called the winter fuel payment. They got that from the House of Commons because we agreed that elderly people living in Britain were entitled to money to help them with the cost of the cold.
  How many people are aware—I was told about this in a parliamentary answer on 6 November—that, because of an instruction from the EU, we now have to pay the winter fuel allowance to people from the United Kingdom who go to live in places such as Martinique, Guadeloupe, French Guiana, Reunion, the Azores, Madeira and the Canary islands, where the sun shines all the time and it is not cold? According to the Government, that will cost £10 million. How on earth is that sensible? How is it correct for us to say that if people go to live in cold Canada, they do not get a penny, but they do if they go to the Azores or the Canary islands? Quite honestly, that is nutty, crazy and a stupid waste of money, but what on earth can we in the House do about it? The answer is, sadly, nothing at all.
  The Minister may remember that the Government introduced a great Bill to say that foreign nationals could not give money to British political parties. Because of people's worries about foreign companies and individuals—perhaps in Hong Kong or elsewhere—giving money to political parties, the Government introduced that great Bill to make it unlawful. The Bill was presented to Parliament, but in the House of Lords, where the Government have such clever Ministers, they had to say that, unfortunately, they could not go ahead with it in its present form. It had to be adjusted because they were not allowed to exclude parts of the EU.
  It was apparently all right for a company in Germany, France or Portugal to give money to the Labour party, the Conservative party or any other party in Britain, but

  707
  not for people who lived in Turkey, Canada, Guadeloupe or places like that to do the same. However, the Government then made a second surrender: they had to say that, sadly, because of EU instructions, they could not exclude places that were EU overseas territories. That put us in the absurd position whereby individuals living in British Guiana were not allowed to give money to the Liberal Democrats, but people were able to do so if they lived in French Guiana. That was madness, crazy and illogical, but what on earth could we do about it? The answer is absolutely nothing. [Interruption.] This is not funny; the Minister should not laugh about it. When a democracy is dying, Ministers should get upset about it. We should not have silly twits trying to pretend that nothing will happen although new things are being introduced.
  Mr. MacShane: It is not British Guiana—the Empire is all over; it is finished.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: Of course the Minister is right. All I was pointing out is that, because of the instructions that the Government received, people are not allowed to give money from British Guiana, but they are from French Guiana. That happens to be true. It is shocking and stupid, and the fact that the Minister is laughing about it makes nonsense of the Government's attitude to democracy.
  What can we do about spending, waste and extravagance? I have another written answer from the Government telling me that last year, as part of the EU food process, we had to destroy 47,000 tonnes of cauliflower, 153,000 tonnes of tomatoes, 118,000 tonnes of nectarines, 255,000 tonnes of peaches and 229,000 tonnes of oranges, costing a fortune. People get upset about that. They say that it is crazy and stupid, and they ask what we can do about it. The answer is absolutely nothing.
  Mr. Davidson: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, although the cauliflowers were destroyed, all the turnips became Liberal MPs?
  Sir Teddy Taylor: I accept that the hon. Gentleman is—I mean this sincerely—one of the more honest Members of the House. He must be as sick as I am about the billions of pounds spent on destroying food and on dumping food in the third world and doing damage to countries that are starving. What we can do? Can we go to Members of the European Parliament? No. If the European Parliament closed its doors tomorrow, no one would notice apart from the taxi drivers of Strasbourg.
  What about the graft and corruption? I have a lovely story, of which the Minister must be aware, about a former lay preacher from Essex who was on the wanted list for all kinds of things. He went along to the European Union saying, "I've got a grand plan. I want to try to help the prostitutes of Hungary." He was given £140,000. This gentleman did not use the money to help the prostitutes of Hungary; he bought himself two new cars and a new house, and nothing was done to help the prostitutes of Hungary. When that kind of thing happens under a democratic Parliament such as the House of Commons, we can do something about it. That is the basis of democracy, but, unfortunately, in the European Union, nothing can be done.
  708
  We cannot even discuss upsetting, distressing issues such as capital punishment and corporal punishment. because of the European convention, not the European Union. We have a Home Secretary who wants to do something about asylum seekers, but I have told him time and again about one individual in Southend-on-Sea who came here nine years ago as an asylum seeker from Turkey and who has been appealing repeatedly under all the various European rules. That is paid for by the British taxpayer, and, unfortunately, there is nothing that we can do.
  Ms Stuart: I do not want to disagree with the hon. Gentleman, but I urge him not to mistake the European Union with the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. I think that he has just done so, and that adds to the confusion. The issue of corporal punishment to which he referred had nothing to do with the European Union.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: I assure the hon. Lady that I am well aware of the differences between the convention and the European Union. She will be aware of aspects—for example, the gentleman who was sent over at great expense to Germany—in which the European Court of Justice gets involved, as does the European convention and the European Court of Human Rights. Both are surrenders of and interference with our power, and we cannot do much about it.
  On the issue of tobacco, does the Minister care or does he want to laugh about the fact that, last year, £1.2 billion of our money—European money, poor people's money—was spent on growing high-tar tobacco in places such as Greece, and was then dumped in the third world and eastern Europe? Does he worry about that? Is he concerned? What can we do about it? The answer is absolutely nothing. The tragedy is that our rights and freedoms are disappearing daily with every single treaty, all of which I voted against. Every time, the Ministers say, "There's not much in this, we've got safeguards, everything will be fine," and the power simply disappears.
  There are two things that we can do. First, it is vital to have the referendum. Secondly, perhaps the Minister will confirm that it would strengthen the European Union if there were an exit clause by which member states that wished to leave would be allowed to do so. Giscard D'Estaing has put forward an ambiguous clause, to which the Minister has said that we do not object. At least an exit clause would give people some freedom and protection.
  I do not want to take up time. As someone who has been a Member of Parliament for a long time, however, it is appalling to see how people are simply switching off from democracy, and not just people such as ourselves. Young people think that it is pointless and useless. So many constituents say, "I know that nothing can really be done about anything nowadays." If people are concerned about issues such as the export of live cattle, what can we do? Absolutely nothing. I wish that Governments of all parties would realise that democracy matters. If we let it disappear, the people will suffer. I hope, therefore, that the Government will try to reclaim powers for democracy and not simply hand over more and more. Someone such as you, Mr. Speaker, who performs a great task in a democratic Parliament

  709
  will be aware that our democracy is dying. It is time that people in all parties started to fight for its retention and to restore it.
  9.50 pm
  Mr. Andrew Tyrie: This debate was intended to provide an opportunity for my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) to report to the House what has been going on in the convention. It is regrettable that their speeches were restricted to 12 minutes. I would very much have liked to have heard much more from them. They made extremely thoughtful speeches, and I agree with much of what they said.
  I wish to pick up an enormously important point that the hon. Lady made. I hope that I understood her correctly when she said that the acquis communautaire could be addressed by creating a mechanism to enable competences to be repatriated. She also said that a second crucial element of dealing with the acquis communautaire would be an exit clause. Both are crucial, but I hope that she understands that all attempts to create a reverse ratchet in the EU have failed. That is why many of us have become sceptical about more proposals of the same ilk. I shall say a bit more about the exit clause shortly.
  I want to discuss the original purpose of the convention. The task set of it by the Laeken declaration was to enable the institutions of the EU to adapt to enlargement and to tackle the so-called democratic deficit. In addressing those questions, the convention needs fully to grasp two points. First, an enlarged EU will unambiguously have to be an EU of nation states. The applicants from eastern Europe will not accept anything else. For them, membership is a means of expressing their newly won sense of national identity. The countries that have shrugged off socialism imposed from Moscow do not want another form of suzerainty to come from Brussels.
  Secondly, if the convention is to make any progress, it must grasp and accept that the democratic deficit cannot be cured by rearranging constitutional pieces on the EU chessboard. A little more power to the Parliament here and a little less to the Commission there will not work. Proposals that enable the EU to acquire some of the trappings of a state—passports, flags and the like—do nothing to help, either.The European Parliament cannot plug the democratic legitimacy gap. Does anyone believe that the electorates of Europe will look to the European Parliament to articulate their sense of identity? No one believes that, and the hon. Lady made that point when she said that national Parliaments are the face to which the electorate relate. If the members of the convention are to make progress, they must realise and say that they have realised that democratic legitimacy comes from nation states and only from nation states. It comes from nowhere else. I have certainly not heard that point made clearly enough in the debate about the convention over the past few months.
  The origins of the democratic deficit in the EU lie deep, but it was the Single European Act, and the erosion of the veto that came with it, and not
  710
  Maastricht, Nice or Amsterdam that began to make many of our electorates uneasy. The Act triggered the search for safeguards and the recognition of the need for reassurance of the electorates. What has been the product of that? We have had the so-called doctrine of subsidiarity, proposals to create lists that clearly distinguish between national and EU competences, proposals for a states' right clause and proposals to enhance the role of national Parliaments among much else before and during the convention. I do not believe that any of them will achieve very much. I hope that the convention has grasped the fact that none of them will do anything to ally the deep concern that is growing in many parts of the electorates in the EU. It will not address their fears that any further transfers of power and, indeed, the exercise of some existing powers erode what many people consider to be their sense of national identity.
  Some might say that those fears are unjustified, and we could have a debate about that. I would not necessarily agree with those who argue that point. In any case, that argument is irrelevant. Those fears, right or wrong, are a political fact and cannot be wished away. They touch on instinctive loyalties of nationality and are not easily assuaged. The only way to do that is for the EU to start explicitly acknowledging that democratic legitimacy flows from nation states and nowhere else. That is why I have long argued for an exit clause to be added to the treaty of Rome, as set out in my amendment.
  For the first time tonight a Minister suggested that the Government might support an exit clause, although he did not seem to appreciate that the value of such a clause lies in getting at the heart of people's deep concerns not, as he put it, in suggesting that it might be of interest only to those "stupid enough" to want to leave the EU. Its value goes far wider than that. Such a clause could, over time, fundamentally improve the quality of debate about the EU in Britain. It would bring a greater sense of rationality and practicality to all sides of the debate.
  Proponents of further integration would have to bear in mind the effect that any proposal might have on the balance of arguments for membership. It could act as a brake on some of the wilder ideas occasionally heard, especially from abroad. Those Eurosceptics who favour withdrawal—I am not one of them—would have to stop arguing that the EU was an irreversible and stealthy assault on nationhood. An exit clause would make it clear that the EU was not part of a final and irreversible treaty. The EU would join the long list of other institutions that also have exit clauses—NATO, the World Trade Organisation, the International Criminal Court, the European convention on human rights, the Council of Europe and so on.
  Of course Britain, or any other country, could, in practice, leave now and no panzers would roll through the channel tunnel to stop us, but, as I said, our electorate, and those of eastern Europe, need to be reassured. Nor should any attempt be made to make life difficult for a leaving country. That is why it is so important that an exit clause also contains clear provisions to ensure that remaining countries assist the leaver.
  Ms Stuart: Fundamentally I agree with the hon. Gentleman's argument on an exit clause. However,

  711
  what is his opinion of the proposal by the European People's party, part of his political family, to have an exit clause but only if it is agreed unanimously by all member states?
  Mr. Tyrie: That is a trite remark. I am trying to make a serious political point about whether the EU should have an exit clause. I am not making a trivial debating point about what may be going on in the European Parliament.
  I am not a sudden convert to the idea of an exit clause. I have pressed the case for such a clause for at least 15 years. I started thinking about it when the Delors report was first debated. There are good arguments for and against currency unions, and reasonable men can disagree about them, but one of the most ludicrous arguments is that the loss of monetary control involved in a currency union is inevitably a one-way ticket and involves the surrender of our nationhood. Currency unions have come and gone over the centuries, and they will do so again. It has always struck me as much better to have the ground rules for withdrawal from a currency union laid out at the start. That could have been done without destabilising the markets and it was a profound mistake that we did not put such a rule into the Maastricht treaty.
  I have discussed an exit clause with a good n umber of people on the convention over the past few months. Initially, I faced strong opposition, including from some senior people. I am pleased that Guiliano Amato, whom I spoke to, and Giscard, whom I did not, appear to be coming around to the idea. I just hope that they fully grasp and articulate the importance of such a clause for entrenching the primacy of the nation state because only if they do that will they get full political value from it. The EU is not—it would be foolhardy to try to make it—anything more than a highly sophisticated set of reciprocal obligations between member states. Perpetuating the illusion that it is anything more, and many try to do that, particularly in continental politics, will at best waste a great deal of bureaucratic and political time; at worst, it will mix a dangerous nationalist cocktail. We are already seeing some evidence of that lethal mix in the domestic politics of France, Austria, the Netherlands and possibly Germany.
  My deeper worry about the work of the convention is the lack of appreciation of the scale of the problems that the EU is accumulating, and I say that as somebody who is not a paid-up Europhobe. Those problems are not only the failure of so many policies. Is there anyone in the House who could honestly say that there is any major area of EU spending with which they could agree? There are no takers—not even the Minister, who is frowning. That is the scale of our problem in explaining these issues to the electorate. The convention has not fully grasped the scale of the problems that we are trying to deal with.
  There are two straightforward commitments that the Government could make tonight—they have edged towards one of them—which would indicate an appreciation of the scale of the problems. First, it would be helpful if the Government said unequivocally that they fully support an exit clause, not only that they do not see a problem with it. The second, equally important point is that they should put any constitutional arrangement to the electorate in a referendum.
  10.1 pm
  Mr. Richard Bacon: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie). I have enjoyed listening to the debate, and I want to focus on an area that has received little attention this evening or in the Standing Committee on the Convention. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson), with whom I serve on the Public Accounts Committee, referred briefly to the matter, which is of huge importance to the future of Europe. I refer to financial accountability and the control of fraud in the European Union.
  I first took an interest in the issue when I read the House of Lords report, "Financial Control and Fraud in the Community", in July 1994. I shall quote at length from page 1 of that report because it predicates what follows. It says:
  "This is the Select Committee's fourth report since 1989 on fraud and financial irregularity in Community spending. Our 1989 report found that huge sums of Community money were lost each year because of fraud; that financial management was weak; that the failure both to detect fraud and take action when it was detected allowed the fraudsters to continue in business: and that for years there had been no political will to tackle the problem.
  By 1992 we detected some signs that the situation might be improving, although there was a long way to go. We were too optimistic. According to the Court of Auditors' Report of November 1993 on the year 1992, there has been 'little or no improvement' in the Community's financial management, despite repeated criticisms made in previous reports."
  That report made me realise, back in 1994, that this was something that one should keep an eye on, and I decided that I would do that. The 1995 accounts were qualified by the Court of Auditors, which says that the statement of assurance provides
  "numerous illustrations of unsatisfactory accounting and financial management".
  The same thing happened for the third year in a row when the 1996 accounts were qualified, saying that
  "the Court declined to provide positive global assurance as to the legality and regularity of … the payments",
  and it was estimated that about £3.1 billion went missing through fraud. It appears that there had been no change by 1998, for which the report says:
  "For the fifth year in succession the Court found significant weaknesses in the management of the Budget and an unacceptably high rate of error in the transactions underlying payments."
  When we reach the reports for 2000, we find the National Audit Office commenting that
  "it remains a matter of serious concern that little progress has been made in reducing the high level of error, which meant that for the sixth year in succession the Court was unable to provide positive assurance on the legality and regularity of the transactions underlying payments."
  Page 1 of that report says:
  "Overall the Court's Annual Report and Statement of Assurance for 1999 showed little evidence of improvement in the financial management of the European Union compared with previous years."
  In May this year, N AO reported on the accounts for last year, and once again the accounts were qualified. The report said:
  "For the year 2000, the Court drew similar conclusions to previous years and for the seventh year in succession qualified its opinion on the reliability of the Community's accounts."
  A number of points in that report caught my eye. First,

  713
  "The Court found that during the year the Commission had entered into legal obligations in excess of the amounts provided for in the Community General Budget."
  Secondly,
  "The Court found that the Commission was unable to produce complete and reliable information distinguishing between advance and final payments. It noted that, following similar findings in the Court's report on the financial year 1999, the Commission had said that it would take steps to set out detailed rules for each sector of activity and would apply classifications for different types of payment, in advance of revisions to the Financial Regulation being approved"—
  but
  "The Court found no such progress."
  In relation to the accounting system, it was noted that
  "As in the previous two years, the Commission experienced difficulties in providing the Court with a set of accounts for audit."
  Last Thursday 28 November, the Court of Auditors report, which will not be reported on by the NAO until next year, was published. Once again, the accounts were qualified. The report stated:
  "The Court has been concerned that, while in the past the Commission has recognised at least some of the deficiencies pointed out by the Court, it has not given sufficient priority or devoted sufficient reflection and appropriate resources to overcoming them within a reasonable timescale. The Commission has stated in its reply … its commitment to the modernisation and improvement of the accounting system. It now needs to develop urgently a detailed action plan with the necessary resources and a timetable that is both realistic and reasonable."
  In other words, after eight consecutive years of qualified accounts, the Commission has not yet come up with a detailed action plan. Consider for a moment what would happen if the accounts of Marks and Spencer or Boots plc were qualified—the directors would be hauled over the coals straight away, in year one.
  Angus Robertson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Bacon: No—I am sorry, but many hon. Members still want to speak.
  Earlier this year, at the beginning of January, the Commission appointed Marta Andreasen to two jobs—budget execution director and accounting officer for the European Union. She quickly pointed out serious and glaring shortcomings: there were no accounting books and no double-entry bookkeeping; staff of the Commission could enter the budget computer system and change entries without leaving a fingerprint or an audit trail. She raised her concerns and was rebuffed. She then tried to raise her concerns with the Court of Auditors and the European Parliament's Budgetary Control Committee, for which she was disciplined.
  Compare that with what would happen in this country. In this country, if accounting officers for Departments, who are legally responsible for the way in which money is spent, do not like what a Minister is telling them to do, they are obliged to seek a direction from the Minister. That automatically triggers a process whereby the NAO is informed of what is going on. Having acted in that way, if the accounting officer subsequently comes before the Public Accounts Committee, he or she will be exonerated. In Europe, the
  714
  exact opposite happened to the accounting officer for the whole of the EU. She tried to act honourably and to draw her superiors' attention to her concerns about the serious irregularities that were occurring, but she was rebuffed. What does that say about the EU's seriousness about getting control of those matters?
  We are discussing the powers of the EU and its institutions and whether those powers should be extended—whether the European Parliament or the Council of Ministers should have more power, and whether there should be an elected president. What does that track record tell us about the competence of the EU to have any powers at all? What does it say about the competence of the European Union to have any money at all if it cannot look after the money it already has? The solution was eloquently stated in an article in The Times by Rosemary Righter, who said:
  "Member states should put the Commission on notice that they will finance only those parts of expenditure that get a clean bill of health."
  Taxation is a cardinal matter. It is hard to think of anything other than the acts of making war or imprisoning people that more closely defines what it is to be a state—what it is to have the powers of Government. My constituents work extremely hard to earn the money that they then pay in tax. It is not easy for them to earn enough money to clothe their children and pay the supermarket bills and still have enough left over to go on holiday. If the EU institutions cannot safeguard the moneys entrusted to them by the taxpayers of this country, it is at least open to question whether they should have them at all.
  10.9 pm
  Mrs. Angela Browning: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon), who had an important speech to make but, I sensed, delivered it rather rapidly.
  Much has been said by many Members about a union of sovereign nation states, which, if we were starting now, would be highly attractive. It that union was working for global free trade and its members combined for the greater good on mutual interests and cross-border matters, I would wholeheartedly back it. However, we are not starting now. We are signed up to, or are about to sign up to, a common foreign policy and a common defence and security policy. We are well into a common agricultural policy and common fisheries policy, and face a common justice system. Most members of the European Union are already in a common currency controlled by the European Central Bank. We have already heard, although the Secretary of State denied it, that further economic policies, especially on the harmonisation of taxation, are on the agenda.
  We have also heard how the convention will introduce a constitution for the European Union, incorporating the charter of fundamental rights. The EU has an anthem, flag, passport, a Supreme Court, and a President—in anybody's language, those are sovereign nation state requirements. We are therefore no longer facing the prospect of something further down the track. Ministers, including those in the Chamber, have always said, "Oh no, that is not what we mean. We do not want to go that far, and that will not happen. We will make sure that everything is all right; trust us." Ministers

  715
  throughout the decades have said that, not just this lot, but gosh, this lot are far worse and more enthusiastic about the convention than Ministers have been for a long time.
  The convention does not offer something new or roll anything back. It merely adds the last few pieces to the jigsaw which the Prime Minister himself described in the past week as a superpower. I am opposed to such a concept, but I no longer regard it in the terms that have been used tonight. For many years, I believed that a fully federalist agenda would benefit a philosophy that subscribed to federalism. I have often argued the case for opposing federalism with many people, and shall no doubt do so in future. However, what is happening in the EU and the convention is not just about a political structure—it is about a political elite who will control Europe and have power in it. I pay great tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) for spelling that out much more clearly than I could. He has his finger on the pulse and, in my book, is at the heart of Europe—he has been to the convention, listened to the debate, and contributed to it. He has come back and spelt out exactly what is in store for us.
  Over the years, especially in the United Kingdom, politicians have tried to tell other politicians and the wider public that what we see is not really what we are going to get. They say that things will not be quite as bad or bound up—there will not be such a big transfer of power. In stark contrast, however, if one studies carefully what leaders of countries across the EU have said throughout the decades, one realises that they are a lot more open and honest with their populations about the true agenda. Perversely, Labour Ministers are still denying that what we have been hearing at this late stage in the completion of the jigsaw is really going happen. On 16 February 2000, only two years ago, a former Minister for Europe, the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz), reassured the House:
  "Let us not get carried away with the European super-state, with the charter of rights as a European constitution".—[Official Report. Westminster Hall, 16 February 2000; Vol. 344, c. 243WH.]
  That was meant to placate us all. Some of us did not believe it then, let alone now. Only two years later, the superstate is almost a fait accompli.
  The Government say so much, but they always cave in on Europe. Almost anybody can roll them over for little in return. The Secretary of State shakes his head, but if the Government had delivered a reformed common agricultural policy, he would be shown much more respect. They caved in on the collapse of the pillar structures, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) outlined. That applies especially to pillar 3 on justice and home affairs, which will be changed from being intergovernmental to EU. The jury is still out, but the outlook is not good, on whether Her Majesty's Government will stick up for pillar 2 on foreign affairs and defence. Another Franco-German axis is developing on that subject.
  The Government denied the incorporation of fundamental rights into treaties, but it is clearly on the agenda. They have granted the EU personality and conceded that it will have a written constitution. Time and again, they have yielded to additional qualified majority voting.
  716
  After the convention, the final pieces of the jigsaw might be put in place to create what most of us would recognise as a state. However often the Minister dismisses the proposals for a title or a name, the European Union will be a country called Europe.
  10.16 pm
  Mr. Richard Spring: We have held an important debate, which was marked by several noteworthy contributions. I must begin with that of the Secretary of State for Wales, the right hon. Member for Neath (Peter Hain), the former Minister for Europe. It is a joy that we have not entirely lost him from European affairs. I enjoyed his book, which touched on Europe. It is entitled "Ayes to the Right"—I am sorry, it is called "Ayes to the Left: A future for socialism." Judging by right hon. Gentleman's gymnastics in changing his views on almost every subject, it could appropriately be titled, "Eyes to the Main Chance."
  The right hon. Gentleman showed great prescience in his book, "A People's Europe", when he wrote that Europe was imperilled by its self-imposed monetarist straitjacket. I wonder how he squares that with his newfound passion for the euro. He also writes about Europe's
  "preoccupation with free market competition".
  The idea that that applies to the corporatist, interventionist, high tax mentality that prevails in much of the EU is patently absurd.
  It is incredible that someone who nowadays keeps telling us that Britain is winning the argument in Europe argued in his book for a centralised European budget that was three or four times its present size. Prudence appears to have taken a bit of a knock in the past week or so.
  Mr. MacShane: What has that to do with the motion?
  Mr. Spring: It is the background to the Government's representative and his mentality.
  We heard several good speeches. I especially commend those of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), who are members of the convention. I pay tribute to the hon. Lady's analysis; I agreed with much of it. However, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells hit the nail on the head when he said that the constitution was a centralising move with all the implications that flow from that.
  The hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson) spoke about the need for the Government to be seen to defend the interests of the British people. I agree with him. The hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) spoke about the need for a referendum if a constitution is created. I have some sympathy with that. My hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir Teddy Taylor) took up the point.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) mentioned an exit clause. That should be debated and considered. My hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon) spoke about the need for transparency in view of the fraud that has beset the

  717
  European Union. My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) made a good speech about the jigsaw that leads to the creation of a superpower.
  The hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore) on the one hand said that he wanted to reinforce the powers of the citizen, and on the other called for a written constitution, a charter for fundamental rights and all the baggage of centralisation. That is completely contradictory.
  The problem is that the Labour party talks flabbily about constructive engagement to address Europe's underlying problems, yet seems utterly incapable of coming up with specific, clear ideas for fixing them. It has forgotten that it must travel alongside changing times. We have seen its European bloc mentality, which is perfectly understandable, born as it was out of the second world war and the cold war during the second half of the last century. That mentality sought to mould the EU into a bloc, but it is now well past its sell-by date. Those old views simply endanger enlargement because they detract from the need to reform the EU to make enlargement really work. The Labour party was wrong in the 1980s about the big geopolitical issues of our time, and now, with the zeal of a convert, it has leap-frogged into a position of accepting in practice a supranational, integrationist agenda in Europe that has already been made completely irrelevant by the new global geometry.
  The challenge that we must truly address is the growing sense of distance between the EU and its members: the democratic deficit. The vast majority of the British people know that what they want from the European Union is a partnership of sovereign nation states working together for their mutual benefit. That is the Europe that the Conservative party wants to help to build, but, if we are to do that, the EU must encourage genuine review and reform. My right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes has set out very clearly just some of the key practical ways of providing critical pathways to achieve that.
  The draft treaty on the convention's deliberations insufficiently reconnects the EU to its members. In article 3, for example, we find a reference to the
  "development of a common foreign and security policy, and a common defence policy"
  as part of the EU's objectives. Of course, Europe needs to co-operate on foreign policy issues, but for us to abandon our own foreign policy capabilities would be to diminish our unique global reach and our historic understandings and links. On Thursday, the Prime Minister called for Europe to have a "unified foreign policy". What on earth did he mean? It can only mean that the Prime Minister looks forward to the day when European countries have no foreign policies of their own but speak with a single voice agreed in Brussels. Yet in the same speech, the Prime Minister said that he was opposed to the so-called communitisation of foreign policy. That is simply doublespeak.
  We should be working towards the politics of practical co-operation. No European country should force its foreign policy on another. Each country should be free to have a policy based on its capabilities. Of course, much can be accomplished by agreement, but
  718
  not by a single voice. This measure will not reconnect the EU with the voters; neither, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells pointed out, will the charter of fundamental rights. One of the most important ways in which we can reconnect is by minimising the intrusive impact of judge-led law as appropriate. We had assurances that the Government would never allow the charter of fundamental rights to become legally binding, and that it was worth no more than the Beano magazine. It is, of course, already playing a part in the European Court of Justice's jurisprudence.
  The current state of affairs is nothing compared with the powers that the charter would give to the Court if it were incorporated into the treaties. It would represent a vast extension of the EU's powers. Only last week, for instance, it was being mooted in the European Parliament that the charter's incorporation would allow the EU to act in the media market. The Government have, as so often, backtracked from their previous clear assurances. We now hear that the charter's incorporation would be acceptable provided that there were horizontal restrictions on its application—whatever that is supposed to mean in practice—and that it would have no influence over national courts. I hope to hear from the Minister a clear and detailed exposition of how that could possibly work.
  Europe today is not crying out for greater centralisation; it is asking for less. In the Prime Minister's speech last week, there was only one passing mention of the role of national Parliaments in the European Union, and that was only to approve of the convention's subsidiarity working group's report, which I found to be very meagre. That shows how little idea the Government seem to have of the need to re-engage the peoples of Europe with the European institutions. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes outlined early in the debate, that can be done only by strengthening the role of national Parliaments.
  Faced with ageing populations and high unemployment economies, the EU's main mission must be its original one of promoting its member states' economies to build prosperity. It is almost incredible that the Government are so ambitious for the EU to take on more when the single market is not yet complete. In the current economic climate, we must work for growth to create jobs, yet even now the EU is adding restrictions that militate against employment creation.
  The Conservatives want an EU that does genuine good for its peoples in this century. It must concentrate on its core tasks and it must be more open, democratic and accountable. National institutions—above all, national Parliaments—must have much greater control over its direction. Europe must look to the challenges of the 21st century, not the understandable hopes and fears of the immediate post-war period, which informed the development of the European Community.
  Europe needs a sense of finality—an end to the ratchet effect and an end to the sense that we are on a journey to ever-greater centralisation. We must break open the debate on Europe's future, and the Minister's idea of holding a national competition to find a better name for subsidiarity is excellent. We need to leave all the jargon of Europe behind, as only open, comprehensible institutions will meet the needs of today.

  719
  This evening, we have proposed a practical path for Europe to take so that it can meet those needs. If it does so, Europe can help us all to deal with the challenges that the 21st century will inevitably throw at us, but if we take the Government's path towards greater centralisation and a de facto political union, we shall answer only the wishes of Europe's elites, not those of its peoples.
  10.27 pm
  The Minister for Europe (Mr. Denis MacShane): I have a prepared speech that I could read to the House, but, if Members will permit me, I shall instead reply to the interesting points that have been made.
  We have had a healthy debate on Europe, which is what our country needs. As always, I listened with great care and interest to the winding-up speech of the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring), who speaks for the Opposition on Europe. I am fascinated by his claim that we need a European finality. That is the demand of Herr Joschka Fischer for what we need from the convention. I believe profoundly—the Prime Minister made this point in his speech last week—that of course, Europe will evolve, change and grow in different directions. There will be no European finality.
  I agree with the points made by a number of Members about sunset clauses and, as it were, drawing power back from Europe. That represents a good lesson for our Government, and—I shall try to make this my only partisan point, even though quite a number were put in the debate—some speeches, particularly those made from the Opposition Front Bench, conveyed a sense of the inferiority complex whereby we cannot be confident about Europe and cannot work in partnership on Europe.
  Powerful arguments were advanced by some Opposition Members, but the notion that France, Germany and Poland—from where my father came as a soldier to fight with our forces in the second world war—want to dissolve themselves in a new common European state is so profoundly nonsensical that it is unworthy of what was once a great party. Some Members, but not me, may have the zeal of the convert, but one thing is worse—the complete nihilistic loss of faith of the apostate. Until that once-great party rediscovers its European vocation, it will remain without much hope.
  One point constantly put in the debate was the fact that there is inadequate consultation on Europe. I would certainly say that there was inadequate coverage of it, or discussion of it—although we had an excellent debate in Westminster Hall last week, to which the hon. Member for Working (Mr. Malins) and others who are present now contributed. I have appeared before two Scrutiny Committees. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has also appeared before Scrutiny Committees, as he has told the House. Next week we shall have a major debate on Europe before the Copenhagen Council; no Labour Member fears any debate that is intended to justify the position—and, indeed, to get things right. Contributions from all sides add to our store of value where Europe is concerned.
  Moreover, there have been two consultations, one in 1997 and one last year. A clear choice was put to the British people: were they for Europe or against? They
  720
  endorsed the party that was clearly in favour of Europe, just as in my time my own party, 15 years ago, put to the British people the policy of hostility to Europe—and, indeed, of withdrawal from it. The Conservative party was then in favour of taking us deeper into Europe. It was the party of the single market, the party of Maastricht, and it won its election.
  Excellent speeches have been made by the representatives who serve on the convention in our name. Apart from the Government members, we have my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) and the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory). We also have three representatives from another place, Lady Scotland and Lords Tomlinson and Maclennan, and representatives of all the main parties, including the nationalist parties, and from the European Parliament—Linda McAvan, Andrew Duff, Lord Stockton, Timothy Kirkhope and Neil McCormick.
  I do not think there has been any time before when Britain has agreed to pool sovereignty—whether in the World Trade Organisation, NATO or, very indirectly, in the Council of Europe and the European Court of Justice—and parliamentary and elected representatives of the British people have been allowed, indeed instructed, to take part in debates on drawing up the new institutions. I welcome that development.
  In the most thoughtful speech of the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston stressed the need for parliamentarians to hold the Executive to account. For the first time, in the early stages of discussion of the preliminary draft constitutional treaty, we are hearing references to national Parliaments. The proposals will increase the power of national Parliaments to hold the European Executive to account.
  My hon. Friend also rightly stressed the relationship between subsidiarity and proportionality. During last week's Westminster Hall debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) invited the whole country to find a replacement for the word subsidiarity. I must report that I tried to find one on the net—I went through Google, and thesauruses—and every time I typed out the word subsidiarity, the answer was "Nothing known". I fear that we shall have to find the poet whom my hon. Friend asked us to discover.
  Mr. Allen: May I throw two suggestions into the equation—"democratic proximity", or perhaps even "democratic intimacy"?
  Mr. MacShane: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State described Europe United as a football team, whereas "democratic intimacy" sounds like one of those perfumes advertised by scantily clad people. I leave it to my hon. Friend to come up with more metaphors.
  The hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore) complained that there was not enough publicity for United Kingdom ideas, but every proposal and every speech is on the web. They are published by the Foreign Office, and by the parliamentary office of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston. It is true that there has not been enough discussion. There has been discussion in the House, but perhaps we need more serious discussion in our media.

  721
  Let me say how much I—like every other Member, I am sure—missed the presence and contribution of the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell). We all wish him a speedy return to full health, and we look forward to experiencing his wisdom and vision again in our debates on European and international affairs.
  My hon. Friend—and my good friend—the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson) talked about Europe as being simply an association of wealthy clubs. However, surely what Europe will be doing in the next week or two is opening up the EU to some of the poorest European countries—I should mention in passing, without in any way wishing to be controversial, that all those countries are eager to join the euro—and, I hope, in due course, Turkey. That is the strength of the European Union: it has allowed countries that were certainly very poor when my hon. Friend and I were students—
  Mr. Davidson: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. MacShane: I will not, as I want to deal with the comments of other colleagues. Countries that were very poor when my hon. Friend and I were young members of the Labour party are now doing much better, thanks to their membership of the European Union.
  The right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory)—another "conventioneer", to use the technical term—made a very thoughtful speech. He said that tonight the House had to endorse Mr. Giscard d'Estaing's preliminary draft constitutional treaty, but the motion before the House explicitly rejects a federal superstate. I hope that the House will not divide, but if it does it should support the rejection of a federal superstate. The motion also asks for the Standing Committee on the Convention, which comprises the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues, to be sustained for the current Session.
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. MacShane: I shall give way to the right hon. Gentleman, given his role as a conventioneer.
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Do I take it from the hon. Gentleman's comments that unless the constitutional draft is amended substantially, he will veto it as being unsatisfactory to the British Government?
  Mr. MacShane: It is in fact called a provisional draft preliminary, so there is nothing to veto. We are going to modify it, and I hope that today's contributions from hon. Members will help us in that process.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North made a powerful plea for us to take this constitutional process seriously, and that is exactly what we are trying to do. What is a constitution but a set of rules? In my eight and a half years in this place, all that I have heard from hon. Members on both sides of the House—especially from those who are most critical of the
  722
  European Union's work—is a demand for a set of rules. Now we are getting there, and some hon. Members do not like it.
  In Bagehot's famous book, "The English Constitution", he describes the need for a constitution:
  "So changing is the world, so fluctuating are its needs, so apt to lose inward force, though retaining outward strength, are its best instruments, that we must not expect the oldest institutions to be now the most efficient."
  That is exactly what we are trying to do with this convention: to make the way in which the European Union works more efficient, and to have clear rules that we all can understand.
  We all pay tribute to the command of detail and the passionate opposition of the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir Teddy Taylor). I understand that nearly 30 years ago, he resigned from the then Government in protest at the House's vote to enter the European Union. Indeed, we will celebrate the 30th anniversary of that accession on I January 2003. He, too, asked for a set of rules that we can understand. At the end of this process we will see whether we understand them, but we will have such a set of rules. Article 46 of Mr. Giscard d'Estaing's preliminary draft constitution allows for withdrawal. It is for the Government to take a final decision on that matter, but in the end, this House can always decide to withdraw from the European Union. If that provision were included in the final constitutional treaty, I, for the life of me, would find it hard to object to it.
  The hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) pointed out that our representatives on the convention should have had longer to speak. I cannot disagree with him, but that is a matter for the Chair. He pointed out that the accession countries want a union of European states, and he is right. He claimed that he persuaded Mr. Amato—and, perhaps indirectly, Mr. Giscard d'Estaing—of the virtues of an exit clause. I congratulate him most sincerely, but may I set him a greater task: to persuade his own party of the virtues of a staying-in clause, because that is the main problem?
  The hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon) listed examples of terrible fraud in the EU. He is absolutely right, but what he described is all the more reason to be in there, fighting in detail to ensure that such fraud is exposed. I read today that the National Audit Office notes that £150 million has been lost to the British taxpayer through that fraud. I am delighted to see that my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury has joined me. There is a biblical expression about motes and beams. Fraud involving the common agricultural policy in respect of our own farming community is not entirely exclusive to Brussels.
  The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) said that the convention was trying to get elected Governments out of the way, creating a jigsaw that will lead to a country called Europe. Again, the notion that France, Germany, Spain, the Netherlands, Poland and Estonia will give up their identity, laws, culture and customs is nonsense. I cannot patronise them and I will not patronise the House by accepting these arguments.
  We finish where we began, alas, on the debate between those in the House who want a stronger and more effective European Union in which nation states

  723
  have a clear and defined role, and those who want us to leave the European Union. That, again and again, is the difference. I commend to the House the motion whereby we will allow our conventioneers to carry on with their great work. I am happy to debate this again and again, as necessary.
  Question put—
  Hon. Members: No.
  Division deferred till Wednesday 4 December, pursuant to Order [28 June 2001 and 29 October 2002].

  Convention on the Future of Europe
    DELEGATED LEGISLATION

      EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
      Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
      That the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Agreement on Trade, Development and Co-operation Between the European Community and its Member States and the Republic of South Africa) Order 2002, which was laid before this House on 7th November, be approved.—[Mr. Sutcliffe.]
      Question agreed to.
      Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6)(Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

      INCOME TAX
      That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (South Africa) Order 2002 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 30th October, in the last Session of Parliament.
      That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Taiwan) Order 2002 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 30th October, in the last Session of Parliament.—[Mr. Sutcliffe.]
      Question agreed to.

    SITTINGS IN WESTMINSTER HALL
    Ordered,
    That, on Thursday 19th December, there shall be no sitting in Westminster Hall.—[Mr. Sutcliffe.]

    ADJOURNMENT (CHRISTMAS)
    Ordered,
    That this House, at its rising on Thursday 19th December, do adjourn till Tuesday 7th January 2003.—[Mr. Sutcliffe.]

    TAX LAW REWRITE BILLS (JOINT COMMITTEE)
    Ordered,
    That Mr Kenneth Clarke, Mr Parmjit Dhanda, Mr Michael Jack, Mr David Laws, Mr Chris Pond, Dawn Primarolo and Mr Anthony D. Wright be members of the Select Committee appointed to join with a Committee of the Lords as the Joint Committee on Tax Law Rewrite Bills.—[Mr. Sutcliffe.]

    COMMITTEES
    Mr. Speaker: With permission, I shall put motions 9 to 14 together.
    COMMITTEES

      Ordered,
      That Mr John Hayes be discharged from the Administration Committee and Mr Peter Luff be added to the Committee.

      ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS
      That Mr Keith Simpson be discharged from the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and Mr Bill Wiggin be added to the Committee.
      NORTHERN IRELAND AFFAIRS
      That Mr Henry Bellingham be discharged from the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee and Mr Hugo Swire be added to the Committee.
      SCOTTISH AFFAIRS
      That Mr Peter Atkinson be discharged from the Scottish Affairs Committee and Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger be added to the Committee.
      TRADE AND INDUSTRY
      That Mr Philip Hammond be discharged from the Trade and Industry Committee and Mr Henry Bellingham be added to the Committee.
      TRANSPORT
      That Chris Grayling be discharged from the Transport Committee and Mr George Osborne be added to the Committee.—[Mr. John Mc William, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]
    PETITION

      Abdullah Ocalan
      10.43 pm
      Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: The petition I present is on behalf of Mr. Fernando Bauza and 512 other residents, mainly from the town of Hastings. They are supporters of the imprisoned Kurdish leader, Abdullah Ocalan, and many of them recently demonstrated outside my office. They claim that he was abducted in 1999 by Turkish agents and subsequently sentenced to death without a fair trail, and that the conduct of the Turkish Government has led to conflict with ethnic Kurds and contributed to the large number seeking refuge in England.
      The Petitioners therefore pray that the House of Commons urge Her Majesty's Government to take such measures as lie within their power to intervene with the Turkish authorities to secure the release of Abdullah Ocalan.
      The Petitioners remain, etc.
      To lie upon the Table.

  Motorised Wheelchairs
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Derek Twigg.]
  10.44 pm
  Mr. David Kidney: I am pleased to have secured this debate. My aim is that the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson), and I look ahead to anticipate issues on public safety and traffic management and to reflect on good practice for the future use of motorised wheelchairs.
  On balance, it is good that many of us live much longer and that technology enables us to stay mobile for longer, but the consequences of those developments have not yet been fully thought through, still less adequately debated in public. My basic premise is that the use of motorised wheelchairs is growing fast and will continue to grow. As a result, the scope for conflict between different groups of road users will increase, so a competent and forward-thinking Government would want to plan ahead for the problems that may arise. I am pretty sure that I support a Government who are competent and forward thinking and I am certain that my hon. Friend the Minister has those qualities in spades.
  Is there much use of motorised wheelchairs at present, and why do I claim that such use will grow in future? When I raised the subject recently in the form of two written parliamentary questions, there was a surprising amount of interest from the national media, especially The Sunday Telegraph, and from Disability Now. I realise that politicians cannot always rely on media interest alone as solid evidence of public concern, so I looked elsewhere for evidence.
  The HAND partnership—Help, Advice and Advocacy for Norfolk Disabled People—is a not-for-profit charitable enterprise in Norwich whose activities include repairing, rebuilding and refurbishing disability vehicles, selling new ones and even hiring out vehicles. It provides services especially for people on low incomes and has been in business since 1987. That is evidence of sufficient demand to keep a business going.
  More significantly, however, private companies sell such vehicles for profit. Among them is DMA Ltd.—Days Medical Aids—whose marketing director, Mike Warren, has been most helpful. He told me that the market has seen a 45 per cent. increase in sales since 1997: from 22,000 vehicles in 1997 to 32,000 this year. He estimates that about 145,000 people are driving those vehicles around our towns and cities.
  Stephen Sklaroff, a deputy director general of the Association of British Insurers, told me that insurance for motorised wheelchairs is already widely available. He said that insurance may be bought for third-party cover only or as part of a package, for example, to include damage and theft. He told me that more and more people are buying cover.
  I hope that the Minister can see that, even with the limited resources and time that I have at my disposal as an individual Member, I have found good quality evidence that there is a growing market for the buying and hiring of motorised wheelchairs.
  726
  Why did I decide to investigate the matter? In time-honoured fashion, constituency casework first brought it to my attention, although I saw the link between the parochial and national interests immediately. The issue has national significance.
  Many hon. Members will have heard grumbling about the use of motorised wheelchairs—whether from the users themselves or from pedestrians and other road users. The first serious case that came to my attention in my constituency was of an elderly woman using a motorised wheelchair on a road in a village near Stafford. A car driver claimed that she had to swerve due to a sudden turn by the wheelchair user and her car struck the kerb. The car was damaged and the driver said that she was slightly injured and threatened to sue the wheelchair user for compensation. However, friends of the latter told me that she was a frail, elderly lady who had no savings and no insurance. Understandably, she was extremely upset at the prospect that she would be involved in a court case. My heart went out to that lady and I wondered whether insurance could have relieved her from worry about such a claim.
  Subsequently, I held one of my regular meetings with the managers of a local housing association. Some of their stock is sheltered housing for elderly residents and they told me that they had noticed that more of the residents were using motorised wheelchairs. The managers face a range of challenges—from conflict between residents who use motorised wheelchairs and those who are on foot to issues relating to the safe storage of the wheelchairs when they are not in use.
  The chief executive of the association wrote to me afterwards to list two incidents of a user driving into another resident on foot, and several incidents of users driving into property and ca using damage. Sheltered housing schemes must be expanding, and there are bound to be such incidents all over the country. Even on the safe storage of the vehicles, some thought will have to be given to design standards for future schemes. There is evidence from my own casework that warrants raising the subject.
  The current legal framework for the use of motorised wheelchairs is out of date. The present main Act is the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, which still refers to all motorised vehicles as "invalid carriages". That is surely an outdated expression. It has the whiff of the bygone age of the workhouse, and is a bit of an insult.
  The body of the current law is in the Use of Invalid Carriages on Highways Regulations 1988, which define three types of vehicles: classes 1 and 2 are the lighter ones, which have a top speed of 4 miles per hour and are restricted to use on pavements, while class 3 relates to the bigger, heavier vehicles, which have a top speed of 8 mph and may travel on roads at their top speed but on pavements at the reduced speed of 4 mph or less. The regulations prohibit users of motorised wheelchairs from using their vehicles on motorways—I am pleased to hear that—cycle lanes or bus lanes. They permit their use on pavements, whereas road traffic law forbids the use of motorcars, motorcycles and cycles on pavements.
  The exclusion of motorised wheelchairs from the definition of motor vehicles in road traffic law means that their users do not have to hold a driving licence, take a test, pay excise duty, hold third party insurance or even—perhaps alarmingly—pass an eye test.

  727
  The last piece of the legal framework is the DVLA code of practice for class 3 vehicles, published in June 2000. In fact, I think it has no legal backing, and a trade association sponsored it, but user groups were involved in its preparation, and at least its style makes for easy reading. However, I want the law to be reviewed. I want a code with legal status that deals with serious issues, such as users' fitness to ride, the vehicle's fitness for use and the need for third party insurance.
  In his written answer to my parliamentary question on 31 October—at column 980W—the Minister said that the Department is planning to review the legal framework governing both the construction and use of the vehicles in the near future. I hope that this debate will be helpful to the Department in pointing out some of the issues that will need attention, and in attracting the attention of interested groups, so that they may contribute to his review.
  I want to deal briefly with four issues: traffic management; fitness of users; fitness of vehicles; and insurance. On the first issue, the growth in the use of motorised wheelchairs will cause more conflict between their users and other road users, including car drivers, cyclists and pedestrians. The Department's current approach is best described as pretty much laissez-faire, but will it be adequate in the years to come? I expect the use of motorised wheelchairs in town and city centres to keep on growing.
  Shopmobility schemes such as the one that I visited in Stafford recently are doing excellent work allowing shoppers who may be elderly, infirm or disabled to be mobile around shopping centres. Such services are to be welcomed and encouraged. We can expect people to continue to use the pavements to get around shopping centres. In centres that are dispersed, and in suburban and rural areas, we might expect users to be tempted to ride faster and to use roads as well as pavements. What should we do about that? Do we continue to impose a speed limit of 4 mph on pavements? Do we allow faster vehicles to use the roads, or indeed require them to use only the roads? What of the prohibition on using bus lanes and cycle lanes? When councils are doing good work with the new local transport plans to tackle issues of public transport and road safety in a more strategic way, what should we do about these vehicles?
  As we plan and create networks of bus lanes, bus priority junctions, cycle lanes and safer walking lanes, should not we also plan how motorised wheelchairs fit into the scheme of things? The vehicles are comparatively lightweight and, of course, their users are very vulnerable people, so should we consider how to offer them the same level of protection as that given to cyclists and pedestrians? Indeed, in the future, should cycle lane networks be made available to those using motorised wheelchairs? I hope that the Minister will give serious thought to those questions.
  As for the fitness of users, most of the people involved will be elderly, infirm and disabled. It might be a cruel blow to develop the technology to aid their mobility, only to deny them access to it because we consider that they are unfit to operate the vehicles, so I concede that we need to tread carefully in this area.
  Rosemary Saw contacted me about her aunt, who, at 78 years of age, was persuaded to stop using her bicycle and started to use a buggy with three wheels and an
  728
  electric motor. Years later, her eyesight and memory began to fail, and sometimes she could not remember how to get home. Rosemary Saw says that there is nothing in law to aid worried relatives to get people to stop using those vehicles. She said that, at the outset, there was no test of her aunt's ability to use such a vehicle or of whether she could read a number plate at 25 yd, and that when her insurance was renewed annually no questions were asked about her fitness to continue to operate the buggy.
  In a similar vein, my own Stafford access group has contacted me. It is a group of disabled people who agitate for improved services and access to building and areas for disabled people, and I have met it often. It quotes with approval the practice of the local Shopmobility in using questionnaires to check the fitness of users to control the vehicles that are loaned to them. The group asked me to consider the safety of the user and the general public, given that medical conditions are a legitimate subject of public interest. I am asked whether there should be a requirement for an annual statement of fitness to operate, and I am happy to pass that comment on to the Minister.
  The fitness of vehicles is particularly relevant when they are used on public roads. The code of practice is short in that regard; it encourages owners to check regularly whether the vehicles are in good condition and recommends a safety check at least once a year. Indeed, the code says that the vehicles should have lights and reflectors, that users should wear something fluorescent by day and reflective at night and that the vehicles should have an audible warning device, a horn, and—listen to this—amber flashing lights when driving on dual carriageways.
  One correspondent has contacted me to say that many motorised wheelchairs do not have reflectors and that the dominant colour of the rear of them is black. He says that he feels that the vehicles should be a light colour at the back and that reflectors should always be fitted. Again, I pass on those comments to the Minister.
  I come now to the thorny issue of insurance. There is no legal requirement for insurance. The code of practice states that an insurance policy is strongly advised and that suitable schemes are not too expensive and are available to cover personal safety, other people's safety and the value of the vehicle itself. I do not wish to force people with a mobility need off our roads and pavements because they cannot afford the insurance, but the insurance need not be a burden.
  However, one correspondent has taken me to task, asking why wheelchair users should be picked on when cyclists pose a greater danger and saying that they should be made to take out insurance, but my first concern is for the peace of mind of the users of motorised wheelchairs. The Association of British Insurers has told me of a current case where a claim for about £75,000 has been brought against a user. The present cost of comprehensive insurance is about £40 a year.
  Another correspondent has told me that, some years ago, she was knocked down by an electric wheelchair, needed hospital treatment for an ankle injury and still has difficulty climbing stairs. She is suing, and the HAND partnership would welcome a compulsory requirement for third party insurance, provided that

  729
  there were safeguards against mis-selling and profiteering. The partnership shares my concern for the users of the vehicles and believes that insurance offers protection and peace of mind. It says that several of its clients have been victims of attempted robberies and that one man was dragged from his vehicle, beaten up and his vehicle was stolen.
  The purchase of a vehicle is a considerable investment. Prices vary between £1,000 and £3,000, and buyers sometimes do not have the resources to purchase a replacement for a stolen vehicle or to pay for repairs to a vehicle that is damaged. The HAND partnership has had three cases of malicious damage to clients' vehicles this year alone.
  Mr. Warren of DMA, a company that sells these vehicles, says that insurance gives users confidence to be able to go out and about and enjoy their independence. He points out that many of the insurance packages also include "breakdown assistance". Reassuringly, he tells me that he does not believe that a requirement for compulsory insurance would affect the present growth in sales of vehicles. He expresses the belief that compulsory provision may raise awareness among the general public and riders of the potential risks, and promote caution and courtesy on the part of riders and pedestrians.
  I favour compulsory insurance, but, of course, I would expect full discussion with all interested groups before the Government change the law. I would also expect further improvements in technology to bring down the capital cost of the vehicles, and perhaps packages including insurance in the sale price would bring down costs. The Association of British Insurers states that the insurance market would be ready to meet any additional demand for cover. Of course, the ABI would wish to discuss a number of practical issues with Government when considering formal proposals. I therefore urge the Minister to consult widely and consider compulsory insurance as an element in the review of construction and use that he is planning.
  Lastly, I would expect the Minister to proceed on the basis of the best available evidence, and make proper use of monitoring and evaluation in any new schemes that he devises. Perhaps he will therefore be surprised to learn that I have already received the first bid for funding for relevant research: to identify and describe the apparent risks and benefits of their use; to establish the need for and nature of improved education and training; and to establish the scope for improved mobility for older people. I do not know the person who has contacted me with that bid for research funding, but if the Minister would like the details I would be pleased to pass them on to him.
  What do I want to achieve from this debate? I ask the Minister to respond with details, as far as he can give them, of his plans for a review of the present legal framework for the construction and use of motorised wheelchairs. I hope that he will share my desire that people who are elderly, infirm or disabled should be helped to be as mobile as possible. I ask him to recognise and share my concern for the safety of the users of those vehicles and the safety of the public at large. Will he say something about compulsory insurance in particular?
  730
  Lastly, will he join me in paying tribute to all those who have contacted me with constructive comments, such as those to whom I have referred in my speech?
  11.2 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Jamieson): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) on securing this important debate, and on the characteristic care and precision with which he has presented his case to the House.
  Personal mobility is a vital part of daily life for all of us, and for many disabled and older people it is also the key to independent living. Losing the ability to go out and about independently can have a hugely damaging effect on an older person's quality of life. That is why the Government are wholly committed to addressing the transport and mobility needs of disabled and older people, not only in this important area but across the whole spectrum of public transport, the pedestrian environment and the private car.
  We are well aware of the demographic trends to which my hon. Friend has referred, and of the need to ensure that we have the means to help older people retain that all-important independence. That is likely to include, for example, continuing to drive for as long as they can safely and comfortably do so, and offering them alternative forms of mobility when they come to the point of giving up driving. Mobility centres around the country, which the Department supports financially, have a key role to play in that. Of course, when discussing the subject of motorised wheelchairs, we are talking not only about keeping people mobile but about safety, not just for users but for other road users and pedestrians. My hon. Friend referred to some of those issues.
  Before I respond to the main issue raised by my hon. Friend, it may be helpful if I briefly provide the House with some background on the legislation and the use of these vehicles. As he said, these vehicles are defined as "invalid carriages" in law. I agree with him that that is not a term that we would use these days—he called it an outdated term. I certainly do not think that we would describe the person who introduced the legislation—now Lord Morris of Manchester—as outdated. He continues to be a doughty fighter for disabled people. The sentiments and the measures in the legislation would certainly not be called outdated, but some of the terminology might well be.
  My hon. Friend has already briefly set out the legal position, but I hope that the House will bear with me for a couple of moments as I complete the picture and clarify it for the record. The use of these vehicles on the highway is governed in legislation by section 20 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, and by the Use of Invalid Carriages on Highways Regulations 1988. No regulations govern their use off the highway. The 1988 regulations cover three classes of invalid carriage—one class for manual equipment and two covering powered vehicles. Class I covers manual wheelchairs. Class 2 covers those vehicles designed for use on the footway—what most of us call the pavement—that can travel up to speeds of 4 mph. Class 3 covers vehicles that can be used both on the footway, where like the class 2s they are limited to 4 mph, and on the road where they can travel up to 8 mph.

  731
  Powered wheelchairs and scooters should not be seen as an alternative to a private car. They were introduced to provide local outdoor mobility for disabled people who might otherwise be confined to their home. Indeed, for the purposes of road traffic legislation these vehicles are defined as
  "not being a motor vehicle".
  This means that powered wheelchairs or scooters do not need to meet the same construction standards as a motor vehicle, nor do their users need to meet the same fitness standards as those required of a driver. However, given the speed restrictions and other limitations set out in the regulations covering their construction and use, the level of control has generally been regarded as reasonable. Of course, as many of the users may have been, or are still, driving a car, they will have experience of the highway code.
  My hon. Friend referred to construction and use standards, and the 1988 regulations require that all powered wheelchairs and scooters meet standards for lighting when used on roads, and there are also requirements for brakes, a horn, mirrors and a speed indicator to be fitted. All classes of these vehicles can be used legally by only one person and that must be a disabled person, someone involved in the sale or maintenance of the vehicle or the training of the user. Powered wheelchairs and powered scooters also need to comply with the CE marking requirements under the medical devices regulations.
  I have set out the general background to the construction and use of these vehicles, so I will now focus on insurance, which I know is of particular concern to my hon. Friend. He has already referred to a question that he asked recently in the House on the issue, and I have also received correspondence from other Members on the same subject. When the legislation was amended in 1988, it was considered unnecessary to introduce a requirement in law for compulsory insurance. The previous regulations—which had covered class 1 and 2 vehicles—had made no provision and there were strong representations that the status quo should be maintained. The decision was reached in consultation with disability organisations and enforcement authorities. At that time, there was very strong opposition to compulsory insurance from disability organisations and no clear consensus among the other bodies consulted.
  On that basis, it was agreed that the most effective approach was to provide clear guidance to the users of these vehicles about their responsibilities as road users, including strong advice on the desirability of obtaining insurance, either through household insurance or a separate policy. As my hon. Friend said, insurance can be obtained at modest cost and, of course, can bring considerable peace of mind to the user.
  The guidance—a code of practice for class 3 vehicle users—has been updated since 1988, and has been supplemented by a training pack specifically aimed at the users of the class 3 vehicles that can be used on the footway and on the carriageway.
  In addition to the insurance question, we are aware that there are other issues about the use of these vehicles
  732
  that are of concern to my hon. Friend and to members of the general public. Dropped kerbs, for example, are essential to help all wheelchair and scooter users cross from one pavement to another. Many disabled people are concerned that there are not enough of them or that they are too high. We have tried to tackle that problem in a number of ways. Our guidance to local authorities on local transport plans makes it clear that they must consider the needs of disabled people from the start to the finish of their journey. The guidance reinforces the requirement in the Transport Act 2000, which places a specific duty on local authorities that in developing their local transport plans, they must have regard to the transport needs of people who are elderly and have mobility problems.
  My hon. Friend knows that we have put a substantial amount of extra new money into local transport plans. The amount has doubled in his area of Staffordshire over the past few years and I am sure that his authority is putting it to good use, not least as a result of the pressure that my hon. Friend puts on it to tackle the issue that he has raised. The guidance is called "Inclusive Mobility" and will help authorities prepare to comply with the duties of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, which from 2004 will require the removal of physical barriers to access.
  Concerns have been expressed by some pedestrians, especially those who are frail or who have low vision, about the size and speed of the vehicles used on pavements and in shopping centres. There are also concerns expressed by motorists about the ability of some class 3 users to control their vehicle. As a result of those concerns, there have been calls for tighter controls, such as minimum eyesight requirements, compulsory training or a test of competence.
  My hon. Friend asked about the review of legislation. I assure him that we take the issue seriously, but we need to recognise the balance between the needs of the users of the vehicles to maintain their vital independence and mobility and the needs of other road users. We are aware that the use of such vehicles is likely to increase and we want to ensure that the legal framework is right. For those reasons, as a competent and forward-thinking Government—my hon. Friend tossed us that bouquet and I pluck just one small flower from it for my Department—we have decided to hold a full review of the 1988 regulations, covering all aspects of the use of those vehicles on the highway. We plan to hold the review next year.
  The review will include a wide-ranging consultation with all interested groups and stakeholders. It will cover the full range of issues that I have touched on and perhaps others that have not yet been identified. During the course of the review, we will be happy to receive any specific comments that my hon. Friend receives. I commend his constituents on raising the matter with him. It is proper that they should do so and we would welcome their contribution to the consultation. Once the review is complete, we will consider whether any changes are needed either to the law that governs the use of the vehicles or to the guidance that accompanies the regulations.
  My hon. Friend would not expect me to prejudge the outcome of the review, but we are keenly aware of the

  733
  balance that has to be struck between mobility and safety. As a result of misleading press coverage, which implied that we were committed to introducing compulsory insurance, we have received several representations from disability organisations arguing strongly against such a requirement. We also want to listen carefully to those opinions.
  734
  My hon. Friend has raised important matters in his customary powerful but persuasive way. I congratulate him on raising the problem on behalf of disabled people and other users of the pavement and the road. If I have not been able to answer all his questions in the short time available, I will be happy to correspond with him.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at fourteen minutes past Eleven o'clock.

DEFENCE

  Fire Training
  Mr. Cameron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many military personnel were undergoing training on red fire engines; and how many fire engines were being used for such training before the outbreak of the firefighters' strike. [84223]

  Mr. Ingram
  The core emergency fire cover provided by the armed forces continues to be based around the fleet of Green Goddesses, and training was initially focused on them. Subsequent to the start of the strike, some 80 red fire engines have since been made available and military personnel have completed training on them.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what extra resources have been deployed in the defence of Gibraltar this year. [84382]

  Mr. Ingram
  The United Kingdom retains a sizeable defence presence on Gibraltar. No significant extra resources have been deployed in the defence of Gibraltar this year.

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Al Qaeda terrorists he estimates were(a) killed and (b) captured by British forces deployed in Task Force JACANA in Afghanistan. [84527]

  Mr. Hoon
  None.

  Aircraft Carriers
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the capabilities of the two new aircraft carriers will be; how many and what types of aircraft and helicopters will be on board; and if he will make a statement. [83224]

  Dr. Moonie
  The two new carriers (CVF) will have the capability to deploy offensive air power in support of the full spectrum of future operations.

  The numbers and types of aircraft aboard CVF will depend upon the operational circumstances at the time. However, the CVF will have the capacity to operate a wide range of aircraft, including maritime airborne surveillance and control (MASC) platforms and helicopters in a variety of roles (for example, attack, surveillance, anti-submarine warfare and support.) As announced on 30 September 2002, the short take off and vertical landing (STOVL) variant of the F35 joint strike fighter (JSF) has been selected to meet the joint combat aircraft (JCA) role, operating either from the carriers or from land. Although CVF will, at the outset, operate the
  470W
  STOVL F35, it highly desirable that they could be modified to fly a further generation of aircraft, even beyond the F35, whether or not these too are STOVL. That is why we have decided they will be built to an innovative, adaptable plan.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what defence systems the new aircraft carriers will have; and what the minimum protection required will be from the surface fleet on operations. [83226]

  Dr. Moonie
  We are still evaluating the options for on-board self-defence systems on the carrier and no final decisions will be made until the main gate business decision late in 2003. We expect normal operating practice for the future aircraft carriers (CVF) to call for a multi-layered approach to defence, including escort ships, submarines and aircraft. CVF will also operate joint strike fighter (JSF) aircraft in both offensive and defensive roles, as well as Merlin anti submarine helicopters.

  Unexploded Ordnance
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what ordnance management guidelines his Department has on the clearing of the Archers Post training ground in Kenya. [83702]

  Mr. Ingram
  The British Army mandates strict standards on the management of ordnance, which apply throughout the world. These regulations require all range conducting officers involved with unit live firing exercises to adhere to safe practices and range clearance procedures and include instructions on the reporting, recording and destruction of unexploded ordnance. The units undertaking the annual explosive ordnance clearance exercise in Kenya (Exercise PINEAPPLE) conform to these regulations.

  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the disposal cost of unexploded ordnance in the Archers Post training ground in Kenya is. [83703]

  Mr. Ingram
  It is not possible to provide costs for the ordnance clearance undertaken by the individual units on completion of their training activity at Archers Post. The cost of the annual explosive ordnance disposal exercise (Exercise PINEAPPLE) is estimated at approximately £35,000 per annum. This figure does not include either capitation or transportation costs, to and from Kenya, of the personnel involved in the exercise.

  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence to what depth the Ministry of Defence surveys when carrying out clean up operations in Archers Post, Kenya. [83706]

  Mr. Ingram
  The clearance of unexploded ordnance at Archer's Post is, in the main, carried out by visual search. Where there is evidence of unexploded ordnance in particular areas, instrumentation is used to conduct a more intensive search. There is, therefore, no specific survey depth employed for clearance of unexploded ordnance across the entirety of Archer's Post.

  Army
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many members of the Army indicated when last questioned, that they were satisfied with(a) the amount

  471W
  of entitled leave they are able to take, (b) the frequency of operational tours, (c) the length of operational tours and (d) intervals between operational tours; what percentage of those responding this represents; what percentage of actual strength this represents; and if he will make a statement. [82482]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Army has been conducting the Continuous Attitude Survey (CAS) for over 20 years. It is a valuable tool in understanding the current thinking of Army personnel and is used to help manage retention, exercise duty of care and report on progress with Army and wider Departmental initiatives. The latest survey, which was undertaken in March/April 2002, was only sent to a 4 per cent, random sample f the trained Army (excluding Gurkhas and Full Time Reserve Service personnel); 3,978 questionnaires were sent out.

  The percentages of those who responded to the most recent CAS, that are satisfied, dissatisfied or do not have a strong opinion regarding Operational tours and leave, are shown in the table.

  Percentage satisfied

  Percentage neutral

  Percentage dissatisfied

  Amount of leave

  49

  24

  27

  Frequency of operational tours

  37

  33

  30

  Length of operational tours

  43

  35

  22

  Tour intervals

  30

  36

  34

  I am unable to provide the percentage of the actual strength that this represents.

  Missile Defence
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his estimate is of the cost to the United Kingdom of a possible ballistic missile defence system involving new weapons and the latest technology; what assessment he has made of the benefits of the system; what his policy is on the response of the UK Government to a country firing a ballistic missile at the United Kingdom; what his estimate is of a likely non-country actor obtaining and firing a ballistic missile at the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [83871]

  Mr. Hoon
  As I told the House on 17 October 2002,Official Report, column 503, it is right that we recognise the potential contribution of missile defence to a comprehensive strategy to deal with the threat from ballistic missiles. No realistic cost estimates can be made at this stage. The United States Government has made no specific decisions on the overall architecture of a US missile defence system. No decision has been taken on the acquisition of a missile defence system by the UK.

  The firing of a ballistic missile at the UK from any source would be a clear act of aggression which would receive a proportionately serious response. We currently assess the possibility of a non-state actor obtaining and launching a ballistic missile at the United Kingdom as remote.

  Car Parking
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many car parking spaces are available to 472W
  (a) employees of his Department and (b) visitors to his Department within the proposed Central London Road User Charging Zone. [81863]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 19 November 2002]: The following table shows the numbers of vehicle parking spaces for departmental buildings within the proposed Central London Road User Charging Zone.

  Location

  Vehicle parking spaces

  Main Building

  68

  Old War Office

  24

  St. Giles Court

  32

  St. Georges Court

  12

  St. Christopher House

  26

  Castlewood House

  6

  Hampton

  3

  Horse Guards

  18

  Rochester Row

  5

  TAVRA buildings

  9

  Total

  203

  Note:

  For Whitehall buildings spaces are provided for official vehicles, shift workers and disabled staff. Members of staff who choose to drive to work are not permitted to use a parking space. For the duration of the redevelopment work at Main Building a temporary car park has been created in Embankment Gardens. The north and south car parks are not is use.

  In addition, Wellington Barracks has 270 spaces of which 266 are allocated to residents.

  Challenger
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his oral statement of 25 November,Official Report, column 129, on the contract for the desertisation of the Challenger 2 tank, on what date the contract was (a) let and (b) signed. [84291]

  Mr. Hoon
  A Post Design Services enabling agreement with Alvis Vickers Ltd., the Design Authority (DA) for Challenger 2, was authorised at the end of October 2002. A series of other contracts have been let with the DA since then, but I am withholding details of these under Exemption 1 (Defence, security and international relations) of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. To provide such information would jeopardise our contingency planning and harm operational security.

  Chief of Public Relations
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reason the expenditure of his Chief of Public Relations increased from 2000–01 to 2001–02. [84538]

  Dr. Moonie
  As shown in Table 27 of the Departmental Performance Report for 2001–02 (Cm 5661) expenditure by the Chief of Public Relations increased from £2.8 million in 2000–01 to £3.1 million in 2001–02. The increase was due mainly to increased costs in running press facilities in support of Operation VERITAS.

  Combat Assault Boot
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what stock of the army's combat assault boot is held; and how long that stock will last. [84102]
  473W
  Dr. Moonie
  As at 27 November, there are currently 18,745 pairs of Combat Assault Boots held in stock, which equates to about eight weeks supply. Our stocks are replenished at about 6,000 pairs a week.

  Mr. James Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many soldiers were issued with the combat assault boot in the last 12 months. [84103]

  Dr. Moonie
  For the period 1 November 2001 to 31 October 2002, 79,000 pairs of Combat Assault Boots were issued to Army units.

  Mr. James Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many soldiers could not be issued with the combat assault boot in the last 12 months because of shortage of supply. [84104]

  Dr. Moonie
  There have recently been problems with the supply of Combat Assault Boots (CAB) as a result of production difficulties with the contractors concerned. These difficulties have now been resolved and stocks are being replenished. We do not hold information centrally on the number of boots issued to individuals at unit level. We do not believe any soldier was without CAB because of this difficulty.

  Computer Theft
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many laptops and computers have been(a) stolen and (b) lost by his Department since December 2000; and how many in each category have been recovered. [84608]

  Dr. Moonie
  Since December 2000, there have been 260 reported cases of computer theft and six reported cases of computer losses across the Ministry of Defence. Details by category, distinguishing between laptops and other computers, and the numbers of each recovered, are not readily available, under current reporting arrangements and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. A new system of reporting is being introduced with effect from 1 April 2003. This will enable detailed data to be retrieved more readily.

  Council of Ministers
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what meetings of the EU Council of Ministers are planned where defence and security issues will be discussed over the next 12 months. [84874]

  Mr. Hoon
  Defence and security issues are discussed in the General Affairs and External Relations Council. The dates of these meetings are set out each month in Written Ministerial Statements from the Minister for Europe, most recently today. We do not currently have any information about dates for meetings after June 2003.

  Counter-Terrorist Checks
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with the Chief Executive of the Defence Vetting Agency on its performance in 2001–02 towards its key target 3 on counter terrorist checks. [84265]
  474W
  Mr. Ingram
  I am regularly consulted on the formulation of the Defence Vetting Agency's key targets, including the target for counter-terrorist checks. I am also briefed on the Agency's performance against those targets. As I explained in my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Mr. Rapson) on 17 October 2001,Official Report, column 1223W, the Agency's performance would be depressed while a number of changes took place in the course of DVA collocation and an ambitious modernisation programme aimed at improving efficiency and responsiveness. I am satisfied that the necessary action is being taken to improve on last year's performance and have approved the key targets for the current year.

  Criminal Injuries Compensation
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to(a) review the working of the Criminal Injuries Compensation (Overseas Scheme) as it applies to his Department and (b) to extend the Scheme to include all MOD civilians. [83520]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Criminal Injuries Compensation (Overseas) (CIC(O)) Scheme is designed to give members of the armed forces and their dependants who are deployed overseas comparable levels of compensation to those that would have been awarded by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA) had the incident occurred in Great Britain. The operation of the CIC(O) Scheme is, therefore, analogous to that of the CICA.

  The CICA has introduced a new scheme for applications received on or after 1 April 2001. The CIC(O) Scheme rules have been reviewed and changes made to reflect the changes to the CICA scheme.

  There are no plans to extend the CIC(O) Scheme to include MOD civilians, as they are already covered by the provisions of the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme (PCSPS). Claims under this scheme are assessed by the PCSPS Medical Advisers by analogy to the CICA Scheme.

  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many claims have been made by(a) members of HM forces, (b) dependants and (c) civilian MOD employees under the Criminal Injuries Compensation (Overseas) Scheme in each year since 1997. [83521]

  Dr. Moonie
  The number of claims made by members of HM forces and their accompanying eligible dependants under the Criminal Injuries Compensation (Overseas) Scheme in the financial years 1997–98 to 2001–02 is as follows:

  Financial year

  Number of claims

  1 April 1997 to 31 March 1998

  66

  1 April 1998 to 31 March 1999

  69

  1 April 1999 to 31 March 2000

  74

  1 April 2000 to 31 March 2001

  70

  1 April 2001 to 31 March 2002

  47

  The records of claims made by members of HM forces are not maintained separately from those made by their

  475W
  dependants. Separate figures for each category could be produced only at disproportionate cost by individually examining each case record.

  Civilian employees of the Ministry of Defence are not eligible to claim under the scheme. They are, however, covered in similar terms by the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme (PCSPS), as are locally employed civilians (LECs).

  The number of claims under this provision is as follows:

  Financial year

  Number of claims

  1 April 1997 to 31 March 1998

  0

  1 April 1998 to 31 March 1999

  2

  1 April 1999 to 31 March 2000

  3

  1 April 2000 to 31 March 2001

  1

  1 April 2001 to 31 March 2002

  3

  Croatia
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what support has been given to Mr. Terry Jeans to enable him to attend court in Croatia; and what further support is to be offered to enable him to attend a public hearing on the case on 5 December. [84008]

  Dr. Moonie
  Between September 1998 and July 2000, Mr. Jeans was afforded considerable financial assistance from both public and non-public funds to enable him to attend a number of court hearings in Croatia, in relation to his son, Private Simon Jeans, who died on 17 September 1996 following an assault by a number of Croatian civilians in Split. Administrative support was provided by the British Embassy and Defence Staff in Zagreb.

  The Regimental Association of the Royal Logistics Corps, which provided the most significant contribution, is unable to provide any further financial assistance to Mr. Jeans. Mr. Jeans was not the nominated Next of Kin and is therefore not entitled to support from public funds. Exceptional authority was, however, granted by the Secretary of State for the funding from the public purse of Mr. Jeans' last trip to Croatia in July 2000, to enable him to hear the conclusion of the trial of those accused of assaulting his son. This was on the basis that it constituted his final trip to Croatia and that no precedent would be set. The latest hearing concerns an appeal by a Croatian state attorney against the later release of two of those who were accused of assaulting Private Jeans. While the Ministry of Defence recognises Mr. Jeans' desire to attend this latest hearing, I am afraid that no further financial assistance can be provided to him in this case.

  Cruise Missiles
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Royal Navy submarines armed with cruise missiles are available for deployment to the Gulf. [84368]

  Mr. Ingram
  Currently the Royal Navy has five submarines fitted for Tomahawk missiles, however, the specific operational status of each submarine is classified 476W
  for security reasons and is being withheld in accordance with Exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Death Benefits
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many awards of death benefits for single soldiers have been made in each year since 1990; and what the cost was in each year. [83811]

  Dr. Moonie
  The number of death benefit awards for Army Single Soldiers, since 1990, including the cost in each year is in the following table:

  Year paid

  Number of single person deaths

  Amount (£)

  1992

  64

  811,416.67

  1993

  64

  847,349.20

  1994

  56

  734,072.80

  1995

  46

  648,847.80

  1996

  28

  414,395.53

  1997

  54

  793,114.00

  1998

  43

  644,226.00

  1999

  48

  766,925.26

  2000

  41

  769,065.08

  2001

  18

  275,885.71

  2002

  30

  530,951.27

  Complete records are held on single soldier death benefit awards from 1992 only. These figures are for Army Other Ranks (soldiers) only. They do not include Army Officers or Navy and RAF Personnel.

  Defence Export Services Organisation
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will outline the recruitment policy of the Defence Export Services Organisation; and if he will make a statement. [83862]

  Dr. Moonie
  All permanent Civil Servants employed in the Ministry of Defence are recruited in accordance with the Civil Service Commissioners' Recruitment Code. There is no separate policy for recruitment of such staff to the Defence Export Services Organisation.

  Departmental Resource Accounts
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reasons the National Audit Office qualified his Departmental Resource Accounts for 2000–01. [84541]

  Mr. Ingram
  We have confirmed the hon. Member is referring to 2001–02. The Comptroller & Auditor General (C&AG) qualified the Departmental Resource Accounts for 2001–02 for the following reasons:-

  The Department was not able to give sufficient information and explanation on:
  Completeness of stock consumption and depreciation charges for assets held by contractors.
  Charges relating to stock write off and impairment of capital spares on the supply systems at Air Environment.

  The Department exceeded its voted net resources by £601.8 million in non-cash expenditure, primarily as a result of impairment of the valuation of certain equipment.
  477W
  Further details are given in the published 2001–02 Departmental Resource Accounts published on 21 November 2002 (HC47).

  Director General Training and Education Organisation
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the uncertainties over funding were which have delayed the establishment of the Director General Training and Education Organisation. [84540]

  Dr. Moonie
  The formation of a Director General Training and Education (DGT&E) organisation was a recommendation of the Defence Training Review (DTR), announced on 27 March 2001,Official Report, column 545W by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. However, the DTR recommendations were approved by Ministers after Departmental spending plans for 2001–02 had been finalised, and it was not possible at that time to set aside funding for the formation of DGT&E. The organisation has now been established.

  European Security and Defence
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, in the event of competing demands on UK forces from ESDP and NATO, to which organisation will he give priority. [84876]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Government make decisions on the deployment of United Kingdom forces on operations on a case-by-case basis. These judgments are based on factors such as operational need, what forces we and others have to offer, and any international treaty obligations that may be relevant, with NATO remaining the foundation of our collective defence.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if it is the policy of the Government that EU-NATO relations should be established so that all force planning and military command functions should be through NATO military headquarters at SHAPE. [84878]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Nice European Council in December 2000 decided that, for EU-led operations that make use of NATO assets and capabilities, operational planning will be carried out by NATO's planning bodies. For these operations, the Deputy SACEUR and SHAPE have been identified as the primary candidates for Operation Commander and Operation Headquarters. These arrangements are subject to finalising agreement on modalities for EU-NATO co-operation. For EU-led operations without recourse to NATO assets and capabilities, planning and command requirements would draw on existing national and multinational headquarters available to the EU.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place a copy of the Helsinki Headline Catalogue 2002 (HHC 2002) in the Library. [84873]

  Mr. Hoon
  This is a European Union document and thus not ours to publish. I am withholding it under Exemptions la and c (Defence, Security and international relations) of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.
  478W
  However, a summary of potential member state contributions to an EU-led operation was placed in the Library of the House in May of this year.

  Eurofighter Typhoon
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his latest estimate is of when the Eurofighter will be ready for operational use by the Royal Air Force. [83905]

  Dr. Moonie
  We expect Eurofighter, which has been re-designated Typhoon, to be available for operational deployment in the second half of this decade.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what costs were incurred by his Department in providing military assistance in managing the foot and mouth epidemic. [84528]

  Mr. Ingram
  Additional costs of around £7 million were incurred. These costs have been reimbursed to the Ministry of Defence by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

  Future Aircraft Carriers
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what fixed wing aircraft will be used on the future aircraft carriers. [84086]

  Dr. Moonie
  The future aircraft carriers (CVF) should initially operate the Short Take Off and Vertical Landing (STOVL) variant of the F35 Joint Strike Fighter. No decision has yet been taken on how best to meet our requirement for a Maritime Airborne Surveillance and Control (MASC) capability, and a range of embarked fixed wing air platforms remain under consideration.

  Beyond this, it is impossible to say what fixed wing platforms might be used on CVF over its planned 50-year life. CVF will be built to an innovative and adaptable design, therefore, so that it can be modified to operate future generations of air platforms, whether or not these have STOVL characteristics.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of manufacture of the future carriers will be carried out in the UK. [84088]

  Dr. Moonie
  In line with Government policy, the carriers will be built in United Kingdom shipyards. It is still too early in the programme to be definitive about all of the carriers' sub-systems, as many of these have not yet been selected.

  Green Goddesses
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to replace Green Goddess fire engines. [84161]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government have no current plans to replace the Green Goddesses, although the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has been giving consideration to

  479W
  replacing the Green Goddess capability and has made arrangements to supplement the Green Goddesses with red fire appliances in the course of the current dispute.

  Hawk Aircraft Order
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the order for Hawk AJT (MFTS) from BAE Systems, Brough Site will be confirmed. [82243]

  Dr. Moonie
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 25 November 2002,Official Report, columns 5–6W to the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss Mclntosh).

  HMS Manchester
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what effect the firefighters' strike has had on the planned deployment of HMS Manchester on anti-terrorist patrol duties. [84369]

  Mr. Ingram
  HMS Manchester was due to deploy on 29 November to join the Activated Nato Task Group (Standing Naval Force Mediterranean) on Operation Active Endeavour in the Mediterranean from 8 December to 15 January. HMS Manchester is, however, currently providing fire fighting cover during the dispute and thus will not sail as previously planned. The United Kingdom presence will be maintained through RFA Orangeleaf which will be on task throughout the period as the support tanker.

  Ex-Servicemen (Housing Project)
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to the answer given to the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham on 26 November 2002,Official Report, column 177W, what plans he has to use the housing project for ex-servicemen in Richmond, North Yorkshire, as a model for other projects in England. [84768]

  Dr. Moonie
  The purpose of the new Galleries short-term accommodation project in Richmond, North Yorkshire, is to provide the very small proportion of new Service-leavers who are vulnerable to homelessness with secure, short-term accommodation while they are helped to develop the confidence and independent living skills necessary to find permanent accommodation and employment in their chosen areas. The aim is to appraise the project carefully so that, where appropriate, lessons learned can be applied by the many government and voluntary agencies that are working in partnership to reduce the risk of homelessness.

  Joint Force Logistic component
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reason he has not established a standing headquarters for the Joint Force Logistic Component. [84533]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Joint Force Logistic Component (JFLogC) concept does not require a standing headquarters. The organisation and composition of a480W
  headquarters would be determined by the circumstances of particular missions. This allows mission specific factors, such as the scale, duration and complexity, to be taken into account when determining the composition of the headquarters.

  Married Quarters
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what relative priority Defence Housing Estates give to refurbishing married quarters in(a) a major garrison town and (b) in more remote individual barracks; [84101]

  (2) when the married quarters estate at Hullavington Barracks is to be refurbished; and if he will make a statement. [84100]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Defence Housing Executive (DHE) aims to upgrade core housing stock (ie that required in the longer term) to Standard 1 For Condition (S1FC). No distinction is made as to whether the properties are within a barracks or part of a garrison town.

  DHE plans to refurbish 110 family quarters at Hullavington Barracks. The project, which is designed to bring the properties up to SF1C, is due to start in early 2004.

  Military Trucks Contract
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) when he will make an announcement on the company awarded the military trucks contract; [84084]

  (2) how many companies bidding for the military trucks contract will base manufacture of the vehicle in the UK; [84085]

  (3)if he will make a statement on progress being made with the tender for the military trucks contract. [84083]

  Dr. Moonie
  The tenders received for the military truck contract have been assessed and the four bidders have been invited to participate in a further round of tendering. Responses are expected early next year, and an announcement on the award of contract is planned for late 2003. Proposals for United Kingdom industrial participation have been included in all the bids.

  Minesweepers
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the scheduled decommissioning dates for each of the last Hunter class minesweepers. [84378]

  Mr. Ingram
  On current plans the scheduled decommissioning dates for each of the Hunt class mine counter measure vessels in the Royal Navy are as follows:

  HMS

  Planned operational decommissioning date

  Ledbury

  2023

  Cattistock

  2022

  Brocklesby

  2020

  Chiddingfold

  2020

  Middleton

  2019

  Hurworth

  2020

  Atherstone

  2020

  Quorn

  2020

  481W
  A further three hunt class ships with mine counter measure capability are now configured for use as patrol craft. They are Brecon, Cottesmore and Dulverton, with planned decommissioning dates of 2016, 2022, and 2020 respectively.

  NATO HQs
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many NATO HQs are based in the UK. [84536]

  Mr. Hoon
  There are three NATO HQs currently based in the United Kingdom. Two at Northwood (Regional Headquarters Eastern Atlantic and Allied Naval Forces North) and one at High Wycombe (a combined air operations centre).

  Northern Ireland
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the strength is of service personnel based in Northern Ireland. [84530]

  Mr. Ingram
  Out of the current total of 14,226 regular armed forces personnel (Army, Navy and RAF) permanently committed to operations in Northern Ireland, there were 14,042 deployed in Province on 28 November 2002. In addition, there are a further 1,039 armed forces personnel temporarily deployed to Northern Ireland as a result of the firefighters dispute under OPERATION FRESCO.

  Nuclear Waste
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the value of his Department's nuclear waste and decommissioning liabilities is; and what provision has been made to discharge them. [84266]

  Dr. Moonie
  The headline undiscounted liability figure which appears in the 2001–02 Departmental Resource Account is £16.6 billion. This compares to £16.0 billion at 31 March 2001. The headline discounted figure for which provision has been made is £3.9 billion. This compares to £3.6 billion at 31 March 2001. Further information is contained in paragraph 16.2 to the notes to the accounts of the Ministry of Defence Consolidated Departmental Resource Accounts 2001–02, which was laid before the House on 21 November 2002, as HC47.

  Nuclear Weapons Tests
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much has been spent by his Department, in each year since 1972, on monitoring the health impact of radioactive emissions on British service people and medical auxiliaries from(a) atmospheric nuclear tests, (b) other nuclear tests and (c) radiological experiments. [84259]

  Dr. Moonie
  British atmospheric nuclear testing ceased in 1958. This information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Operation Fresco
  Mr. James Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) from which budget the additional costs of Operation Fresco will be drawn; [84105]
  482W
  (2) what discussions he has had about use of the Contingency Fund to pay for Operation Fresco; [84107]

  (3) what the estimated extra costs to the defence budget is of Operation Fresco; [84106]

  (4) what extra funds (a) Defence Fire Services, (b) RAF Fire Service and (c) RN Fire Services will be granted to cover their contribution to Operation Fresco. [84108]

  Mr. Ingram
  Costs will initially fall to a wide range of Ministry of Defence budges, reflecting the many different areas of the Armed Forces involved in providing assistance. No extra funds will be made available to these areas, because MOD will recover the additional costs of the operation from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. Because the defence budget will be reimbursed, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has had no discussions about use of the Contingency Fund. It is too early to say how much the military assistance will cost, but in preparing for the strike MOD incurred costs of about 8 million, mainly on purchasing major items of equipment such as protective clothing, breathing apparatus and hydraulic cutting equipment.

  Macedonia
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether NATO will extend its mandate in Macedonia beyond 15 December; and if he will make a statement. [82556]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 25 November 2002]: NATO has agreed to continue a military presence in succession to Operation Amber Fox in Macedonia commencing on 16 December for a limited period.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether it is government policy that the EU should not take over the peacekeeping mandate in Macedonia unless permanent arrangements for EU-NATO relations are in place. [82557]

  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 25 November 2002]The United Kingdom Government stands by the position agreed in the European Council at Seville that the European Union is willing to undertake an operation in Macedonia at the request of the Macedonian Government, once the EU-NATO permanent arrangements are in place.

  Plutonium
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what quantities of plutonium, arising from British experiments at Maralinga in South Australia, remain buried in the desert; what environmental monitoring is conducted of these sites; and what representations have been received from Aborigines who live in the area in respect of the impact on their land. [84268]

  Dr. Moonie
  The final report of the Maralinga Rehabilitation Technical Advisory Committee is expected to be published early next year. Estimates of the quantity of plutonium left at Maralinga will be in the report. The Maralinga Consultative Group is currently preparing a long-term management plan for the area, which includes routine radiation monitoring and surveillance. The Maralinga Tjarutja traditional owners
  483W
  are represented on a consultative committee with the Commonwealth of Australia and South Australian governments. This has met throughout the project and serves as a forum in which to discuss and monitor the work being carried out.

  Prague Summit
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what agreements were reached at the Prague NATO summit which will increase the defence spending of European members of NATO. [84875]

  Mr. Hoon
  Agreement was reached at Prague on enhancing NATO capabilities-through the Prague Capabilities Commitment, the new NATO Response Force, and a streamlined Command Structure-all of which will have resource implications for Allies.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what impact the conclusions of the NATO summit in Prague on 21 and 22 November have had on the Government's policy that no ESDP operation should take place until permanent relations between the EU and NATO have been established. [84877]

  Mr. Hoon
  I refer the hon Member to the answer I gave earlier today.

  RAF
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reasons he has estimated the RAF experienced difficulties in maintaining the required levels of overall force element readiness. [84531]

  Dr. Moonie
  As stated in the Ministry of Defence Performance Report for 2001–02, the difficulties the Royal Air Force experienced in maintaining required levels of overall force element readiness were largely due to manpower shortages in some areas of employment, along with some equipment shortfalls. The RAF met its operational requirements in the period 1 April 2001 to 31 March 2002.

  Refurbishment
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the original cost of the refurbishment of his Department's main building; and what the current estimated cost is. [84543]

  Dr. Moonie
  The costs to the Ministry of Defence will be some £55 million per annum at March 2000 prices over the 30 years of the Public-private Partnership contract. This encompasses the short-term decant arrangements, as well as the long-term provision of a wide variety of services to both the redeveloped main building and the Old War Office building. A fixed price has been negotiated for this PFI project, and only agreed changes to the requirement or deductions for non- performance will have any impact on the cost. To date, the cost has remained unchanged.

  Royal Navy
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what measures he is taking to address the shortage of trained Royal Navy personnel identified in his Department's Performance Report. [84532]
  484W
  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence's Performance Report 2001–02, paragraph 81, identified a number of shortages in trained personnel. The overall shortage at the end of that year, of 4.3 per cent, in the trained strength against the requirement, had been reduced to 2.9 per cent, by 30 September this year. This has been the result of excellent recruiting performance, a firm control over the requirement and slow but positive progress to reduce outflow. Our efforts in these three areas will of course continue, together with the more flexible use of manpower resources including selective extensions of service, use of full-time reservists and the implementation of the TOPMAST project to reform manpower management. Turning to the specific shortfalls mentioned in the report, although recruiting of Lynx and Sea Harrier pilots is satisfactory, shortages are caused by outflow, and this is being addressed by implementation of the recommendations of the Aircrew Retention Review. For submarine branch personnel, a number of measures are in hand to improve both recruiting and retention. Recruiting for Royal Marines Other Ranks is healthy and retention has recently improved, but we are continuing work on retaining experienced junior ranks.

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what(a) the target and (b) the actual recruitment figures were for Royal Navy personnel in each of the past five years. [84371]

  Dr. Moonie
  The target and recruitment figures for the Royal Navy in each of the past five years are as follows:

  Year

  Target

  Actual Recruitment

  2002–03

  5,060

  2,4701

  2001–02

  5,042

  5,013

  2000–01

  4,844

  4,620

  1999–2000

  5,019

  4,950

  1998–99

  5,088

  4,770

  1 Figures quoted are intake as at 1 October 2002 and are rounded to nearest 10.

  Service Deaths
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many and what proportion of victims of suicide and self-inflicted death in Her Majesty's armed forces were involved at the time of their death in disciplinary proceedings(a) as a witness and (b) facing charges; and how many of these victims had (i) gone AWOL and (ii) sought or received counselling in the six months prior to their death. [83813]

  Dr. Moonie
  Given the small numbers of suicides and self inflicted deaths in the armed forces each year, I have concluded that release into the public domain of the information requested would breach the rules of anonymity and confidentiality for the families of the individuals concerned. I am therefore withholding the information under Exemption 12 (Privacy of an Individual) of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many boards of inquiry have been established to examine deaths in each of the HM armed services since 1990; what statistical information is compiled about the work of the boards; and in what
  485W
  form the recommendations of the boards are (a) collected and (b) communicated to officers who may need to act upon them. [84872]

  Dr. Moonie
  The information requested is not immediately available. I will, therefore, write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of my letter in the Library of the House.

  Service Personnel
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of those discharged from the armed forces for the use of controlled substances could be liable to an enforced call-up to reserve forces. [82122]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 25 November 2002]: There are no foreseeable circumstances that would necessitate the call-out of former Service personnel discharged for the misuse of controlled substances.

  Single Service Doctrine
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many of his Department's(a) military and (b) civilian personnel are dedicated to working on doctrine. [84526]

  Mr. Ingram
  Across the Ministry of Defence there are four organisations whose responsibilities include leading on the development and production of Joint or single-Service doctrine. These are:

  The Joint Doctrine and Concepts Centre

  The Maritime Warfare Centre

  The Directorate General of Development and Doctrine

  The Air Warfare Centre

  Within each of these organisations a number of personnel are dedicated to working on doctrine. (We have taken dedicated to mean their primary or full time role). The figures for each organisation are:

  The Joint Doctrine and Concepts Centre: 11 military, 7 civilian

  The Maritime Warfare Centre: 2 military

  The Directorate General of Development and Doctrine: 7 military, 5 civilian

  The Air Warfare Centre: 2 military, 1 civilian.

  Additionally, the Joint Services Command and Staff College has one military officer established for doctrine work.

  Within the Army, some doctrine work is carried out at a lower level, and each of the nine Arms and Services Directorates has one retired officer and one civilian clerk established for doctrine work, i.e. 18 staff.

  This gives a total of 23 military and 31 civilians.

  Suicide
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he has taken since 1997 to provide suicide prevention and suicide awareness training programmes for members of Her Majesty's armed forces. [83812]

  Dr. Moonie
  There are no training programmes aimed specifically at suicide awareness or prevention within the services, but throughout their careers Officers and NCOs receive specialist training including programmes 486W
  on welfare and management of personnel. Naval General Training has a number of instructional elements addressing deliberate self-harm and suicide, and related subjects such as coping with occupational stress; and the Royal Navy has produced guidance to personnel on the management of cases of deliberate self-harm. The Army also publishes a pamphlet on suicide awareness and prevention in a simple but useful format that is issued to all Commanders and NCOs. In addition all Army recruits are issued with a handbook which informs them of the welfare support available to them. During initial training all RAF recruits receive briefing on welfare issues including stress management.

  Available statistics indicate that the incidence of suicide within the services is broadly compatible with that in the population at large. However, all three services regard even a low rate to be too high and take the issue of suicide and its prevention very seriously. Measures are in place, both within and independently of the chain of command, to enable vulnerable individuals to seek help.

  Each service has its own particular systems for providing welfare support but a common theme in relation to the responsibility for prevention of suicide is the direct involvement of the Chain of Command, from Commanding Officers downwards. The services aim to provide a range of support options for those who may be vulnerable to suicide, and to ensure free and unfettered access at all times. This covers a wide range of issues including money, alcohol/drugs, marriage or domestic problems and work pressures. Since 1995 the support has included free confidential telephone lines manned by trained personnel who are able to offer counselling over the phone.

  Commanding Officers are assisted by specific individuals and agencies with skills and training that can help. These include Medical Officers, Chaplains, Unit Welfare Officers, the Naval Personal and Families Service, the Army Welfare Service and external organisations and charities contracted for the provision of specific services. Among these are the WRVS, RELATE (marriage guidance counsellors), the Samaritans and the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Families Association—Forces Help (SSAFA-FH).

  Territorial Army
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reason expenditure on the National Employers Liaison Committee (Territorial Army) decreased from 2000–01 to 2001–02. [84539]

  Dr. Moonie
  The National Employers Liaison Committee, which operates the Volunteer Reserve Forces Campaign, had a reduction in expenditure in the year 2001–02 absorbed by a reduction in the advertising budget for the campaign. The reduction was one of a number of readjustments in the overall budget for the Ministry of Defence and was taken out of cash expenditure not already committed.

  Iraq
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what evaluation has been made of the possible health impact on British service personnel and medical
  487W
  auxiliaries of inoculations and other prophylactics provided to those being prepared to deploy to the Gulf region, to protect against chemical or biological toxins. [84264]

  Dr. Moonie
  No decision has been made to commit United Kingdom forces to operations in Iraq.

  Medical countermeasures against chemical and biological agents routinely available to service personnel deploying on operations to the Gulf are licensed products that have been rigorously tested for safety and efficacy. We are confident there should be no significant adverse health effects associated with their use.

  Procedures are in place for reporting and monitoring any health effects that do occur. Individuals who have elected to receive immunisation against anthrax are briefed on, and instructed to report, any adverse reactions to the vaccine under the Department's anthrax voluntary immunisation programme. Any adverse reactions reported to medical staff are recorded and made known to the Medicines Control Agency under the "Yellow Card" reporting scheme.

  UN Peacekeeping Missions
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many UK troops are committed to United Nations peacekeeping missions. [84196]

  Mr. Ingram
  Some 460 United Kingdom troops are committed to United Nations mandated missions, under UN command. These missions are in Georgia, Sierra Leone, Congo, Kuwait, Ethiopia and Eritrea, and Cyprus.

  Warships
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the terrorist threat to Royal Navy warships(a) in home waters and (b) overseas. [84365]

  Mr. Ingram
  The assessment of threat to HM ships, submarines and royal fleet auxiliaries from terrorist attack is kept under constant review. In common with other terrorist threats, this assessment is provided to the Ministry of Defence by the national authority, the Security Service. It is then the MOD's responsibility to determine what counter-measures need to be taken, both at home and overseas, taking account in home waters of the Government-wide terrorist alert state.

  Warships (Suicide Attacks)
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what provision he has made to protect warships from suicide attacks by terrorists in high-speed small craft. [84362]

  Mr. Ingram
  The protection of HM ships, submarines and royal fleet auxiliaries from terrorist threats of all kinds is kept under constant review, and appropriate measures are put in place.
  488W
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the warships(a) currently and (b) scheduled to be fitted with low-angle, close-range machine guns for protection against suicide attacks. [84363]

  Mr. Ingram
  The requirement for force protection is kept under review. I am however, withholding full details of the Royal Navy capability in accordance with Exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Young Recruits
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many young service men have left the armed services in each of the last five years as a result of 2 "unhappy under 18s" regulations. [82937]

  Dr. Moonie
  The type of data held on this subject varies according to the schemes operated by each of the Services and is not, therefore, available in a common format. The information that is available is as follows.

  Royal Navy

  The number of young personnel who have left the RN (and Royal Marines) in 2002 and each of the past five years as 'unhappy juniors' or 'unable to settle during the first 12 months' is shown in the table.

  Age

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  20021

  16

  —

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  17

  15

  27

  18

  34

  20

  24

  18

  8

  15

  15

  21

  21

  16

  Total

  23

  45

  33

  55

  41

  40

  1To end September 2002

  Army

  Statistics for exits under the 'unhappy under 18' scheme are recorded under the same code as other reasons for exit. The number of authorised discharges of under 18s in each of the past five years in the data category which will include 'unhappy under 18s' is shown in the table.

  Year

  Total

  1999

  74

  2000

  125

  2001

  202

  20021

  292

  1 To end October 2002

  There is no Army data held in this detail prior to 1999.

  RAF

  The RAF did not introduce an 'unhappy under 18' scheme until mid 2002, since when two people have left under its provisions. Prior to that, all those under 18s who left the RAF at their own request did so under 'Discharge as of Right' provisions; and the number of such exits in 2002 and each of the last five years is shown in the table.

  Age

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  20021

  16

  13

  7

  25

  17

  24

  21

  17

  64

  109

  90

  95

  98

  104

  Total

  77

  116

  115

  112

  122

  125

  1 To end October 2002

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Biodiesel
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the Mortimer Report on Biodiesel will be published; and what contribution her Department made in influencing the content of the report. [83915]

  Mr. Meacher
  The report from Sheffield Hallam University was commissioned by the Department to provide an independent, comprehensive and rigorous evaluation of the comparative energy, environmental and socio-economic costs and benefits of biodiesel production in the UK. The terms of reference for the study were agreed with the Government-Industry Forum on the Non-Food Uses of Crops and with industry. A draft of the report was published for consultation in June this year and, in finalising the report, the authors have looked carefully at the points made and have taken account of new evidence put forward. We expect the report to be peer reviewed in December and published in January 2003. The Department has had no influence over the content of the report. For bioenergy, this Department plans and manages independent research through its Science Directorate to inform the development of policy. All research reports are published and clarity of presentation is the only factor considered.

  Energy Crops
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what financial incentives are available for those who wish to grow biomass crops. [84198]

  Mr. Meacher
  This Department has allocated£29 million under the Energy Crops Scheme, part of the England Rural Development Programme, for establishment grants for short rotation coppice (SRC) and miscanthus and for SRC growers to set up producer groups. The Government are also providing £70 million of funding through a package of measures which will develop markets for biomass, including energy crops, in heat, combined heat and power and electricity generation. Short rotation coppice and miscanthus can be planted on set-aside land and receive payments under the Arable Area Payments Scheme. The European Commission has published initial proposals for further reform of the Common Agricultural Policy to take effect from 2004. Under these proposals, no crops would be grown on set-aside land. A new carbon credit of €45 per hectare is proposed for energy crops, to be paid to producers entering into a contract with a processor. The proposal includes a maximum guaranteed area of 1.5 million hectares eligible for this additional payment.

  Building Specifications
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many times the national building specification (Government works) standards format has been used for specification purposes on Government construction, redevelopment and refurbishment projects in the last three years; and what those projects were. [83926]
  490W
  Mr. Boateng
  This information is not available centrally.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what action she has taken to ensure that organic farmers receive more subsidies under the CAP. [83912]

  Mr. Meacher
  None. It would not be consistent with our policy on agricultural production subsidies to put in place such payments for organic farmers. However, because of the environmental benefits organic farming delivers, we provide conversion aid to farmers under the Organic Farming Scheme and we intend next year, subject to approval from the European Commission, to extend the coverage of the scheme to organic farmers post-conversion. We also provide free advice to prospective organic farmers through the Organic Conversion Information Service and support an organic R&D Programme

  Climate Change Levy
  Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the(a)relevant underlying agreements and (b)qualitative requirements set for the facilities are of those sector associations party to a Climate Change Levy umbrella agreement which have supplied her with information specified in part 2 of Schedule 3 of those agreements. [82815]

  Mr. Meacher
  No information has yet been supplied to the Secretary of State. Schedule 3 of the underlying agreements contain the qualitative requirements, and these are the same for all facilities. The framework underlying agreement can be seen on the Defra website

  Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs which targets under climate change levy umbrella agreements and underlying agreements have not been met; of those, in respect of which targets she is considering whether they so appear; and if she will conduct a public consultation in advance of making a decision on such progress. [82818]

  Mr. Meacher
  Since no information has yet been supplied, the Secretary of State has no information on whether targets have been met. The circumstances under which progress made towards meeting the targets set for a facility is to be taken as being satisfactory are set out in clauses 7.2 to 7.6 of the umbrella agreements. The Secretary of State does not intend to hold public consultations in advance of making decisions as to whether the requirements of those clauses have been satisfied.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in respect of climate change levy agreements, which sectors have(a) met and (b) not met their targets. [82844]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 27 November 2002]: Under clause 6.5 of the umbrella agreements, sector associations are not required to submit information specified in Schedule 3 for the first target period until 31

  491W
  January 2003, extended by agreement to 17 February. The Secretary of State has no information at present on whether targets have been met.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) which sector associations and operators have served a notice on her under climate change levy agreements in response to a notice served by her relating to variations to sector targets she proposes should be made, and on what dates; and if she will place copies of each such notice in the Library. [82846]

  (2) on how many occasions she has failed to agree on a variation of sector targets under climate change levy umbrella agreements; and what disputes concerning failure to agree on a variation of sector targets under climate change levy umbrella agreements have been referred for adjudication; and on what date; [82848]

  (3) what notices she has served on sector associations and operators relating to variations to sector targets under climate change levy agreements she proposes should be made, and on what dates; and if she will place copies of each such notice in the Library; [82845]

  (4) what agreements have been made between her and sector associations under climate change levy umbrella agreements on a variation of sector targets, and on what date; and if she will place copies of each such agreement in the Library. [82847]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 27 November 2002]: The procedure for varying sector targets as provided for in Schedule 6 to the umbrella agreements is triggered by the submission of information as required under Schedule 3 to the agreements. Since no data have yet been supplied, no notices relating to the variation of sector targets have yet been served, and therefore, there have been no agreements or disputes concerning failure to reach agreement.

  Departmental Budget
  Mr. Gerry Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will estimate the proportion of her administration budget in the current financial year which is allocated to matters formerly within the responsibility of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. [82895]

  Alun Michael
  About 90 per cent.of Defra's administration budget in 2002–03 is allocated to matters formerly within the responsibility of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  Energy Using Sectors
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will place in the Library a copy of the agreements reached between her predecessor and the largest 10 energy using sectors in December 1999 relating to the climate change levy. [82849]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 27 November 2002]: In December 1999, the Deputy Prime Minister reached
  492W
  agreement on a Memorandum of Understanding with each of the 10 largest energy using sectors relating to the climate change levy. These were not published. These have been replaced by Climate Change Agreements with the sector associations, and copies of each of these agreements have been placed in the Library

  Environmental Performance
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will place in the Library the reports of FTSE 350 companies on their environmental performance. [82854]

  Mr. Meacher
  holding answer 27 November 2002]: Information about the overall state of play on FTSE 350 companies' progress in reporting their environmental performance, was placed in the Library in July this year. The reports which companies produce are publicly available in various formats—for example, as free standing documents, or contained within annual reports and accounts, or on corporate web-tes. Requests for up-to-date information and documentation should be made direct to the companies concerned.

  Food Imports
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how frequently her Department checks the number and visibility of signs at ports and airports warning against the import of meat. [80466]

  Margaret Beckett
  New posters were produced and displayed in February. During the summer we conducted one general exercise to assess the number and visibility of the posters. Since then we have conducted a number of follow-up reviews of sites where posters were allegedly not displayed. Priority is given to checking those ports and airports which handle the greatest number of international passengers.

  A further review will be initiated when the penalty posters and information leaflets are redesigned to reflect the new EU rules restricting imports of meat and dairy products from outside the EU from January 2003.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to amend the law on the penalties available to the courts for the illegal import of meat and meat products. [80468]

  Margaret Beckett
  The Products of Animal Origin (Third Country Imports) (England) Regulations 2002 already allow for a penalty of a £5000 fine per offence and/or three months imprisonment on summary conviction or an unlimited fine and/or up to two years imprisonment on conviction on indictment.

  The Government's Action Plan commitment on deterrence will be reviewed taking into account the results of the risk assessment that the Government have commissioned into the risk of disease in imported meat affecting livestock. This review may include the introduction of fixed penalty notices.

  Government Regional Offices (Staffing)
  Joyce Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many DEFRA staff are employed in each Government Regional Office. [83353]

  Alun Michael
  It is difficult to provide figures in precisely the form requested, since some staff in Government Offices will be undertaking DEFRA related work while other DEFRA staff may have applied for and been appointed to posts not related to DEFRA activities but would be identified as having DEFRA as their "parent Department". That explains the number of staff in the Government Office for London and the high number in the East of England. The only Government Office with any significant agricultural structural funds work is the Government Office for the South West where they administer the objective 1 agriculture programme in Cornwall. This explains the high number of staff in the South West.

  Against this background the number of staff in Government Offices whose parent Department is identified as DEFRA at October 2002 was 93. The number in each Office was:

  Number

  East of England

  24

  East Midlands

  8

  London

  9

  North East

  6

  North West

  6

  South East

  8

  South West

  19

  West Midlands

  5

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  8

  2001–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Government office region

  Number of applications received

  Total value of grants issued (£)

  Number of applications received

  Total value of grants issued (£)

  Number of applications received

  Total value of grants issued (£)

  South West

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  South East

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  East of England

  5

  —

  19

  61,220

  8

  14,280

  East Midlands

  15

  —

  3

  104,160

  1

  8,480

  West Midlands

  3

  —

  2

  7,170

  2

  3,183

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  13

  —

  4

  61,810

  1

  35,740

  North East

  —

  —

  5

  —

  —

  6,000

  North West

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  37

  —

  33

  234,360

  14

  67,683

  Note:

  In some cases, grants are paid in the year following receipt of the application.

  Poultry
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what the average cost was of a(a) conventionally and (b) organically produced (i) turkey, (ii) chicken, (iii) duck in (A) 1979, (B) 1985, (C) 1990, (D) 1995, (E) 2000 and (F) 2002; [81164]

  Average farmgate price

  1979

  1985

  1990

  1995

  2000

  2002 (January to October)

  Turkey (p/kg carcase weight)

  N/a

  141.1

  120.5

  124.3

  129.6

  116.4

  Chicken and other table fowl (p/kg carcase weight)

  N/a

  89.5

  87.0

  84.0

  70.8

  67.7

  Meat Imports
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the ports where amnesty bins for illegal meat imports have been installed. [80464]

  Margaret Beckett
  No official amnesty bins have been installed at UK ports or airports.

  An action group met on 22 August to discuss how we can utilise amnesty bins in our bid to reduce the risk of disease entering the country through illegal imports of meat, fish, plants and their products. Work will be taken forward in the light of my statement to the House on 6 November, that the lead responsibility for anti-smuggling measures will be transferred to Her Majesty's Customs and Excise.

  Non-food Crops Scheme
  Joyce Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many applications and how much money was awarded under the non-food crops scheme broken down by Government Office Regions in each year since the scheme was introduced. [83384]

  Mr. Meacher
  In the non-food crops sector the only support scheme currently run by this Department is the Energy Crops Scheme. This provides assistance for farmers through establishment grants for short rotation coppice (SRC) and miscanthus, and funding for SRC growers to set up producer groups. Details of the applications received and grants issued for each financial year since the scheme came into force in October 2000 are as follows:

  (2) what the average cost was of a kilogram of (a) conventionally and (b) organically produced (i) potatoes, (ii) carrots, (iii) onions, (iv) cauliflower, (v) peas and (vi) mangetout in (A) 1979,(B) 1985, (C) 1990, (D) 1995, (E) 2000 and (F) 2002. [81163]

  Mr. Meacher
  Average UK farmgate prices for conventionally produced commodities are given in the following table.
  495W

  Average farmgate price

  1979

  1985

  1990

  1995

  2000

  2002 (January to October)

  Chicken and other table fowl (Price £ per bird)

  N/a

  1.37

  1.33

  1.30

  1.10

  1.07

  Duck (p/kg carcase weight)

  N/a

  157.8

  120.7

  140.4

  170.3

  167.3

  Potatoes (£/tonne)

  58.9

  52

  99

  188

  83

  89

  Crop years

  1985–86

  1990–01

  1995–96

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Carrots (£/tonne)

  N/a

  88.90

  224.53

  204.63

  242.63

  119.32

  Onions (£/tonne)

  N/a

  84.13

  129.06

  160.06

  98.13

  127.66

  Cauliflower (£/tonne)

  162.00

  205.21

  238.45

  283.29

  243.04

  230.35

  Peas for market (£/tonne)

  N/a

  252.90

  515.66

  453.29

  567.24

  567.83

  Peas for processing (£/tonne)

  N/a

  216.74

  217.24

  203.30

  255.58

  254.47

  The following tables provide the estimates for organically produced commodities as published by the Soil Association in their organic food and farming report. Data is only available for 1998 onwards.

  Poultry (table birds)1

  Price £ per bird

  6.16

  1998

  6.32

  1999

  6.52

  2000

  5.50

  2001

  5.00

  2002

  1 Mainly chicken

  Horticulture

  Price£per tonne

  Vegetable

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Potatoes

  240

  300

  247

  250

  200

  Carrots

  340

  340

  300

  300

  197

  Onions

  320

  336

  344

  300

  250

  Cauliflower

  10.30

  10.40

  700

  700

  600

  Fresh peas

  2,500

  2,500

  2,570

  2,750

  2,514

  1 Price per individual cauliflower

  Mangetout data is not available

  Mainly chicken

  Rural Payments
  Mr. David Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what her target is for making payments under(a) the Vocational Training Scheme and (b) the Rural Enterprise Scheme; what proportion of payments meet those targets; and if she will make a statement. [80452]

  Margaret Beckett
  The Rural Development Service has responsibility for processing and authorising claims made under the Vocational Training Scheme and the Rural Enterprise Scheme. For both schemes the aim is to pay all complete claims, ie those submitted with the appropriate supporting documentation, within one month of receipt. Most recent available information indicates that around 90 per cent, of Vocational Training Scheme claims and 83 per cent, of Rural Enterprise Scheme claims are authorised within one month of receipt. The above-mentioned figures reflect the fact that a proportion of claims are submitted with incomplete supporting documentation in the first instance.

  Soil Organisms
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment. Food and Rural Affairs what steps are 496W
  being taken by her Department to investigate the impact of (a) conventional and (b) organic farming systems on soil organisms and the role they play in relation to (i) retention of moisture and carbon, (ii) delivering nutrients and (iii) the avoidance of soil erosion. [81901]

  Mr. Meacher
  The study of soil organisms in relation to aspects of soil fertility forms a significant part of the Department's R&D budget. The Department is spending approximately £1.2 million on Soil R&D in 2002–03. This includes work on soil fertility, quality, erosion and sustainable management. Examples include SP0130 which is investigating the long-term impacts of sewage sludge additions on soil properties; SP0519 which considers critical levels of soil organic matter for soil stability and function, and SP0524 an audit of all UK soil research. We fund monitoring of soil quality including the Representative Soil Sampling Scheme (current project SR0123) and the National Soil Inventory (current project SP0521). A recently completed project (OF0164) compared the soil fertility in soils farmed organically and conventionally. The project found evidence of increased levels of earthworms and beneficial nematodes in organic compared to conventional soils, but concluded that the differences in soil microbiology were subtle rather than dramatic. There is to be a review of our soil R&D in spring 2003. Future R&D is likely to consider soil function, soil biology and improved monitoring.

  In relation to the effects of soil organisms on

  (i) retention of moisture and carbon, research is proceeding on factors influencing the levels of organic matter in soils, which will in turn affect water retention;

  (ii) delivering nutrients, a large amount of research has been funded on the effects of soil organisms in cycling nutrients within soils, and work is continuing in this area;

  (iii) the avoidance of soil erosion, research on soil erosion has shown that soil structure can be an important factor and this in turn can be affected by soil organisms. However other factors, such as slope, crop, cultivation, soil type and rainfall intensity, are often of equal or greater importance.

  Supermarket Trolleys
  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate she has made of the number of supermarket trolleys discarded off supermarket premises in the last year for which figures are available; what measures she plans to take to reduce off-site discarding of supermarket trolleys; and if she will bring forward proposals to levy an environmental charge. [83699]
  497W
  Mr. Meacher
  Figures for discarded shopping trolleys are not collected centrally. Legislation is already in place regarding abandoned shopping trolleys. Under section 99 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, local authorities can collect abandoned shopping (and luggage) trolleys, store them and charge owners for their return. Adopting a deposit system, installing obstacles that prevent trolleys being taken off the site, or publicising a trolley collection service, will help control this problem and prevent retailers being charged for trolley collections. Given these measures, we have no plans to levy an environmental charge.

  Thailand
  Mr. David Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the Government's policy is on increasing the amount of Thai food produce imported into the United Kingdom. [81818]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 19 November 2002]: Promotion of exports to the United Kingdom is a matter for the authorities of the country or countries concerned.

TRANSPORT

  A316, Twickenham
  Dr. Vincent Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will carry out a survey of traffic on the A316 in Twickenham, showing the number of vehicles using the road per hour per day; and if he will make a statement. [83660]

  Mr. Jamieson
  No. The A316 is the responsibility of the Mayor and Transport for London.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to review the ban on the use of vehicles which use LPG fuel from the Channel Tunnel. [83519]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Eurotunnel's original applications for operating certificates excluded the carriage of LPG and dual-fuelled vehicles. It is for the company to come forward with proposals to extend the range of its services to include these vehicles; Eurotunnel has been keeping its policy under review. If the company does seek to extend the scope of its services to include these vehicles, it will first need the agreement of the Channel Tunnel Intergovernmental Commission, acting on the advice of the independent binational Channel Tunnel Safety Authority, to its proposals

  Cliffe Airport
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) pursuant to his answers of 26 November, refs 82497 and 82787, with whom in Thurrock venue options were discussed for holding a public consultation exhibition on the Cliffe airport option; [84471]
  498W
  (2) pursuant to his answers of 26 November, refs 82497 and 82787, what reasons underlay the choice of venues for public exhibitions on the Cliffe airport option. [84472]

  Mr. Jamieson
  No discussions were held with either individuals or organisations in Thurrock about possible venues for holding public exhibitions on the Cliffe option. As I set out in my answer on 26 November to my hon. Friend Official Report, column 206W, the main criteria applied in identifying suitable venues for all the exhibitions were proximity to the airport option and affected areas, venue capacity, accessibility and availability.

  I also refer my hon. Friend to the statement given to Parliament by the Secretary of State for Transport on 28 November concerning the airports consultation

  Freight Policy
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to develop the use of freight facilities grants to encourage the movement of freight off roads. [83522]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Freight Facilities Grant (FFG), Water or rail freight facility grants are available to encourage these modes rather than road transport

  On the water side, in April of this year we published a consultation document, 'Financial Assistance for Moving Freight from Road to Inland Waterway and Maritime Transport', which set out our ideas for the development of the water FFG scheme. There was broad industry agreement with our views. We will very shortly publish our final proposals. Copies of this document will be placed in the Libraries of the House

  We expect to introduce our widened water scheme by the end of 2003. As far as rail is concerned the Strategic Rail Authority, Scottish Executive and Welsh Assembly Government who have responsibility for rail FFGs, are developing new grant schemes that will improve the targeting of support to encourage more companies to move freight by rail.

  Low Cost Carriers (Aviation)
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to regulate low cost carriers in the UK civil aviation industry; and if he will make a statement. [84770]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Government has no plans to introduce legislation specific to low cost carriers. All UK operators are subject to the same regulations and to oversight by the Civil Aviation Authority.

  London Underground
  Richard Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to his Answer of 25 November,Official Report, column 70W, what assessment he has made of the sufficiency of the long-term grant together with fare revenues to fund the proposed public private partnership. [84408]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Government's long-term grant offer will ensure that the Tube modernisation plans are properly funded. London Underground fares are a
  499W
  matter for the Mayor. The grant offer, however, takes into consideration London Transport's planning assumption that fares would rise in line with inflation each year.

  Railtrack
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much money was paid to(a) Deutsche Bank, (b) Slaughter and May and (c) Ernst & Young, during Railtrack Administration. [84270]

  Mr. Jamieson
  To date, the Department for Transport has paid £1.7million to Deutsche Bank, £5.9 million to Slaughter & May and £15.6 million to Ernst & Young in respect of fees incurred as a result of the administration of Railtrack pic. Further fee invoices have yet to be paid.

  Railways (Disabled Access)
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made towards identifying which facilities need to be improved by train operators to ensure compliance with the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. [83455]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Rail Vehicle Accessibility Regulations made under Part V of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (DDA) set down technical requirements to be met by new trains that have entered service since 1 January 1999. The Department has also produced guidance for the industry on the application of those Regulations which provides practical advice on the application of the Regulations.

  For stations, which are covered by the part III provisions of the DDA, the Strategic Rail Authority has published a Code of Practice and guidance to train operators about the preparation of Disabled Persons Protection Policies. It has invited each operator to prepare a gap analysis of the infrastructure changes which might reasonably be required to comply with the legislation. This will form the basis for the work to be done at each station.

  Salisbury Bypass
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what representations he has received regarding proposals for a bypass at Salisbury; [83572]

  (2) what research has been (a) conducted by or for his Department and (b) assessed by his Department regarding the impact of a bypass at Salisbury; [83573]

  (3) if he will make a statement on discussions his Department has had with interested parties with regard to proposals for a bypass at Salisbury; [83571]

  (4) what the timetable is for construction of a bypass at Salisbury; and what the anticipated cost is. [83574]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Secretary of State has received no such representations and has held no such discussion. No research has been conducted or assessed by my Department. There are no plans for a Bypass at Salisbury.

  Seaports (Policing)
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the future policing of seaports. [82305]

  Mr. Jamieson
  All ports are subject to normal standards of policing provided by the relevant Home Office force. However, seven ports (Bristol, Dover, Falmouth, Felixstowe, Liverpool, Tees & Hartlepool and Tilbury) also have their own dedicated police forces. We have recently carried out a review of the management and accountability of these forces and will be issuing a discussion paper outlining our findings before the end of the year.

  Strategic Rail Authority
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what changes have taken place to levels of staffing within the Strategic Rail Authority and its shadow predecessor; what requirements on levels of staffing have been placed on the organisation; and how the organisation has reacted to such directions. [81742]

  Mr. Spellar
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 21 November 2002,Official Report, column 274W. The Authority reports on staff numbers in its annual report and accounts. Its 2001–02 report and accounts includes the following information:

  Number of staff employed, excluding Board Members and Special Constables

  31 March 2002

  31 March 2001

  Strategic Rail Authority

  354

  284

  BRB (Residuary) Ltd

  2

  108

  Rail Passengers' Council

  57

  49

  British Transport Police

  2,302

  2,215

  Total

  2,765

  2,656

  The numbers for the British Transport Police exclude Special Constables, of which there were 73 as at 31 March 2002.

  In addition, there were 11 Board Members (one executive, 10 non-executive) at 31 March 2002 and 121 members of the Rail Passengers' Council and Committees.

  When it was established in July 1999 there were approximately 165 members of staff in the central shadow Strategic Rail Authority.

  Underground Stations
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to the Answer of 25 November,Official Report, column 74W, which London Underground stations are step free. [84769]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The 29 step free stations owned and operated by London Underground are:

  Bermondsey

  Caledonian Road

  Chalfont & Latimer

  Canada Water

  Canary Wharf

  Canning Town

  Chesham

  501W

  Chorleywood

  Dagenham Heathway

  Elm Park

  Hammersmith (District & Piccadilly)

  Hammersmith (Hammersmith & City)

  Heathrow Terminals 123

  Heathrow Terminal 4

  Hillingdon

  London Bridge

  North Greenwich

  Roding Valley

  Southwark

  Stanmore

  Stratford

  Sudbury Town

  Tottenham Hale

  Upney

  Uxbridge

  Woodford

  West Finchley

  Westminster

  Woodside Park

  In addition, the 8 step-free stations served by London Underground but managed by Train Operating Companies are:

  Barking

  Kew Gardens

  New Cross

  Olympia

  Richmond

  Upminster

  Wimbledon

  Willesden Junction

TREASURY

  Advance Corporation Tax
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much revenue has been raised by ACT in each year since its introduction. [84491]

  Ruth Kelly
  The yield from Advance Corporation Tax, which was charged on distributions by UK companies, can be found in "Annual Receipts of Inland Revenue Taxes: Table 1/" at www.inlandrevenue.gov.uk/stats/tax receipts/menu.html This table covers the period from the introduction of ACT in 1973 to its abolition in 1999.

  Azerbaijan Pipeline
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has had with the IMF regarding the use of funds from the Azeri Oil Fund for the construction of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline. [83727]

  John Healey
  Treasury Ministers have not had any contact with the IMF about the BTC pipeline. However, the IMF is working with the Azeri authorities to get Azerbaijan's PRGF programme back on track. This involves resolving a number of issues, including the Oil Fund. Once this has happened, the programme will come back for approval to the IMF Board, on which the UK is represented.

  EU Budget Surplus
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has made to the European Commission in respect of the EU Budget Surplus in(a) 2000 and (b) 2001; and if he will make a statement. [84773]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Council's recommendation on discharge to be given to the Commission in respect of the implementation of the budget for the financial year 2000 included the following comment on EC budget surpluses:"The Council notes the persistence of significant surpluses at the end of the financial year. This tendency could affect the credibility and sound management of the Community budget.
  The origin of these surpluses lies in incorrect estimates of both revenues and expenditure. The Council urges the Commission, with the collaboration of member states, to make more precise estimates of sources of finance and to adapt expenditure estimates to real requirements."

  The UK supported this recommendation.

  The UK will press for the Council's recommendations to the European Parliament on discharge to the Commission for the 2001 budget to include use of the Supplementary and Amending Budget procedure to revise budgets in year, to prevent large surpluses materialising in future and to implement, in conjunction with member states, more realistic forecasts of projected Structural Fund payments.

  EU Draft Savings Directive
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to his answer of 26 November, ref 83459, if he will list the dates on which the Government have held discussions relating to compliance with the EU Draft Savings Directive with(a) the Cayman Islands and (b) Bermuda, since June 2001. [84487]

  Ruth Kelly
  HM Government held discussions with the Cayman Islands Government relating to the EU draft Directive on Taxation of Savings, on: 24–26 October 2001, 27 May 2002, 10 June 2002, 24 September 2002, 27 September 2002 and 26 October 2002.

  HM Government held discussions with the Government of Bermuda relating to the EU draft Directive on Taxation of Savings, on: 21 May 2002, 24 September 2002, 27 September 2002.

  HM Government also has regular contact on this issue with the Governor of the Cayman Islands and the Governor of Bermuda.

  Euro
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will announce the(a)names and (b) terms of reference of the independent specialist assessors appointed to judge the tests on euro membership; and if he will make a statement. [84148]

  Ruth Kelly
  I refer the hon. Member to what I said in the House on 5 March 2002,Official Report, column 268.

  European Union Contributions
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much money the United Kingdom has paid to the European Union in total in each financial year since 1997; how much the UK has received from EU sources in each year; and how much has been returned under the terms of the Annual Rebate. [84383]

  Ruth Kelly
  Details of the United Kingdom's gross contribution to, abatement and public sector receipts from the EC Budget for the financial years 1997–98 to 2001–02 can be found at Table 3.1 (page 12) of the 2002 European Community Finances White Paper (Cm 5547).

  Investment Ombudsman
  Mr. Walter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many complaints there have been about the Investment Ombudsman's handling of casework in the last two years; how many have been successful; and how many have failed. [84262]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Investment Ombudsman, together with seven other dispute resolution schemes for financial services, has been incorporated into a single financial services dispute mechanism, the Financial Ombudsman Service. The Financial Ombudsman Service assumed its full powers and responsibilities on 1 December 2001 under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000.

  Ahead of assuming its full powers on 1 December 2001, the Financial Ombudsman Service consolidated and revised the different procedures that the eight predecessor schemes had in place for handling complaints against themselves.

  The Financial Ombudsman Service tells me that their Board appointed an Independent Assessor on 1 December 2001, and, in the period since his appointment up to 31 March 2002, he received 50 complaints. Of these, 12 were upheld (in whole or in part), 14 were rejected, eight were determined to be outside the Independent Assessor's terms of reference and 16 awaited a decision.

  Since 1 April 2002 to date, the Independent Assessor has received a further 59 complaints. Of those on which he has made a decision, seven have been upheld (in whole or in part), 29 have been rejected and 15 have been determined to be outside his jurisdiction.

  Landfill Tax Credit
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what reason recycling schemes other than pilot projects are not eligible for support under the landfill tax credit scheme. [82851]

  John Healey
  [holding answer 27 November 2002]: When the Landfill Tax Credit Scheme was introduced it was felt to be inappropriate for tax credits to be used for long-term projects. The Chancellor announced in the pre-Budget report on 27 November that the scheme will be reformed with approximately a third of the funding—about £50 million—continuing to be available for spending on community environment projects. The remainder will be allocated to public spending to encourage sustainable waste management.

  Local Government Funding
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the level of central funding by the Government of(a) Cheshire county council, (b) Chester city council, (c) Vale Royal borough council and (d) Crewe and Nantwich borough council for each of the last five years; and what the average funding of city and borough county councils in England was in those years. [81034]

  Mr. Boateng
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given to him by the Minister for Local Government and the Regions on 26 November 2002,Official Report, column 255–58W.

  Lung Cancer
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people died as a result of lung cancer in(a) Northern Ireland and (b) the rest of the United Kingdom in the last year for which figures are available. [82066]

  Mr. Pearson
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information requested is as follows:

  (a) In 2001, there were 782 deaths registered in Northern Ireland attributed to lung cancer; and

  (b) in 2001, in the rest of the United Kingdom there were 32,643 deaths attributed to lung cancer.

  National Savings and Investments
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the target time is for response by National Savings and Investments to correspondence from members of the public; and what has been the performance of the Department in responding to letters in each of the last three months. [84466]

  Ruth Kelly
  National Savings and Investments sets a variety of internal targets for differing types of customer correspondence. These range from two to nine days dependant on complexity, with an average target (time from receipt of customer correspondence to despatch) of four days. For the past three months (August—October 2002) the individual targets have been met on 98.2 per cent., 99.2 per cent, and 99.8 per cent, respectively.

  National Savings and Investments responded to 2.1 million customer letters or written instructions during the three months in question.

  Pensions (Taxation)
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the European Commission's Communication on taxation of pensions. [84400]

  Ruth Kelly
  In April 2001, the Commission issued a Communication on the elimination of tax obstacles to the cross-border provision of occupational pension. This encourages member states to strike a balance between their Treaty obligation to promote the internal market and their legitimate social policy aims, including occupational pensions. The Commission Communication itself has no legal status and nor does it advocate any Community legislation.
  505W
  The Government recognise the Commission's efforts to make the single market operate effectively in provision of cross-border pension schemes, and is willing to work towards making this objective a reality. The Government support, in principle, removal of barriers to provision of cross-border pension schemes.

  Sustainable Timber
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what evidence he has that timber provided by Jewson is obtained from sustainable sources. [83932]

  Mr. Boateng
  Jewson is committed to the responsible sourcing of timber. Through its parent company, Saint-Gobain Building Distribution Ltd., Jewson is a major member of the Timber Trade Federation and the WWF 95+ Group.

  Saint-Gobain Building Distribution has declared that it will not source any timber prohibited under Appendix 1 of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES).

  Jewson has been actively working toward achieving Chain of Custody for its internal timber supply sites at Hull and Newport. Hull was inspected by The Timber Research and Development Association (TRADA) in October 2002 and is awaiting its formal certification reference, while Newport is due for inspection by TRADA on 18 December 2002.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what evidence is required by the Office of Government Commerce from companies to prove they are obtaining timber from legal and sustainable sources; and if he will make a statement. [83933]

  Mr. Boateng
  In line with the Government commitment made in July 2000 following a statement by the Minister for the Environment, Mr. Michael 506W
  Meacher, the Office of Government Commerce, including OGCbuying.solutions, is actively seeking to ensure all timber supplied through its contracts is from legal and sustainable sources.

  Wherever possible third party independent evidence from organisations such as the Forest Stewardship Council and the Timber Research and Development Association is provided. The exact form of this varies from contract to contract.

  Treasury Publications
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much it cost to(a) publish and (b) distribute the explanatory leaflet that accompanied (i) the Budget and (ii) the pre-Budget report; and if he will make a statement. [83838]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Budget 2002 summary leaflet cost around £72,000 to publish and around £136,000 to distribute. The pre-Budget report summary leaflet is estimated to have cost around £77,000 to publish and around £128,000 to distribute. All costs have been met from within Departmental Expenditure Limits.

ADVOCATE-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND

  Right to Buy (Agricultural Holdings Bill)
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Advocate-General whether she has been asked to advise the Scottish Executive on the human rights implication of an absolute right to buy under the Agricultural Holdings Bill. [82450]

  The Advocate-General for Scotland
  The Advocate-General is the principal legal adviser to the Government on matters of Scots law, and it is not her role to provide legal advice to the Scottish Executive. The Scottish Executive has its own Law Officers, the Lord Advocate and Solicitor-General for Scotland.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Credit Card Debt
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what plans she has to address levels of credit card debt; [80737]

  (2) what discussions her Department has had with credit card companies regarding levels of credit card debt. [80738]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I recently published the results of research commissioned by the DTI into the cause, extent and effects of overindebtedness, which includes data on credit card use. The Task Force on Tackling Overindebtedness, which includes representatives from the credit industry as well as from consumer groups and Government, have considered this research as well as the results of several working groups looking at different ways of achieving more responsible borrowing and lending, including some relating to credit card facilities. I am now considering their recommendations for further action, in the light of the work we are doing on reviewing the consumer credit act, and will publish my response in due course.

  Fishermen's Redundancy Scheme
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much was paid out in the ex-gratia redundancy scheme for redundant fishermen in the 1990s; and how much was paid to fishermen in(a) Hull, (b) Grimsby and (c) Fleetwood. [83843]

  Summary of Advance Notifications of Withdrawals from Safeguards (January to November 2002)

  Number of withdrawal notifications (by type of nuclear material involved) 1

  Reason for withdrawal

  Two notifications involving plutonium (Pu),µg quantities

  Material to be used for analytical purposes (eg samples, standards/tracers and/or instrument calibration)2 (both from NPL Teddington)

  Three notifications involving high enriched uranium (HEU), total ˜6g

  Material contained in radiation detectors2 (all from Centronic Ltd.)

  Four notifications involving depleted natural and low enriched uranium (DNLEU), total ˜ 17kg

  Two for material to be used for analytical purposes (eg samples, standards/tracers and/or in instrument calibration)2 and two for material for use as radiological shielding (two from NPL Teddington and one each from UKAEA Harwell and High Technology Sources Ltd.)

  1The tabulated information covers advance notifications of withdrawal approach by DTI and which resulted in the eventual withdrawal of nuclear material from safeguards.

  2There are no facilities outside safeguards which manufacture material in such quantities and forms, and defence establishment requirements for these specialist materials have therefore been met by supply from civil organisation.

  Arms Exports (India)
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what information the Government collates on the final destination of shipments of military aircraft spares shipped to India in(a) 2000, (b) 2001 and (c) 2002. [81727]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 27 November 2002]I have been asked to reply.

  For all export licence applications, the exporter is required to provide details of the end user. The stated end user is one of the factors taken into account when assessing the application. We do not collate information
  508W
  Nigel Griffiths
  The total amount paid out under the ex-gratia arrangements that operated between 1993 and 1995 was just under £14 million. No breakdown by port was kept at that time.

  Nuclear Safeguards
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the occasions since the 1977 Tripartite Safeguards Agreements between the UK- Euratom-IAEA came into force, that nuclear materials have been withdrawn from safeguards under the provisions of Treaty Article 14; what type and quantity of nuclear materials were involved in each case; and which withdrawals were permanent. [84135]

  Nigel Griffiths
  A paper containing detailed information on advance notifications of the withdrawal of nuclear material from safeguards up to the end of 1999 was placed in the Library of the House on 28 July 2000,Official Report, column 1094W. Information on notifications during the period January 2000 to February 2001 was given in a written answer on 1 March 2001, Official Report, columns 732–33W, and information covering the period February to December 2001 is available on the non-proliferation section of the DTI website www.dti.gov.uk/non-proliferation.

  The website will be updated annually and data for withdrawals during 2002 will be available there early in 2003. Information on withdrawal notifications made so far during 2002 is however contained in the following table. The withdrawals involved only small quantities of nuclear material used in radiation detectors or to be used for analytical purposes or as radiological shielding. All are regarded as permanent, except that from High Technology Sources Ltd.

  On the final destination of shipments of military aircraft spares to India but our overseas posts have standing instructions to repost on allegations of misuse, diversion of re-export of any UK-origin defence equipment, including aircraft spares.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary on the final destination of State for Trade and Industry what information the Government collates shipments of military aircraft spares shipped to India in(a) 2000, (b) 2001 and (c) 2002. [81727]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 27 November 2002]: ECGD has provided no support for defence exports to India since 1998.

  Brownfield Land (London)
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will increase the target set for the London Development Agency to recover 30 hectares of vacant brownfield land per year in London. [83896]

  Alan Johnson
  LDA corporate plan targets are approved by the Mayor of London, in agreement with central Government. The LDA target for brownfield land for 2002–03 was 30 hectares.

  I understand that the LDA has already reclaimed some 32.6 hectares of brownfield land for development this year and that it is revising its forecast for the remainder of 2002–03.

  The LDA is currently preparing a new corporate plan for 2003–06 and will shortly be agreeing new targets with the Mayor and Government for the remediation of brownfield land during this corporate plan period.

  Business Start-ups
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress has been made towards the target set in 1998 for achievement in 1999–2002, to secure an increase in the number of successful high growth business start ups. [83595]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 26 November 2002]: In 1998, a target was set to secure an increase in the number of high growth business start ups over 1999–2002. The latest figures are for 1997 (provisional) and estimate over 11,000 "high growth" firms. Provisional 1998 and final 1997 figures will be available by the end of the year. The Government made a commitment in the Competitiveness White Paper published in December 1998 to provide a new high-quality advice service designed to support 10,000 pre and start-up businesses a year in England (by the end of March 2002), who were identified as having high growth potential. The programme was managed and funded nationally by the Small Business Service but delivered locally via allocations to the 45 Business Links in England. £20 million of funding was committed between October 1999—March 2002.

  By the end of March 2002 around 8,500 pre- and start-up businesses had received support. Support was provided across a variety of business sectors to people who are traditionally considered to face barriers in starting and growing a business including women, ethnic minorities and young entrepreneurs.

  Financial support is continuing to Business Link Operators for the delivery of advisory services to pre- and early start businesses identified as having high growth potential. £10 million was included in the Business Link core budget allocation for 2002–2003.

  Business Support Schemes
  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the members of her Department's investment committee that will assume responsibility for business support schemes, together with their(a) corporate positions and (b) experience. [84158]

  Ms Hewitt
  Fields Wicker-Miurin will chair the Business Support Investment Committee.
  510W
  Ms Wicker-Miurin is an international business executive with more than 20 years experience in the European media and financial services industries. She is Executive Director of Leaders Quest; a Non-Executive Director of United Business Media plc and of Savills plc; a member of the Nasdaq Technology Advisory Council; a Trustee of the London International Festival of Theatre, London Musici, and the Council of Tate Members; a Trustee of the Brogdale Trust; and a Council member of Kings College London, where she chairs the Audit Committee. She is also a member of the DTI's executive board.

  The wider membership of the Committee has not yet been determined. It is proposed that it will comprise two to three external members drawn from the Department's new boards, a representative from the Treasury, a Regional Development Agency Chair and senior DTI officials.

  Car Boot Sales
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what measures the Government are taking to end the illegal sale of goods at car-boot sales. [83587]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 28 November 2002]Last year we introduced Stop Now Orders to give local authority trading standards departments, and other enforcers, stronger enforcement powers for use against a range of breaches of consumer protection legislation. We are strengthening the enforcement powers available to trading standards departments still further in the Enterprise Act 2002, which will extend the scope of Stop Now Orders when the Act comes into force next year.

  Civil Nuclear Emergency Planning
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the last emergency exercise took place under the civil nuclear emergency planning programme; what the(a) budget and (b) actual cost was of the last exercise; what assessment of it took place; whether the results were made available to hon. Members; and if she will make a statement. [83656]

  Mr. Wilson
  The last exercise in the civil nuclear emergency planning programme took place on 7 November 2002 based on Chapelcross Power Station. Previously this year, exercises have also taken place based on Sizewell B on 25 September 2002, Hunterston B on 26 June 2002, Bradwell on 10 May 2002, Capenhurst on 26 April 2002, and Dungeness on 27 March 2002. All of these exercises were designed to test off-site arrangements and involved relevant local and national agencies. The Bradwell and Dungeness exercises were the major national exercises for 2002–03 and 2001–02 respectively.

  Costs of exercises have generally been met by the individual responding organisations which see participation as part of their normal preparations to deal with an emergency. Information on budgets and costs are not collected or collated centrally, nor in many cases identified as a separate item. A report is prepared on the outcome of each exercise. Final reports on these exercises are routinely forwarded to the Libraries of the House.

  Construction Industry
  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what support the Government has given to the British construction industry's recent focus on National Construction Week. [82730]

  Mr. Wilson
  National Construction Week aims to raise the profile of the construction industry to young people and seeks to increase awareness about the potential career opportunities construction has to offer. The Government welcomes this initiative and fully supports it. As Minister for Construction I attended a number of NCW 2002 events in London and Wakefield.

  DTI and DfES have representatives on the NCW Steering Group. DTI's Construction Sector Unit has provided financial support for the Campaign to improve delivery and communications of NCW messages and to assist with the development of the NCW website.

  The construction industry needs to attract and retain talented young people and the Government welcomes all activities that aim to raise awareness of the excellent career opportunities it has to offer

  Electricity Generation
  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the planned margin of excess generation plant capacity for electricity generation at peak demand for security of supply is; and if she will make a statement. [82900]

  Mr. Wilson
  Ofgem does not set specific targets for reserve margins as it believes that the incentives in place under NETA and in the markets will provide participants with the appropriate signals for meeting customers' needs.

  According to the October update of NGC's 7 Year Statement, the projected plant margin for the coming winter is 17.4 per cent, in England and Wales. However, this takes no account of some 7,000 MW of mothballed plant, a significant proportion of which could be returned to use for this winter if required. If just one quarter of the mothballed plant were to be included, the margin would reach 20 per cent.

  The plant margin in Scotland is around 25–30 per cent, even with interconnectors treated as demand.

  Monitoring the adequacy of generating capacity and the way that the industry is responding to market signals is one of the key tasks of the DTI-Ofgem Joint Energy Security of Supply working group, set up in July 2001.

  Energy Council
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the outcome was of the Energy Council held in Brussels on 25 November; what the Government's stance was on the issues discussed, including its voting record; and if she will make a statement. [84004]

  Mr. Wilson
  I represented the UK at the EU Energy Council in Brussels on 25 November.
  512W
  The Council considered several matters of interest to the United Kingdom. Chief among these was the internal market in electricity and gas on which there was agreement to full market opening by mid 2007.

  During the discussion of the Gas and Electricity Directives, all member states agreed on the need for a firm date for full market opening, though one member state said that a final date should be subject to an interim review by the Commission.

  The final agreement provides for the opening of the industrial and commercial market by mid 2004 and the opening of the market for all remaining consumers by mid 2007.

  In discussions of the key issue of legal unbundling, the European Commission underlined that legal unbundling of distribution system operators and transmission system operators was a minimum requirement of a liberalised market while pointing out that it did not entail separate ownership of distribution and production. Some member states thought other approaches could also achieve the overall objective of market transparency and access to networks—arguing that member states should be allowed to retain measures having an equivalent effect to legal unbundling. The UK, supported by most other member states, disagreed and made it clear that legal unbundling was an essential part of the final package. The overwhelming evidence was that legal unbundling was essential to the development of a liberalised market with little evidence that alternative approaches would work as effectively.

  The final agreement provide for legal unbundling of transmission system operators by mid 2004 and legal unbundling of distribution system operators by mid 2007. A Commission report published in 2006 will review the progress made towards liberalisation. It will also provide member states with the opportunity to request a derogation from the legal unbundling requirement for distribution if they can show that equivalent measures are just as effective. However, any such derogation will have to be decided by co-decision.

  A Regulation on cross-border exchanges in electricity was also agreed as part of the compromise.

  Revised criteria on support to projects under the Trans European Networks (TENS) energy programme were agreed.

  Discussion of the EU's Intelligent Energy for Europe proposal, which provides for a new four-year programme of support for renewable energy and energy efficiency, centred on the budget. Agreement was reached on a figure of 190 meuro, a compromise between the 255 meuro sought by the European Parliament and the 150–160 meuro preferred by several member states.

  Most member states supported the stated objectives of the Commission's Cogeneration proposal, which seeks to promote the cogeneration of heat and power in order to reduce energy demand as a means to both reduce dependency on external supplies of energy and contribute to the achievement of carbon savings, but thought the 50 MW upper limit on support restrictive, illogical and counterproductive, and that the proposal

  513W
  involved bureaucratic and costly compliance burdens. The proposal will be taken forward by the Greek presidency.

  Member states agreed on presidency conclusions on the follow-up to the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) in Johannesburg.

  The Commission made a presentation on its package of nuclear proposals, comprising directives on nuclear safety and waste management together with a proposal for an agreement between Euratom and Russia covering trade in nuclear materials. The Commission justified this largely on the grounds of EU enlargement and the need to reassure public opinion on safety and waste management. Although discussion had not been envisaged, several member states expressed doubts about the treaty base for the proposals, stressing the political sensitivity. One noted that the Euratom Treaty did not provide the Community with competence on nuclear safety, and challenged the proposals as unrealistic.

  The Council noted Commission progress reports on the EU-Russia energy dialogue (with adoption of conclusions), the Energy Charter Treaty and the Northern Dimension.

  Greece gave a presentation on its presidency priorities. It will concentrate on four main areas: security of energy sources (energy TENS and the EU's proposed oil and gas stocking directives); sustainable development (cogeneration directive and follow-up to Johannesburg); co-operation with third countries (EU-Russia, Energy Charter Treaty, Euro-Med and North Eastern Europe); and continuation of work on the nuclear package.

  EU Single Market
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress has been made towards the target set by her Department in 1998, to enable transposition of 98 per cent, of EU Single Market measures into UK law by the end of 2000. [83691]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 26 November 2002]: The UK had transposed 97.3 per cent of EU single market measures due by November 2000. By March 2002, we had exceeded the 98 per cent, target (with 98.7 per cent). Our score in May 2002 was 98.5 per cent, and the November 2002 score was 98.6 per cent.

  Export Credits Guarantee Department
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what ECGD funds have been approved for contracts involving(a) aircraft consultancy services and (b) Das Air since 2002. [81729]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 27 November 2002]: ECGD has no record of having provided any support in respect of contracts involving these entities.

  Exports
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress has been made towards the targets set in 1998 for achievement in 1999–02, with 514W
  (a) improving support for exporters, (b) raising the quality of service, (c) generating additional exports and (d) enhancing the business image of the UK. [83598]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 26 November 2002]: British Trade International was established in 1999 to bring together the work of my Department and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on international trade and investment; and to bring sharper focus to the Government's trade development activity.

  Information on progress against PSA targets is published annually in the Government Expenditure Plans for British Trade International (Cm. 5415).

  Fire and Safety Standards
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent representations she has received regarding continuing costs relating to compliance with fire and safety standards British Standard EN 54.4 and EN 54.2. [82046]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  None. Fire safety standards would normally be a matter for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.

  Fireworks
  Paddy Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations she has received during the last three months about the nuisance caused by fireworks; what steps she is taking to evaluate the extent of the nuisance; and when she will bring forward further controls on the sale and use of fireworks. [83046]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 27 November 2002]We have received significant representations during the last three months about firework nuisance and the situation is being monitored.

  In relation to the introduction of further controls on the sale and use of fireworks, I refer my hon. Friend to an answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. Hendrick) on 17 October 2002, Official Report, columns 889–90 announcing a package of measures to address problems caused by fireworks.

  Mr. Walter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps she is taking to improve firework safety, with particular reference to the hazards of falling debris from display fireworks. [83400]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The weight of falling debris is specified in British Standard 7114 for certain types of firework. Steps are being taken to ensure that this is carried through to the forthcoming European standards for fireworks.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent discussions she has had with the fireworks manufacturers and vendors concerning the use and availability of fireworks; and if she will make a statement. [83534]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I have had recent discussions with representatives of the British Fireworks Association prior to my announcement on the
  515W
  17 October 2002, Official Report, columns 889–90 of a package of measures to cut the number of firework accidents as well as noise and nuisance.

  Prior to this year's Guy Fawkes night, the Department wrote to major retailers and representative bodies to urge compliance with the voluntary sales period.

  Foreign Direct Investment
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress has been made towards the target set in 1998 by her Department for achievement in 1999—2002, to maintain the UK as the prime location in the EU for foreign direct investment. [83692]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 26 November 2002]: The United Nations Conference On Trade and Development (UNCTAD) World Investment Report 2002 (released in September 2002) reported that the UK is in top position in the EU for inward investment. The UK's share of inward foreign direct investment (FDI) stocks increased from 18.3 per cent at the end of 2000 to 18.8 per cent at the end of 2001.

  Integrated Ocean Drilling Programme
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what decision has been made through EU Framework 6 (science funding) on the future of the Integrated Ocean Drilling Programme; what the position of the Government was; and if she will make a statement. [82080]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government strongly supports the Integrated Ocean Drilling Programme, an initiative that could provide vital information on subjects such as climate change and its prediction; impacts of global change and management strategies; sub-seabed biodiversity; desertification; natural disasters and coastal zone management.

  No formal decision has been taken by the European Commission on the work-programme for the thematic priority "Sustainable development, global change and ecosystems" under the Sixth Framework Programme (2002–06). However, the Government is encouraging the European Commission to ensure that the areas of activity envisaged for IODP would be eligible for funding under this thematic priority.

  IT Security
  Brian White
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he has taken to review the security of the Department's IT system; and how many digital attacks there were on the Department's system in(a) October and (b) 2002. [80772]

  Mr. Timms
  The core Department's internal IT system undergoes a regular cycle of security testing commensurate with its security policy.

  No digital attacks were recorded in October 2002. During 2002 as a whole, one attempted attack was detected and defeated.

  Manufacturing Sector
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what measures she has taken to ensure that Government contracts support UK manufacturing. [83924]

  Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 28 November 2002]: The Department is in discussion with the Treasury and the Office for Government Commerce to see how, while staying within EU procurement rules and the principle of ensuring value for money, we can make public procurement more open and accessible, especially for smaller firms. Significant progress has already been made in a number of areas of benefit to UK manufacturing, not least on construction, defence, textiles and SMEs.

  In particular, my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Trade and Industry and Defence launched a new Defence Industrial Policy on 14 October 2002 (published by the Ministry of Defence as "Defence Industrial Policy (Policy Paper No. 5)").

  Miners' Compensation
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many representations she has received in the last 18 months on the timing of payment of claims to ex-miners for compensation for respiratory disease. [84284]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Department receives around 100 letters a month on timing of individual compensation payments. The various National Ministerial Monitoring Groups meet regularly and make representations on all aspects of both the respiratory and vibration schemes.

  National Minimum Wage
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many successful prosecutions for failure to pay the national minimum wage have there been in Leeds. [83479]

  Alan Johnson
  The National Minimum Wage Act 1998 contains a number of provisions empowering enforcement officers to take civil action against non-paying employers and the Inland Revenue always uses these in the first instance.

  Since the minimum wage was introduced in April 1999 the Inland Revenue has issued around 450 enforcement notices in the UK requiring employers to start paying the minimum wage and make good any arrears, and identified over £12 million in arrears. A minority of disputed cases have been considered by employment tribunals.

  National minimum wage statistical data are not disaggregated to constituency level. Leeds falls into the Inland Revenue's Yorkshire/Humberside region and for the period referred to over £1.3 million in wages arrears was identified and 101 Enforcement Notices issued.

  To date there have been no criminal prosecutions in relation to underpayment of the minimum wage in the UK.

  OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she expects the UN panel of experts on the illegal exploitation of natural resources of the Democratic Republic of the Congo to present substantiated evidence regarding alleged breaches of the OECD Guidelines for multinational enterprises committed by UK companies, as listed in Annex III of their report. [83730]

  Ms Hewitt
  The expert panel's mandate expired when it submitted its last report. There is currently no UN process or mechanism in place to follow up the report and supply the information the UK and others have requested. Discussions are under way in the UN on how to proceed. We are pressing for a resolution to this problem and continue to press for the information we have requested to be supplied as soon as possible.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to her answer of 25 November 2002,Official Report, column 36W, for what reason guidance was necessary; when and by whom guidance was supplied; and if the wording was supplied by a different Government Department. [84485]

  Ms Hewitt
  It has been the practice, over successive Administrations, for the Cabinet Office to issue guidance to others on a range of issues, including answering parliamentary questions where appropriate.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pursuant to her answer of 25 November 2002,Official Report, column 36W, if she will set out the criteria used to assess whether a parliamentary question is a round robin in respect of which guidance is expected. [84486]

  Ms Hewitt
  The term "round robin" is used by my Department's Parliamentary Branch to indicate to officials that the Member has tabled similarly worded questions to other Government Departments.

  Regional Government Offices (Withholding Information)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what guidelines are given to regional government offices on withholding information from hon. Members. [84080]

  Mr. Leslie
  I have been asked to reply.

  Government Offices act in accordance with the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Rural Gas Supply
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent discussions she has had with OFGEM on facilitating the supply of mains gas to rural communities. [83876]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Department is in frequent discussions with a range of interested parties, including OFGEM, on measures to assist the fuel poor in non-gas areas, including rural areas.

  Rural Post Office Network
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pursuant to the answer of 25 November,Official Report, column 30W, on the Post Office, when she expects to announce the details of funding for the rural post office network; and what preliminary discussions she had with the European Commission on state aids clearance. [84579]

  Mr. Timms
  The Government are fully committed to supporting a rural network. As recommended by the Performance and Innovation Unit (in their report in June 2000: "Counter Revolution, Modernising the Post Office Network) we have asked the company to maintain the rural network and to prevent avoidable closures, in the first instance to 2006. This has been underpinned by the appointment of Rural Transfer Advisers by POL and a £2 million fund to support community post office initiatives.

  As recommended by PIU the Postal Services Commission has advised us on options for supporting the rural network from 2003. Following detailed consideration of this advice and discussion with the company the Government are now committed to making a substantial financial contribution to the rural network.

  £450 million will be made available (from 2003 to 2006) to help the rural post office network through the transition of benefit payment to ACT. The package will be funded from Royal Mail Holdings accumulated surpluses, as part of a package to put Royal Mail and Post Office Ltd. on a commercial footing.

  This funding is designed to help Britain's rural post offices through the changes in the network's business over the next few years. It provides direct support to rural post offices, maintaining front line services in local communities. It will also give Post Office Ltd. the financial freedom to pilot new and innovative ways of providing post office services in rural areas.

  The funding will be administered by Post Office Ltd. under contract to the Government. In return for this investment Post Office Ltd. will be required to maintain the rural network and prevent all avoidable closures, working through their Code of Practice for doing so in the first instance to 2006; and to provide reasonable access for all citizens to "over the counter" services in rural areas.

  These services include:

  Access to payment of the state pensions, tax credits and benefits

  Access to cash through banking services.

  Dispatch points for letters and parcels;

  Postage stamp sales;

  Renewal of licences (eg television);

  Bill payments to utilities; Government information and services specified in service contracts between POL and individual Government Departments.

  A total of £150 million will be invested in each of the next three years, all of it ring-fenced for the support of the rural network.
  519W
  There will be three elements to the funding:
  £66 million a year to maintain sub-postmasters income levels (by maintaining the AOP (assigned Office Payment) for rural sub-postmasters);
  £79 million in the first year, and £74 million in years two and three, to fund the front line services that allow post offices to operate, including IT systems, cash delivery and direct marketing material;
  A £25 million flexible fund (£5 million in the first year, rising to £10 million in the second and third years), to develop innovative, modern methods of delivering of services.

  The flexible fund will enable Post Office Ltd. to:
  Promote and finance innovative ways of delivering services, including compensation for the closure of offices replaced by pilots for these new ways of delivering services;
  Make additional payments to sub-postmasters on a case by case basis to modernise and improve the individual business.

  Our expectation is that POL will work closely with the National Federation of Sub-postmasters and other stakeholders to make best use of this fund.

  We remain in dialogue with the European Commission on matters relating to Post Office Ltd., and we expect to submit a formal notification to the Commission this week. Subject to state aid clearance, funding will be in place in April 2003.

  Small Firms
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress has been made towards the targets set in 2000 for achievement in 2001–04, to achieve(a) an increase in the number of people considering going into business, (b) an improvement in the overall productivity of small firms and (c) more enterprise in disadvantaged communities. [83688]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 26 November 2002]: Progress against the targets set in 2000 will be published shortly on the DTI website.

  We will be able to report progress on the number of people considering going into business in early 2004, based on result from the 2003 Household Survey of Entrepreneurship.

  SMEs productivity increased faster than all firms in the UK between 1999 and 2000.

  Between 2000 and 2001 there was a narrowing of the gap between VAT registration rates in the most and least deprived wards in England.

  Social Chapter
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many EU Directives have been brought in as a consequence of the UK signing up to the Social Chapter; and if she will list them. [84247]

  Alan Johnson
  The UK has transposed five Directives arising from the Social Chapter: the Parental Leave Directive, the European Works Council Directive, the Part-time Work Directive, the Burden of Proof Directive in Sex Discrimination cases and the Fixed Term Employees Directive. In addition the Information and Consultation of Employees Directive has to be transposed by March 2005.

  Solar Electricity
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the case for the introduction of a support system for solar electricity by establishing a tariff that pays a higher price per KWh for solar electricity generated. [84216]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Renewables Obligation which the Government introduced from 1 April 2002 provides a substantial market advantage to most forms of renewable energy including solar electricity.

  The possibility of a banded Obligation set at different levels for different forms of renewable energy was among possibilities explored in the consultations prior to the introduction of the Renewables Obligation, but a banded Obligation was rejected as too complex and requiring too great a degree of intervention in the renewable energy market.

  The Government has, however, taken action additional to the Renewables Obligation to promote solar energy, in particular the setting up of the Major Photovoltaics (PV) Demonstration Programme on 26 March 2002. The Government has provided £20 million over three years for the first phase of this programme. Grants averaging 50 per cent, of costs are available both for small-scale applications between 0.5 and 5kWp and for medium and large scale installations up to l00kWp.

  Prior to this, the Government provided £10 million for the Domestic Field Trial and Large-Scale Field Trial for Public Buildings, which will see a minimum of 500 homes and 15 larger non-residential buildings receive PV systems.

  Sustainability Strategy
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, what progress has been made towards the target set in 1998 for achievement in 1999 to 2002 to secure improvement in performance against a set of competitiveness indicators to be developed and published annually from 1999. [83599]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 26 November 2002]: The most recent 'UK Productivity and Competitiveness Indicators' were published in October 2002. They show that there has been progress in terms of macroeconomic stability, literacy and numeracy, the competitive framework, and the science base. However, weaknesses remain in terms of intermediate skills and innovation performance. This is why the Government has implemented a series of measures to improve performance in both areas, including the R and D tax credit for large firms, extra resources for DTI innovation schemes, the Employer Training Pilots to boost skill development and the review of adult learning.

  Trade Partners UK
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress has been made towards the target set in 2000 for achievement in 2001–04, to deliver a measurable improvement in the business performance of Trade Partners UK customers. [83686]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 26 November 2002]: Progress towards the target set in 2000 for achievement in 2001–04, to deliver a measurable improvement in the

  521W
  business performance of Trade Partners UK customers will be reported in the Autumn Performance Report to be laid before Parliament in December 2002.

  Value For Money
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress has been made towards the target set in 2000 for achievement in 2001–04, to achieve value for money improvements of 2.5 per cent, a year across the Department. [83685]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 26 November 2002]: The efficiency savings achieved by my Department in 2000–01 have been calculated at £19.3 million. The figure represented a percentage saving of 4.6 per cent, of administration costs in that financial year. Savings for 2001–02 are currently being assessed and will be published in the Department's next Expenditure Plans Report in April 2003.

  Water Project (Lesotho)
  John Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what report ECGD received in 1994 about action taken by the Lesothan Government pending an audit of the Lesotho Highlands Water Project; what representations ECGD made to the Government of Lesotho; what action ECGD took; and if she will make a statement about progress with investigations involving bribery and that project. [82350]

  Ms Hewitt
  In December 1994 ECGD received advice that the Chief Executive of the Lesotho Highlands Development Authority (LHDA) and the Chief Delegate to the Joint Permanent Technical Committee (JPTC) had been asked to vacate their offices pending the outcome of a Management Audit of the LHDA. ECGD was not called upon to respond nor did it think it appropriate to make direct representations to the Government of Lesotho, as there was no suggestion of illegal acts on the part of these individuals.

  As to the current situation, ECGD has contacted the companies who were members of the consortia involved in the project and which benefited from its support. We have sought and received assurances from them that they had no involvement in any unlawful conduct and we have been provided with no information to suggest that they were involved in corruption.

  We are aware that there has been a guilty verdict against Acres International Canada, which we understand is subject to appeal. ECGD continues to closely monitor developments in relation to the Court action in Lesotho.

  World Trade Organisation
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what the total cost was to the United Kingdom of sending a team to the WTO mini-ministerial meeting in Sydney on 14 November; and if she will make a statement; [83654]

  (2) how many (a) Ministers and (b) staff attended the WTO mini-ministerial meeting in Sydney on 14 November; and if she will make a statement. [83653]
  522W
  Ms Hewitt
  The UK, along with the 14 other EU member states, was represented at the mini-ministerial by the European Commission. No UK officials or Ministers attended the mini-ministerial, so there was no cost to the United Kingdom.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Iraq
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many of the British members of the UNMOVIC inspection team in Iraq have experience with United Kingdom weapons of mass destruction. [84218]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  None. The only Briton in the current team is a biological weapons analyst from UNMOVIC headquarters in New York. This situation may alter if UNMOVIC call on other British experts on their roster.

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the head of the United Nations Monitoring Verification and Inspection Commission on the availability of suitably qualified inspectors for its mission in Iraq; and whether the United Kingdom has assisted UNMOVIC with the provision of monitoring equipment. [84217]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We have maintained regular contact with the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC about preparations for the resumption of inspections in Iraq, most recently during his visit to London on 22 November. The issue of the availability of suitably qualified inspection personnel has been an integral part of our on-going dialogue.

  UNMOVIC themselves are responsible for ensuring that they have all the necessary equipment to carry out effective inspections. We have, however, recently loaned them chemical agent monitoring equipment pending the delivery of goods procured commercially.

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many UNMOVIC inspectors in Iraq are British; and whether there are plans to increase that number. [84263]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  There is one British member of the inspection team currently in Iraq.

  Our most recent information is that there are 16 British citizens on the UNMOVIC inspectors' roster. It is likely that most of them will serve on future inspection teams. The staffing of individual inspection teams is a matter for UNMOVIC.

  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received on support for Al Qaeda in Iraq. [84405]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We believe that there are Al Qaeda operatives in Iraq. Their links to the Iraqi regime are not clear. We know of no evidence of popular support for Al Qaeda in Iraq.

  Austria
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the outcome of the Austrian election. [84185]

  Mr. MacShane
  The final shape of the new Austrian Government has yet to be announced. I congratulate Dr. Schussel on the success of the Austrian People's Party.

  British Indian Ocean Territory
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what income from fishing licences was received in each of the last five years in the British Indian Ocean Territory. [84054]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Income from fishing licences in the past five years in the British Indian Ocean Territory is as follows:

  Financial year

  Income (£)

  1997–98

  1,573,094

  1998–99

  2,271,595

  1999–2000

  744,042

  2000–01

  1,108,072

  2001–02

  822,497

  Against this, however, should be set the cost of management of the fishery including the fisheries protection vessel. In Financial Year 2000–01 fisheries expenditure was £1,559,678. For Financial Year 2001–02 it was £1,438,386.

  Convention on the Future of Europe
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress in the Convention of the Future of Europe. [84391]

  Mr. MacShane
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant) on 5 November 2002,Official Report, column 139.

  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals have been submitted by the Government on a Draft Constitutional Treaty of the European Union. [84384]

  Mr. MacShane
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, as the Government's representative on the Convention on the Future of Europe, submitted to the convention a draft constitutional treaty produced by Professor Alan Dashwood of Cambridge University. Although this draft is not Government policy, it is a useful contribution to the debate. A number of other papers on specific tropics have also been submitted to the convention.

  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the timetable for the Convention on the Future of Europe. [84385]

  Mr. MacShane
  The convention remains on target to complete its work in time to report to the European Council in June 2003. The analytical phase will conclude 524W
  before Christmas, with institutional questions due to be considered in the New Year. Discussions on elements of a draft constitutional text will continue, with a consolidated draft likely to appear by Easter.

  Cyprus
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the Government of Cyprus regarding their accession to membership of the European Union. [83879]

  Mr. MacShane
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I discussed Cyprus' accession to the European Union with Mr. Ioannis Kasoulides, the Cyprus Foreign Minister, when he visited London on 26 and 27 November. We welcomed Cyprus' progress in the negotiations and that it should be among those candidates which conclude negotiations next month. We made clear our strong preference for accession by a reunited island.

  Mr. Lyons
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the UK Government will ensure that there is no division of Cyprus as part of a settlement. [84172]

  Mr. MacShane
  The Government welcome the UN's initiative to table a comprehensive proposal for a settlement to the Cyprus Problem.

  Our aim remains for a reunited Cyprus to accede to the EU, to be able to speak with one voice internationally and to have a single international legal personality. We believe the UN proposals achieve this.

  Mr. Best
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will visit Cyprus to discuss with the two communities the future of Cyprus and the EU. [84285]

  Mr. MacShane
  Neither I, nor the Foreign Secretary, have plans to visit Cyprus in the immediate future. But we are in very close contact with all the parties involved. The Foreign Secretary and I met the Cypriot Foreign Minister last week in London; the Foreign Secretary is visiting Ankara this week (to follow up his and the Prime Minister's meetings with the new Turkish leaders in London on 20 November and contacts at the NATO ministerial meeting in Prague); and the UK special representative for Cyprus visited Nicosia for talks with key players from both sides on 21–22 November.

  The UK supports the UN Secretary-General's proposals for a comprehensive settlement to the Cyprus problem. I urge both sides in Cyprus to make every effort to secure a settlement before the Copenhagen European Council on 12 December, at which key decisions on Cyprus' candidacy to the European Union will be taken.

  Diego Garcia
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what applications have been received from the USA to allow construction of new aircraft facilities on Diego Garcia; and if he will make a statement. [84053]
  525W
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The UK and US governments discussed improvements to US military facilities on Diego Garcia earlier this year. Work is underway on the construction of new aircraft facilities.

  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list landings on the Chagos Islands in each of the last five years that were not associated with US military activity on Diego Garcia. [84055]

  Mr. Mike 0'Brien
  We do not keep records of all individual landings on the outer islands of the Chagos Archipelago. It would be impractical to attempt to do so given that the Archipelago covers over 50,000 square kilometres of ocean.

  Iran
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the US Administration regarding the potential development of weapons of mass destruction in the Islamic Republic of Iran. [83883]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has regular discussions with the American Administration and other governments on a wide range of non-proliferation issues, including in relation to Iran.

  The UK is committed to combating the spread of weapons of mass destruction wherever it may occur.

  Israel
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the Government of Israel regarding the illegal construction of settlements in the occupied territories of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip; and if he will make a statement. [83882]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The UK Government considers settlements illegal and an obstacle to peace. We have consistently called on the Israeli Government to freeze all settlement activity, including the 'natural growth' of Israeli settlements, as recommended in the Mitchell Report. Our Ambassador in Tel Aviv conveyed the Foreign Secretary's concerns expressed on 18 November in a press statement at reports of the Israeli Government considering extending settlements in Hebron to Prime Minister Sharon on 18 November.

  I raised settlement activity with the Israeli Ambassador on 5 November, as did a Foreign Office official on 20 November.

  Mr. Lyons
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress is being made in reviving negotiations between the Palestinian Authority and Israel. [84171]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Revival of these negotiations may best be achieved through determined implementation, by the parties and international community, of the roadmap now being finalised by the Quartet. We expect its publication in December and will do all we can to support its immediate implementation, leading to a final and comprehensive settlement.

  Leg Irons
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures have been taken to prevent the export and manufacturing of leg irons in the UK. [84292]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  As my right hon. Friend the then Foreign Secretary, announced on 28 July 1997 Official Report, column 65W, there is a complete ban on the export or transhipment from the UK of leg-irons, gang chains and shackles designed for the restraint of a human being. The necessary amendment to the Export of Goods Control Order came into force in December 1997.

  The manufacture of leg-irons is not prohibited in the United Kingdom.

  Missile Stocks
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what report he has received regarding the quantities of missile material stocks held by(a) each of the four nuclear weapons states party to the non-proliferation treaty, (b) Israel, (c) India, (d) Pakistan, (e) Democratic People's Republic of Korea and (f) Iraq. [84219]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Any national analysis of quantities of missile stocks would be heavily based on intelligence assessments. Under exemption 1(a)of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, it is not Government policy to publish such information.

  There are, however, unofficial assessments available from non-governmental sources, including the military balance produced by International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS). Although the report by IISS will not have had access to Government information.

  With regard to Iraq, the most reliable source of information on missile stocks remains the final report from UNSCOM, published in 1999.

  National Missile Defence
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on recent approaches by the USA to the Government concerning preparation for participation in National Missile Defence. [84123]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave him on 7 November Official Report, column 630W.

  North Korea
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the recent admission by the Government of North Korea that they are in possession of weapons of mass destruction. [83881]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  North Korea has not to our knowledge explicitly stated that it possesses weapons of mass destruction. We understand that in bilateral
  527W
  US/North Korean discussions on 4 October North Korean officials admitted that they had been pursuing a covert programme for the enrichment of Uranium.

  The possession of nuclear weapons would be a breach of a number of North Korea's international obligations. On 17 October my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said in press statement:
  "This admission of a nuclear weapons programme is a serious violation of North Korea's commitments under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, its safeguards agreement with the IAEA and the US/North Korea Agreed Framework. We are in contact with our international partners about the implications…World opinion is united in calling for North Korea to comply with its international obligations and to eliminate its nuclear weapons programme"

  Pakistan
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has made to the Government of Pakistan on the treatment of(a) Christians and (b) other religious minorities in that country; and if he will make a statement. [83916]

  Andy King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has made to the Pakistani Government concerning the violence perpetrated against Christians and other minorities by Muslim extremists in Pakistan.[84406]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We are deeply concerned about human rights violations against Christians and other minorities in Pakistan. On 15 July I raised our concerns directly with the Pakistani High Commissioner in London. Together with our EU partners, we also regularly raise our concerns with the Pakistani authorities in Islamabad. We will continue to take appropriate opportunities to urge Pakistan to pursue laws and practices which foster tolerance and mutual respect and to protect Christians and other religious minorities against discrimination, intimidation and attacks.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will urge the Pakistan Government to(a) take tougher action against extremists and (b) protect religious minorities. [84127]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has had substantive discussions with President Musharraf in Islamabad and the then Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, Inam ul Haque, and underlined the importance we attach to Pakistan's commitment to combat terrorism. We welcome the steps taken thus far by the Pakistani authorities to clamp down on extremists, including the banning of five groups, but remain deeply concerned about terrorist atrocities against Christian targets. Together with our EU partners, we will continue to urge Pakistan to intensify its efforts and provide better protection for Christians and other minorities.

  Yemen
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the Government of Yemen regarding potential military intervention in Iraq. [83887]
  528W
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has had no recent discussions with the Government of Yemen, but officials have regular discussions with the Yemeni Government, including on Iraq.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Afghanistan
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what initiatives her Department is supporting in Afghanistan to help create alternative livelihoods for those growing opium poppies. [82929]

  Clare Short
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) on 23 October 2002,Official Report, columns 319–20W.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the level of aid being provided to Afghanistan by the British Government. [84748]

  Clare Short
  At the Tokyo conference on Afghanistan's reconstruction in January, the UK pledged £200 million over five years. We have recently increased our allocation for the current financial year to £65 million for both humanitarian and reconstruction assistance, of which we have already distributed £52 million. In addition to this the UK Government have also allocated £1.8 million from the Mines Action Programme to address the problem of landmines, and a further £18 million from the Global Conflict Prevention Pool for Security Sector Reform.

  Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions she has had with the World Bank regarding the application for funds from the International Finance Corporation for the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline. [83732]

  Clare Short
  I have had no discussions with the World Bank about the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline. No proposal for International Finance Corporation (IFC) support for the pipeline has yet been submitted to the IFC Board, of which the UK is a member. We understand that such a proposal is likely to be submitted in mid to late 2003, following completion of IFC processes for environmental and social appraisal. There may also be an informal board discussion of the project early in the new year.

  Ethiopia
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent discussions she has had with EU Ministers about trade rules with Ethiopia affecting(a) tariff and (b) EU farming subsidies, with regard to (i) coffee and (ii) other products.[83154]

  Clare Short
  At the General Affairs and External Relations Council in Brussels on 18–19 November I took part in discussions, with fellow EU Ministers,
  529W
  about the current state of the international coffee market. At this meeting I reiterated, with reference to Ethiopia as a case in point, some of the challenges facing a number of commodity dependent countries. I highlighted the need to assist these countries by promoting economic diversification as well as by delivering on CAP reform.

  We recognise the damaging impact that trade-distorting subsidies have on developing countries agriculture sectors. At the Doha Ministerial meeting last year it was agreed that agriculture negotiations would aim to achieve "substantial reductions in trade-distorting domestic support". The UK fully supports these negotiations and is pressing for ambitious reform of the CAP to help the EU to participate effectively in the WTO negotiations.

  While there is some preferential trade access to the EU for developing countries, more needs to be done to reduce the tariffs that the EU currently applies to a range of agricultural and non-agricultural products that offer potential alternative export trade opportunities for these countries. In order to tackle these barriers, the Doha meeting agreed that we should reduce barriers to trade in all products and particularly tariff peaks, high tariffs and tariff escalation. To ensure these negotiations result in liberalisation that benefits the world's poor, we are working to make these commitments become a reality.

  Through our direct assistance programme we have worked with the private sector on a scoping study of opportunities and constraints relating to Ethiopia exporting horticultural produce to EU markets and are now planning some follow-up work.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions she plans to have with EU Ministers with regard to delivering emergency aid to Ethiopia; and if she will make a statement. [83157]

  Clare Short
  The situation in Ethiopia was discussed briefly at the General Affairs and External Relations Council (GAERC) on 18–19 November. It will be discussed in more detail at the next GAERC on 9–10 December. Ministers agreed that we needed to monitor developments closely. I will continue to raise the matter with EU Ministers when appropriate.

  Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many companies have signed up to the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative. [84050]

  Clare Short
  The Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative was announced by the Prime Minister at the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg in September 2002. At that initial stage, BP, Shell, Rio Tinto, BhP Billiton and Anglo-American committed to developing a framework for transparency in the extractive industries.
  530W
  Since then, we have drawn up a set of principles underpinning the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative, which we will use to bring more companies and governments on board. A growing number of non-UK based oil and mining companies, industry bodies and UK asset fund managers have expressed interest in joining the multi-stakeholder coalition to devise mechanisms to make transparency a reality.

  Fair Trade
  Mr. Lyons
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assistance her Department is giving to the promotion of fair trade. [84501]

  Clare Short
  Through the Development Awareness Fund, DFID has provided £120,000 to the Fairtrade Foundation (FTF) over three years (2001–03) in support of its efforts to target new consumers through its annual Fairtrade Fortnight campaigns. The Fortnight is designed to highlight the positive developmental impacts of fair trade and the range of fair trade products on offer.

  DFID is also funding a project that addresses a recognised bottleneck within fair trade—namely the limited number of products for which international fair trade standards exist. This project (at a total cost of £300,000) aims to develop five new product standards, secure the registration of 20 new producer groups and help bring an additional 20 new fair trade products to supermarket shelves over the next two years. The target is to increase the retail value of fair trade sales in the UK to over £100 million by 2004, and by so doing, extend the benefits of fair trade to a greater number of producers in developing countries. By expanding the scale of fair trade activities, the project also aims to secure a sustainable future for the FTF, so that its core operational costs (including the cost of subsequent product development) are fully funded from the income it receives from licensees.

  DFID's support to the FT movement is part of a broader programme to encourage wider adoption of ethical trading codes and standards by major transnational corporations, and continuing efforts to reform the international trading system.

  Immunisation Programmes
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent discussions her Department has had with the World Health Organisation regarding the availability of vaccinations for immunisation programmes in developing countries. [83733]

  Clare Short
  DFID and WHO are both board members of the Global Alliance on Vaccines and Immunisation (GAVI), which is a major international initiative to enhance access to vaccines and immunisation in developing countries. The issue of vaccine supply has been extensively discussed within this forum. DFID has also held talks with Unicef, who are key players in the issue of vaccine procurement.

  Overseas Aid
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what representations she has made to the US Government calling for them to raise overseas development assistant to 0.7 per cent, of GNI. [75059]

  Clare Short
  I have made clear on many occasions to our own Government, to the USA and other developed countries, the need for donors to work towards the 0.7 per cent, target of official development assistance as a proportion of GNI. The Government itself has committed, in the Comprehensive Spending Review, to reaching a ratio of 0.4 per cent, by financial year 2006–07. I welcome the establishment by the USA of the Millennium Challenge Account, which will increase US development assistance by 50 per cent. in cash terms by 2006. I hope that the USA will continue to expand its development assistance programmes towards the levels of ODA/GNI achieved by most other developed countries. US Assistance has the potential to make a very significant contribution towards the reduction of poverty in the world.

  Date/country

  Description

  Total (£ million)

  September 2001

  Zimbabwe

  NGO feeding programme

  4.0

  Zimbabwe

  WFP emergency appeal

  3.5

  Malawi

  Targeted inputs programme

  3.75

  January-May 2002

  Malawi

  NGO feeding programme

  4.4

  Malawi

  Winter inputs programme

  1.2

  June 2002

  Zimbabwe

  WFP regional emergency feeding operation

  7.0

  Lesotho

  WFP regional emergency feeding operation

  1.56

  Malawi

  WFP regional emergency feeding operation

  5.0

  Swaziland

  WFP regional emergency feeding operation

  0.25

  Zambia

  WFP regional emergency feeding operation

  5.0

  Zambia

  NGO food for work programme

  1.02

  Region

  WFP logistical support in Johannesburg regional hob, Lesotho and Zimbabwe

  0.51

  Region

  SADC vulnerability assessments to improve targeting

  0.2

  Region

  IFRC feeding HIV/AIDS affected people

  2.5

  Region

  WHO regional health operation

  0.13

  Malawi

  Targeted inputs programme

  6.8

  Zimbabwe

  NGO agricultural inputs

  5.0

  Zimbabwe

  WHO essential drugs and medicines

  2.5

  September 2002

  Zimbabwe

  NGO feeding programme

  16.0

  Malawi/region

  Nacala rail-link

  4.1

  October 2002

  Zambia

  Agricultural recovery through NGOs and FAO

  1.5

  Zambia

  Improved nutrition programme

  1.2

  Zambia

  Support to the health sector

  0.2

  Region

  OCHA southern African humanitarian information service

  0.11

  Region

  Southern Africa humanitarian crisis unit for monitoring and liaison

  0.5

  Lesotho

  Livelihoods recovery through agriculture programme

  1.0

  Zimbabwe

  Epidemic preparedness

  1.2

  Zimbabwe

  Improved nutrition programme

  1.1

  November 2002

  Region

  SADC vulnerability assessments

  0 2

  Public Private Partnership
  Gregory Barker
  Asked the Secretary of State for International Development, pursuant to her answer of 11 July 2002,Official Report, column 451W, if she will list the alternative ways her Department is exploring to achieve the objective of the CDC Public Private Partnership. [71208]

  Clare Short
  I refer to my Written Statement about CDC, on 28 November 2002,Official Report, columns 36–38WS.

  Southern Africa
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what(a) financial and (b) other aid the Government have given for the southern African crisis; when the contributions were made; what conditions were attached to such contributions; and what the recipient (i) countries and (ii) agencies were. [83545]

  Clare Short
  We have made the following commitments for the humanitarian crisis in southern Africa, since September 2001. In addition, we estimate that our contribution to commitments by the European Commission to date is approximately £21.42 million. No special conditions are attached to our contributions:
  533W

  Date/country

  Description

  Total (£ million)

  Zambia

  WFP EMOP

  3.5

  Lesotho

  WFP EMOP

  0.5

  Total since September 2001

  Humanitarian assistance and recovery programmes

  85.43

  Sudan
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans she has to publish a country strategy paper on Sudan. [84051]

  Clare Short
  The UK has not had a development programme in Sudan for some years because of the on-going conflict. However, in line with progress made towards peace, we are now planning for a possible development programme in Sudan, to be implemented when there is a comprehensive agreement. This will be supported by the appropriate strategy document, drawn up after full consultation. In the first instance, this document may not be a full Country Assistance Plan, but an interim strategy, which would develop as our programme develops.

  Zambia
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what help the Government is giving to Zambia to source non-GM food. [83544]

  Clare Short
  I have made clear to the Government of Zambia that I believe their decision on GM is ill advised and will make it more expensive and difficult to provide food to those who are starving in Zambia. We are nevertheless doing all we can to try to ensure that those in need are provided for.

  DFID has provided £8.5 million to the World Food Programme to source food for the humanitarian pipeline and plans to provide £0.7 million to NGOs for the procurement and distribution of supplementary nutritional food supplies.

  DFID's support to NGOs and International Organisations for conservation farming and drought recovery programmes will support the supply of non-GM food at the next harvest.

  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what analysis the Government has made of food availability in Zambia, in particular the availability of cassava; and whether the Government is supporting efforts to get such foods to areas affected by crop failures. [83546]

  Clare Short
  DFID has been working with the Government of the Republic of Zambia (GRZ) and the World Food Programme (WFP) to determine the availability of food for humanitarian distribution to those in most need.

  Through its annual crop forecasts, GRZ has reported a surplus of cassava in the north where cassava is a major staple food for most communities. The redistribution of cassava to drought affected areas in the south is difficult for logistical, social and economic reasons. GRZ is using available funds to purchase surplus maize from the north rather than cassava, as this is the staple crop and preferred food for the south.
  534W
  DFID has provided £8.5 million to the WFP to source food imports into Zambia and is working closely with GRZ and WFP to improve the distribution of food stocks existing in the country.

  Zimbabwe
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans she has for food aid aerial drops in Zimbabwe. [83731]

  Clare Short
  Aerial drops are very much a measure of last resort, with risks to all involved. Food cannot be targeted reliably, and it is an expensive option. We will continue to use and strengthen the distribution systems already in place, which are working well in very difficult conditions. One of the major problems in dealing with the Zimbabwe crises is that the World Food Programme appeal for Southern Africa is only 56 per cent, funded and there is not enough food to distribute.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Arts Organisations
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many educational sessions undertaken by arts organisations took place in(a) 199–99, (b) 1999–2000, (c) 2000–01 and (d) 2001–02; and if she will make a statement. [83752]

  Dr. Howells
  In 2001–02, arts organisations funded by the Arts Council of England and the Regional Arts Boards provided more than 200,000 education sessions and workshops for adults and children.

  In addition to this, from April 2002 we are investing£40 million in Creative Partnerships. This programme is bringing together schools and cultural institutions across 16 deprived areas of England, enabling young people and their teachers to work on sustained creative projects.

  There are no figures available for earlier years.

  Public Service Broadcasting
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what measures she has taken to ensure public service broadcasters sustain quality and range of output; and if she will make a statement. [83777]

  Dr. Howells
  The Communications White Paper affirmed the Government's commitment to maintaining the role of public service broadcasting in the digital age. The Communications Bill implements this commitment, by setting out a general public service broadcasting remit which applies to all public service broadcasters,
  535W
  including the BBC. It will also establish individual public service broadcasting remits for Channel 3, Channel 4 and Channel 5, combining specific obligations for each broadcaster with a general obligation to contribute to the overall public service remit. OFCOM will report on the fulfilment of the overall public service broadcasting remit no less frequently than every five years. OFCOM will have backstop powers to intervene, up to and including removal of freedom to self-regulate, should a licensed broadcaster fail to fulfil its individual remit, or its contribution to the overall remit.

  Digital Television
  John Thurso
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment her Department has made of the impact of analogue switch-off on remote rural areas. [83718]

  Dr. Howells
  The Government are committed to ensuring that terrestrial analogue broadcasting signals are maintained until: everyone who can currently get the main public service broadcasting channels in analogue form can receive them on digital systems; switching to digital is an affordable option for the vast majority of people; and as a target indicator of affordability, 95 per cent, of consumers have access to digital equipment. The Digital Television Action Plan tasks the Government to determine and agree a target level of UK coverage for digital terrestrial public services post-switchover. We have consulted on this issue and are now considering our preferred spectrum planning option. Details of the consultation are available on the website: www.digitaltelevision.gov.uk.

  John Thurso
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will exempt those in remote rural areas from the licensing fee following analogue switch-off if they are unable to receive digital television. [83719]

  Dr. Howells
  A television licence is required to install or use a television receiver to watch a television programme service on any platform. The licence fee is a payment for permission to receive television broadcasts and not for the service provided and is payable in full, irrespective of the use made of that service and the quality of reception. The Government have no plans to exempt viewers from the licence fee depending on the programme services available to them.

  Film Industry
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what work she did with the British film industry to implement a new joint-funded strategy for the development of the industry by April 2000; and if she will make a statement. [83741]

  Dr. Howells
  Following a comprehensive review of film policy in 1998, my Department set up the Film Council in April 2000 to act as the Government's expert adviser on film, and help develop a sustainable British film industry. In its relatively short life, the Film Council has already put in place a number of initiatives to help deliver its goals. We also set up the Skills Investment Fund, which is administered by Skillset, the Sector Skills Council for the audio-visual industries. All film 536W
  productions in the UK are invited to contribute to the fund, which Skillset invests in training and skills development for the British film industry.

  Heritage, Sport and Tourism
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what frameworks of support have been put in place by her Department for(a) heritage, (b) sport and (c) tourism; how much her Department has saved through these measures; and if she will make a statement. [83758]

  Dr. Howells
  We have conducted reviews of Sport England, English Heritage, and the British Tourist Authority as well as the framework of support for domestic tourism. We are now working with the bodies concerned on modernisation plans which should lead to improved value for money and significant savings, though it is not yet possible to quantify the savings. Plans for the reform of tourism structures were announced to Parliament on 13 May and 31 October 2002.

  National Lottery
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what measures her Department has taken to ensure devolution of decision-making for National Lottery funding grants; and if she will make a statement. [83783]

  Dr. Howells
  The National Lottery Act 1998 gave Lottery distributors powers to delegate funding decisions to a more local level and increasing use is being made of these powers. This Department is currently conducting a review of Lottery funding and published a consultation paper in July seeking views on how Lottery distribution could be improved and how more decisions about Lottery funding could be devolved to a local level. The Department is now looking closely at the responses received.

  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the maximum level is of National Lottery grant funding that can be spent by regional bodies; and if she will make a statement. [83749]

  Dr. Howells
  There is no statutory maximum. The Community Fund has delegated its grant-making powers to regional committees up to a limit of £1 million per grant. The Arts Council of England has delegated decisions on projects under £100,000 to its regional offices. The Heritage Lottery Fund delegates decisions to regional committees for award grants up to £1 million. Awards for All, the cross distributor awards programme supported by the good causes of heritage, arts, sports charities and the New Opportunities Fund has regional committees which make grant decisions up to a maximum award value of £5,000.

  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much National Lottery grant funding was spent by(a) region and (b) regional

  537W
  body in the UK in (i) 1998–99, (ii) 1999–2000, (iii) 2000–01 and (iv) 2001–02; and if she will make a statement. [83778]

  Dr. Howells
  The following table sets out the total amount of Lottery funding awarded to each of the English regions and to Scotland, Wales and Northern

  Lottery Award Regional Totals

  £

  Region

  1 April 1998 to 31 March 1999

  1 April 1999 to 31 March 2000

  1 April 2000 to 31 March 2001

  1 April 2001 to 31 March 2002

  East Midlands

  40,805,628

  40,888,110

  67,376,238

  70,266,135

  Eastern

  51,583,669

  48,911,292

  53,965,761

  64,706,603

  London

  274,503,707

  102,365,945

  162,537,615

  133,259,638

  North East

  48,989,336

  99,211,191

  46,893,035

  60,494,311

  North West

  120,174,482

  185,009,505

  118,337,247

  81,415,407

  South East

  98,523,440

  78,058,630

  98,869,911

  90,404,696

  South West

  79,430,052

  63,224,137

  75,996,544

  76,260,409

  West Midlands

  72,255,440

  70,975,613

  69,067,417

  61,539,810

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  62,856,278

  56,637,836

  58,742,145

  125,908,578

  Northern Ireland

  50,125,751

  53,397,051

  42,202,885

  30,769,992

  Scotland

  104,722,477

  122,940,815

  87,481,599

  136,634,195

  Wales

  64,110,173

  82,798,156

  63,164,837

  62,103,710

  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment she has made of the impact of distributing bodies' strategic plans for National Lottery funding on(a) capital and revenue schemes and (b) variations in regions of the UK; and if she will make a statement. [83782]

  Dr. Howells
  Distributors were asked to indicate in their recently published strategic plans what proportion of overall awards were likely to be capital and what revenue, and to indicate levels of funding to be allocated to country, regional or local level. Distributors are asked to evaluate their achievements against the objectives set out in the plans.

  These issues are also addressed in the consultation paper published by the Secretary of State on 29 July, and will be considered as part of the Review of Lottery funding.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport pursuant to the answer given to the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham on 26 November, reference 83302, how many ex-servicemen's welfare organisations in West Sussex applied for National Lottery funding this year. [84767]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Community Fund is not aware of any such application.

  1998 to 1999

  1999 to 2000

  2000 to 2001

  2001 to 2002

  Average percentage of collection items stored in the correct environmental conditions

  74

  74

  76

  78

  Average percentage of time open

  56

  59

  60

  61

  Average percentage of collection internet accessible

  4

  14

  22

  31

  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many(a) children, (b) pensioners and (c) others visited each major national museum funded by her Department (i) 1998–99, (ii) 1999–2000,(iii)2000–01 and (iv) 2001–02; and if she will make a statement. [83740]
  538W
  Ireland in the relevant years. This is taken from the Department's awards database which is based on information provided by Lottery distributors.

  My Department does not hold information about what proportion of this amount was awarded at a regional level.

  Museums
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment she has made of museums'(a) collections care and (b) public access in each year since 1998; and if she will make a statement. [83735]

  Dr. Howells
  The museums and galleries sponsored by my Department take very seriously the duty of care for collection items in their ownership. This is reflected in the increasing percentage of collection items which are stored in the correct environmental conditions—rising from an average of 74 per cent, in 1998–99 to 78 per cent, in 2001–02. Similarly, the museums and galleries are making ever greater efforts towards heightening public accessibility—both actual and virtual—to their collections. The average percent of time open at the museums and galleries has risen from 56 per cent, in 1998–99 to 61 per cent, in 2001–02, and the number of collection items which are able to be viewed online has increased from an average of 4 per cent, in 1998–99 to 31 per cent, in 2001–02.

  The following table shows data for each year between 1998–99 and 2001–02 for each of these areas across those museums and galleries sponsored by my Department.

  Dr. Howells
  Between 1998–99 and 2001–02, visitors in each of the three categories specified to all those museums and galleries sponsored by my Department have increased by: 31 per cent, for children; 32 per cent, for over 60s and 27 per cent, for others. The position for the major museums and galleries as requested is set out in the following table:
  539W

  Institution

  1998 to 1999

  1999 to 2000

  2000 to 2001

  2001 to 2002

  British Museum

  a) 630,000

  a) 616,000

  a) 656,309

  a) 671,505

  b) 315,000

  b) 308,000

  b) 323,137

  b) 335,750

  c) 3,555,000

  c) 3,476,000

  c) 3,708,474

  c) 3,802,745

  Imperial War Museum

  a) 352,347

  a) 359,215

  a) 398,849

  a) 424,372

  b) 156,792

  b) 145,757

  b) 194,046

  b) 174,594

  c) 864,964

  c) 887,821

  c) 1,015,919

  c) 1,008,963

  National Gallery

  a) 400,000

  a) 398,129

  a) 410,000

  a) 461,000

  b) 625,000

  b) 655,000

  b) 626,000

  b) 528,000

  c)3,275,000

  c) 3,446,871

  c)3,744,000

  c) 3,870,000

  National Maritime Museum

  a) 136,367

  a) 270,306

  a) 272,572

  a) 330,760

  b) 33,743

  b) 98,506

  b) 120,424

  b) 137,322

  c) 311,928

  c) 499,169

  c) 399,224

  c) 529,926

  National Museums and Galleries on Merseyside

  a) 257,878

  a) 238,000

  a) 2,11,000

  a) 246,371

  b) not available

  b) 69,000

  b) 69,000

  b) 118,129

  c) 442,122

  c) 349,000

  c) 331,000

  c) 458,190

  National Museum of Science and Industry

  a) 914,902

  a) 1,132,088

  a) 1,075,032

  a) 1,290,498

  b) 130,367

  b) 158,918

  b) 231,000

  b) 263,391

  c) 1,117,731

  c) 1,563,994

  c) 1,519,481

  c) 1,566,024

  Natural History Museum

  a) 628,205

  a) 585,389

  a) 562,165

  a) 693,595

  b) 35,897

  b) 43,182

  b) 79,767

  b) 97,625

  c) 1,130,768

  c) 1,118,288

  c) 1,049,068

  c) 1,405,346

  Tate

  a) 394,359

  a) 289,720

  a) 961,450

  a) 767,609

  b) 273,017

  b) 241,209

  b) 839,551

  b) 552,156

  c) 2,366,151

  c) 1,951,593

  c) 4,932,690

  c) 4,190,635

  Victoria and Albert Museum

  a) 215,097

  a) 202,894

  a) 216,827

  a) 291,406

  b) 126,478

  b) 89,614

  b) 117,044

  b) 249,192

  c) 1,118,345

  c) 986,622

  c) 1,048,208

  c) 1,318,023

  a) number of children

  b) number of over 60s

  c) others

  Note:

  'Major' has been defined as those museums and galleries in recept of £10 million or more grant in aid of the current financial year.

  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment she has made of her Department's efficiency review of national museums and galleries; and if she will make a statement. [83761]

  Dr. Howells
  The Efficiency Review of national museums and galleries sponsored by my Department, and which was undertaken in 1999–2000, has been instrumental in improving the quality of performance measures included in the funding agreements that my Department negotiates with its sponsored museums and galleries, and in the development and refinement of targets for each museum and gallery. Through the funding agreements my Department is better able to assess the performance of sponsored museums and galleries in the delivery of key Government priorities.

  National Stadium
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the Wembley project and the funding programme for the project. [84060]

  Mr. Caborn
  Financial close on the Football Association's English National Stadium project at Wembley was achieved on 26 September and demolition of the existing stadium commenced on 30 September. Full details of the National Stadium project's costs and funding are set out in the final report of the English National Stadium Review led by Patrick Carter, copies of which were placed in the House Library on
  540W
  16 October and which can be downloaded from my Department's website at http://www.culture.gov.uk/sport/.

  Art (New Opportunities)
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many new opportunities to experience the arts were introduced in(a) 1998–99, (b) 1999–2000, (c) 2000–01 and (d) 2001–02; and if she will make a statement. [83748]

  Dr. Howells
  We have contacted the Arts Council of England to request the information required, and my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for the Arts will write to the hon. Member as soon as it is available, placing copies of her letter in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Performing Arts
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many new visitors attended the performing arts in(a) 1998–99, (b) 1999–2000, (c) 2000–01 and (d) 2001–02; and if she will make a statement. [83737]

  Dr. Howells
  We have contacted the Arts Council of England to request the information required, and my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for the Arts will write to the hon. Member as soon as it is available, placing copies of her letter in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Sports Budget
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the Department's Exchequer budget for sport and related projects was in each of the last three years; how much underspend there was in the Exchequer budget; and how much funding was carried over under end-year flexibility arrangements. [80963]

  Mr. Caborn
  The information the hon. Gentleman requested is as follows:

  £000

  Budget

  Spend

  Underspend

  1999–2000

  51,958

  51,593

  365

  2000–01

  52,609

  52,571

  38

  2001–02

  68,829

  63,898

  4,931

  Since 2000–01 the Department has also jointly provided funding for Spaces for Sport and Art.

  The Department's contribution is as follows:

  £000

  Year

  Budget

  Spend

  Underspend

  2000–01

  15,000

  13

  14,987

  2001–02

  60,000

  579

  59,421

  Amounts eligible for End Year Flexibility (EYF) carry forward are based on unspent Departmental Expenditure Limit (DEL) provision less, where appropriate, DEL Reserve claims agreed during the course of the year. Resource underspend from 1999–2000 and 2000–01 was carried forward in full; but as published in the Public Expenditure Outturn White Paper 2001–02 (CM5574) the Department's Resource EYF carry forward from that year, other than for administration costs, is nil. However, the Department is covering UK Sport and Sport England's Resource underspend from current year provision.

  All the Department's unspent Capital DEL is available to carry forward. This includes Spaces for Sport and Art underspend.

  Tourism
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment she has made of her Department's promotion of quality tourism development which(a) is economically, environmentally and socially sustainable and (b) supports the Government's employment objectives; and if she will make a statement. [83744]

  Dr. Howells
  Good quality accommodation, attractions and service are all vital pre-requisites for a flourishing, sustainable tourism industry. The existing accommodation quality assurance schemes are good but have insufficient impact on the consumer, and so we intend shortly to commission a review of quality to address that. We are already pursuing our Fitness for Purpose initiative to tackle quality issues at less satisfactory premises, to provide assurance to customers that sub-standard accommodation will not be tolerated. We are also working with other Departments on establishing a Sector Skills Council for the tourism,542W
  hospitality and leisure sector, and in increasing the number of New Deal clients who find work in the hospitality industry. This will help build a more positive image of the sector and attract and retain good quality staff.

  Underwater Archaeology
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what measures her Department has taken to transfer responsibility for underwater archaeology; and if she will make a statement. [83754]

  Dr. Howells
  The National Heritage Act 2002 extended English Heritage's powers, with effect from 1 July 2002, to include ancient monuments in, on, or under the seabed within the seaward limits of the UK territorial waters adjacent to England and gives English Heritage powers to provide assistance in relation to wrecks protected under the Protection of Wrecks Act 1973 which are situated within the seaward limits of UK territorial waters adjacent to England.

  Section 3 of the National Heritage Act 2002 gives the Secretary of State power to direct English Heritage to exercise administrative functions on her behalf in relation to ancient monuments in, on or under the seabed within the seaward limits of the UK territorial waters. DCMS is in the process of drafting directions, in consultation with Historic Scotland, Cadw: Welsh Historic Monuments, the Environment and Heritage Service in Northern Ireland and English Heritage. Formal transfer of responsibility is expected to take place shortly.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  IFI/Richardsons Plant
  David Burnside
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he plans to investigate the closure of the IFI/Richardsons Plant in Belfast; and if he will make a statement. [83001]

  Mr. Pearson
  I have taken a keen interest in the situation and have asked Invest NI to work with the liquidator to try to identify an investor for the Belfast factory. I have also met with representatives of the shareholders, the Irish Government and ICI, to stress the need for the Belfast workers to be treated in a fair and equitable manner following the closure and to secure their entitlements. In addition, officials from the Department for Employment and Learning have been in close contact with the Belfast employees to ensure that they are kept fully aware of their entitlements.

  Asbestos
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the extent of asbestos used in the construction of school buildings. [84457]

  Jane Kennedy
  At this time full details of schools buildings that have asbestos are not available. However, in accordance with the new Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations (which come into force in 2004),
  543W
  Education and Library Boards will be undertaking a phased programme of audits across the schools' estate to determine the extent of asbestos in schools and other premises.

  Belfast City Hospital
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what action he has taken to ensure there are enough specialised nursing staff in the neurology department of the Belfast city hospital. [83041]

  Mr. Browne
  The Royal hospitals trust manages neurology services with a limited service provided to the outpatient department of the Belfast city hospital. This includes specific clinics for multiple sclerosis, epilepsy, Parkinson's disease and a muscle clinic.

  £300,000 has been provided from Priorities for Action moneys to support regional neurology services throughout NI and this included £25,000 for a specialist epilepsy nurse for outpatient activity.

  Also included was a sum of £28,000 to support six outpatient clinics-two in NHSSB, two in SHSSB and two in EHSSB.

  A sum of £100,000 was recently allocated to support multiple sclerosis nursing infrastructure in NI.

  Children's Commissioner
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he will lay before Parliament draft legislation for(a) the establishment of a Children's Commissioner in Northern Ireland and (b) housing. [83104]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  A draft Housing Support Services Order was laid on 15 November. It is expected that draft Orders on a Commissioner for Children and Young People and on Housing should be laid early in the New Year.

  Down Lisburn Trust (Dermatology)
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland(a) how many people are waiting for an appointment for the dermatology clinic in the Down Lisburn trust; (b) what the average waiting time for an appointment is; (c) what the longest time an individual has waited for an appointment is; and (d) what further measures will be taken to reduce waiting times for an appointment with the dermatologists in the trust. [83709]

  Mr. Browne
  The information is as follows:

  (a) 654 patients are waiting for an appointment at the dermatology clinics in Down Lisburn trust.

  (b) It is not possible to provide an average waiting time for appointment as this depends on the clinical priority of the patient. However, urgent cases are normally seen within six weeks of referral.

  (c) The longest time an individual has waited for an appointment is two years.

  (d) A number of measures are being taken to improve dermatology services in the Down Lisburn trust. These include the monitoring and redistribution of patients on consultants' waiting lists; the setting up of a dermatology sub-group of the Eastern Health and
  544W
  Social Services Board Cancer Implementation Group; and a current review of consultant workloads and waiting lists across the board area.

  Executive Programme Funds
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how Executive Programme Funds will be administered following the suspension of devolved institutions in Northern Ireland. [83103]

  Mr. Pearson
  The Executive Programme Funds will continue to be administered in accordance with the procedures previously agreed by the Northern Ireland Executive. There are no plans to change the established arrangements.

  Fire Service
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland who will be responsible during direct rule for deciding the proportion or level of contribution from Northern Ireland rates for the Fire Service. [84470]

  Mr. Pearson
  In Northern Ireland the Regional Rate, for which the Department of Finance and Personnel is responsible, is not dedicated to specific services. There is no fixed amount in the rates that can be identified as contributing directly towards the cost of providing particular services such as the fire service.

  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the institutional relationship of the employers' side of the negotiating body for Fire Service personnel within Northern Ireland with the employers' side of the negotiating body involved in the Fire Brigade dispute. [84473]

  Mr. Browne
  The Joint Standing Sub Committee (JSSC) of the National Joint Council is the negotiating body directly involved in the current dispute. A Member of the Fire Authority for Northern Ireland has observer status during the JSSC Employers discussions, but is not involved in the direct negotiations with the FBU.

  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland who constitutes the employers' side of the negotiating machinery for the Fire Service of Northern Ireland; and who appoints them. [84475]

  Mr. Browne
  The Fire Authority for Northern Ireland have two seats on the National Joint Council. The Fire Authority does not have seats on the Joint Standing Sub Committee, which negotiates pay and conditions of service.

  The Fire Authority for Northern Ireland representatives are elected by the Board at the Authority's Annual General Meeting. The current representatives are Mrs. Rosemary Craig and Professor James Shields.

  Hospital Services (Belfast)
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what work has been carried out to assess the change in demand for services at the Belfast City and Royal Victoria hospitals if the proposals to downgrade services at Whiteabbey and the Mater hospitals in North Belfast are proceeded with. [84516]
  545W
  Mr. Browne
  The proposals set out in the consultation paper. "Developing Better Services: Modernising Hospitals and Reforming Structures", were based on a preliminary analysis of the current levels of demand and an assessment of the most effective profile of services to ensure safe services and improved outcomes in the future. Following consideration of the responses to the consultation paper, there will be a detailed assessment of the capacity implications of the decisions which I will then be taking.

  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will ensure the retention of accident and emergency care at Whiteabbey hospital in North Belfast. [84517]

  Mr. Browne
  The Department is currently considering the responses to the proposals in the consultation paper, "Developing Better Services: Modernising Hospitals and Reforming Structures", which included proposals for future services at Whiteabbey hospital. I hope to reach final decisions on the proposals for modernising hospitals in January.

  Planning Applications
  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland with reference to Planning Applications A/1999/0879/0, A/2001/0661/RM and A/2002/0167/RM, for what reason the Planning Service in Northern Ireland did not act to require this new development to comply with original planning permission guidelines as far as it impinges on the rights and privacy of the existing residents. [83793]

  Angela Smith
  An Outline Planning Application for 2 Detached Dwellings at the rear of 4 Steelstown Road, Londonderry was received by the Department on 12 November 1999. Planning applications may be in outline form, where the general principle of development is being tested and where full details of development are submitted at a later date by way of a Reserved Matters Application; or in the form of a full application where full details of siting, design, external appearance, means of access and landscaping are submitted. This Outline Planning application was approved on 9 March 2000.

  A Reserved Matters Application was received on 12 June 2001. A Reserved Matters Application is a detailed proposal where the full details of siting, design, external appearance, means of access and landscaping are submitted. This application was approved on 5 February 2002, with a condition that the existing mature trees on the site boundary be retained. There were further conditions regarding planting proposals.

  In early February the Department became aware that work had commenced on site which was not strictly in accordance with the planning approval. A further reserved matters application was received on the 19 February 2002. Following discussions between planning officials, the developer and local residents further revisions to the plans were received on the 28 May 2002 which accurately reflected the detail of the development that had occurred.

  Planning Service is satisfied that the development, as built, is acceptable in planning terms. As you are aware the Planning Service brought the application to Derry
  546W
  City Council on 5 November 2002 with an opinion to approve. Planning Service agreed that a further period of 10 days would be allowed for any further representations to be made.

  Further representations have, since been received and no decision will be made until these representations have been fully and carefully considered

  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement regarding his policy on protecting the rights of existing residents when the Planning Service are considering granting planning approval for new housing developments. [83794]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  When considering proposals for new housing development in existing residential areas, the Planning Service of the Department of the Environment pays particular attention to their potential impact on the neighbourhood to ensure that appreciable harm is not caused by such development to the amenities enjoyed by existing residents and to the existing character and environmental quality of the area.

  Since the introduction of the Quality Initiative in 1996 to promote better quality and more sustainable housing development, a comprehensive range of policy and guidance documents has been put in place to raise the quality of new residential development generally, with particular attention being paid to ensuring that the drive to promote more housing in existing urban areas does not lead to any significantdiminution of the quality of life in established residential areas.

  As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the Regional Development Strategy (RDS) published in September 2001 provides the overarching strategic framework for the formulation of development plans and planning policy in Northern Ireland.

  In support of urban renaissance and more sustainable forms of development, the RDS sets an ambitious regional target of 60 per cent, for the share of urban housing to be provided within urban limits, and seeks to encourage an increase in the density of urban housing appropriate in scale and design to the cities and towns of Northern Ireland.

  However, the RDS stresses that the aim of achieving an overall increase in town densities must not be interpreted as a broad mandate to try and force overdeveloped and unsympathetic housing schemes into established residential areas. In such areas the overriding objective has to be to avoid any significant erosion of the environmental quality, amenity and privacy enjoyed by existing residents.

  In established residential areas, the RDS encourages harmonious housing schemes of various densities in accordance with a local community focused approach sensitive in design terms to the people living in the existing neighbourhood, taking account of the Strategy's Local Development Guidelines and Planning Policy Statement 7 Quality Residential Environments.

  Planning Policy Statement 7 (PPS 7), Quality Residential Environment published in June 2001, clearly states that in established residential areas, proposals for housing development will not be permitted where they would result in unacceptable damage to the local character, environmental quality or

  547W
  residential amenity of these areas. All proposals for residential development are expected to take full account of the surrounding context, particularly those proposals for infill housing, backland development or redevelopment schemes in established residential areas. PPS 7 points out that in such areas great care is needed to ensure that the individual orcumulative effects of such development proposals do not significantly erode character and amenity, for example by inappropriate design or overdevelopment. The Department will need to be satisfied in considering such proposals that the design and layout will not create conflict with adjacent housing areas and that there is no unacceptable adverse effect on existing or proposed properties in terms of overlooking, loss of light, overshadowing, noise or other disturbance.

  The Department's Supplementary Planning Guidance, 'Creating Places—achieving quality in residential developments' (May 2000) and Development Control Advice Note 8 'Housing in Existing Urban Areas' (June 2002), provides detailed design advice and guidelines intended to amplify and clarify policy guidance wherenecessary. Both documents emphasise the importance of a design-led approach to create imaginative, safe and attractive housing. In existing urban areas this embraces the philosophy of working with context, 'fitting' development in with the prevailing character and appearance of the neighbourhood and ensuring that infill, backland and redevelopment proposals are successfully integrated with existing housing without appreciable harm to the character and amenity their residents currently enjoy.

  The above documents provide clear and robust policies and guidance for developers in formulating development proposals for housing in established residential areas and clearly set out the criteria under which such proposals will be assessed by the Planning Service. The Planning Service will seek whatever additional information is necessary to properly assess and determine such planning applications, the overall objective being that high quality and sustainable housing can be provided in existing residential areas without detriment to the residents of those areas.

  MV Princess Victoria
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, what proposals the Northern Ireland Office has to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the sinking of the Princess Victoria off the coast of County Antrim. [85032]

  Angela Smith
  The Department for Regional Development has agreed outline arrangements for a small commemorative event at Donaghadee Harbour where survivors were landed by the local lifeboat. Ards Borough Council will erect a memorial plaque adjacent to the RNLI berth and the Department plans to erect a flagpole resembling the foremast of the MV Princess Victoria. These events will complement local church services, the laying of wreaths at sea by the Donaghadee and Campbeltown lifeboats and a commemorative event planned by Larne Borough Council, Larne being the port to which the MV Princess Victoria was steaming when she sank.

  Regional Museums
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the joint response from the Department for the Environment and Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure to the Review of Regional Museums; and when he will issue a statement on this matter. [84125]

  Angela Smith
  Officials in the Departments of Environment and Culture, Arts and Leisure are currently working on a joint response to the Local Museums and Heritage Review.

  I have asked that the joint response should be presented to me as quickly as possible, after which I want to decide how to proceed.

  Telecommunications Mast
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to remove the disused telecommunications mast located on property at Killinchy Primary School. [84452]

  Jane Kennedy
  I understand from the South-Eastern Education and Library Board that it is now its policy not to have telecommunication masts on school property. The contract for the mast at Killinchy Primary School was terminated but, despite repeated requests, the owners have so far failed to have the mast removed. The Board has recently been advised that, contrary to previous assurances, the equipment is still active. The Board is now proposing to initiate immediate legal action to compel the owners to remove the mast.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Children's Fund Projects
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment he has made of the mental health effects on children of projects funded by the Children's Fund. [83171]

  Mr. Denham
  The latest available statistics show that of the 584 Children's Fund services funded during April-June 2002 in Wave 1 areas, 73 services were explicitly targeted at children with mental health difficulties. Of these 73 services, 44 provided statistics on the number of children they had regularly supported over this quarter—with an average of 85 children regularly supported in each service.

  The CYPU have not so far conducted an assessment of the mental health effects on children of projects funded by the Children's Fund. However, as part of the national evaluation, there will be an assessment of impact of the Children's Fund on a number of key outcomes, including impacts on children's mental health. Furthermore, each of the 149 partnerships in England are allowed to conduct their own local evaluations, and another task of the national evaluation will be to draw together key findings from these local evaluations, including any findings in relation to impacts on mental health.

  Adult Learning
  Dr. Francis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much financial support the Government has given, in the past three years, for initiatives to promote lifelong learning and adult education to(a) the BBC, (b) ITV companies, (c) Channel 4, (d) Channel 5 and (e) independent local radio stations. [82886]

  Margaret Hodge
  The direct spending of my Department over the last three years to promote lifelong learning and adult education has been:

  £000

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  BBC

  93

  64

  123

  ITV companies

  915

  4,994

  7,767

  Channel 4

  336

  2,037

  3,747

  Channel 5

  96

  562

  1,113

  Independent local radio stations

  —

  —

  —

  These figures do not include promotional activity undertaken by Non Departmental Public Bodies as we hold no central records of their activity in this area.

  Advanced School Programme
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on the New Advanced School programme for secondary schools and how it differs from the Beacon School programme; and whether existing beacon schools will automatically transfer to advanced school status. [80992]

  Mr. Miliband
  The proposed Advanced schools programme intends to build on the success of the Beacon programme by ensuring the further development of enhanced collaborative partnerships and innovative practice. Guidance was posted on the Diversity website on 23 October setting out the scheme and a notice inviting applications was placed in the November issue of Spectrum, a departmental information source for schools.

  It is our intention that any existing secondary Beacon school would be able to apply to transfer to the new programme but would need to meet the criteria in the same way as any other school. The Beacon programme will be phased out in the secondary sector by 2005. Those secondary schools due to renew their status from September 2003 will be given the opportunity to do so until August 2004.

  Anti-Semitism
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps he is taking to deal with anti-Semitism on university campuses and in student unions; and if he will make a statement. [82954]

  Margaret Hodge
  Speech, and behaviour generally, whether on campus or elsewhere, must be within the requirements of the law, including common law. Common law provides a remedy against actions likely to cause a breach of the peace. Further, the Public Order Act 1986 makes certain types of unlawful speech a criminal offence. This includes the offences of using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour intended or likely to stir up racial hatred. The Anti-550W
  Terrorism, Crime and Security Act introduced last year increased the maximum penalty for inciting racial hatred from two years to seven years imprisonment. It also extended racially aggravated offences to cover offences aggravated by religious hostility.

  Chief Constables are responsible for maintaining law and order on campus and elsewhere. They will, of course, co-operate with university Vice-Chancellors and governing bodies to do so.

  Under the Education Act 1994, the governing body of an higher education institution is responsible for taking such steps as are reasonably practicable to ensure that any students' union operates in a fair and democratic manner.

  The Government is committed to tackling anti-Semitism and racism in Britain wherever it exists. We will continue to work closely with the police, the Community Security Trust and community leaders to do so.

  Asylum Seekers (Education)
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what assessment his Department as made of the implications of an education separate from their local community schools for asylum seeker children; [83424]

  (2) what systems will be put in place to ensure that the standard of education in accommodation centres for asylum seekers will be equivalent to those in mainstream schools; [83432]

  (3) what representations he has received from teaching professionals on the proposed education plans in accommodation centres for asylum seekers. [83433]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The Government's policy to educate the children of some destitute asylum seekers within accommodation centres provides an opportunity to deliver a specialised and rich curriculum tailored to the needs of the children within a safe environment. It also provides a good induction into the British education system for those who will remain and a valuable experience for those who will not.

  We are working closely with Home Office colleagues to ensure this and we have been talking to the Local Government Association and LEAs in the areas where accommodation centres are planned. The education provision in the accommodation centres will be inspected by Ofsted against similar criteria to those used in a mainstream school to ensure that the standard is equivalent.

  Baroness Ashton of Upholland met with representatives of the NASUWT and NUT on 4 November and has since received a letter from the NASUWT taking up her offer to continue discussions to ensure effective implementation of the education provisions of the Nationality Immigration and Asylum Act.

  Breakfast Clubs
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what financial support his Department has given to breakfast clubs in schools; and if he will make a statement. [84076]
  551W
  Mr. Miliband
  Breakfast clubs are available in many schools as part of study support or child care provision. They can provide learning opportunities for pupils, promote healthy eating, and help working parents by offering a safe and stimulating environment for their children. In "Investment for Reform" we said that by 2006 all schools should be providing breakfast clubs or other forms of study support.

  My Department assists breakfast clubs primarily through the Standards Fund grant for study support: £75 million in 2002–03. Schools can fund them too from programmes such as the Pupil Learning Credits pilot, child care, or Education Action Zones. Other Government Departments, the New Opportunities Fund, voluntary organisations and commercial sponsors also support them. Education Extra, a national charity for out-of-school-hours learning grant-aided by DfES, runs a Breakfast Club Award Scheme sponsored by Kellogg's and helps with clubs' setting-up costs.

  Children and Young Persons Unit
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what projects he is funding within his Children and Young Persons Unit; whether these projects are on time and on budget; and if he will make a statement. [82114]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 21 November 2002]: A full list of the individual projects funded by the Unit could be provided only at disproportionate cost. The Children and Young People's Unit has a total budget of £850 million for the period 2001–02 to 2005–06. The bulk of the Unit's funding goes towards a range of local projects distributed as follows:

  (a) Children's Fund Programmes bringing together local voluntary organisations, statutory agencies, community and faith groups, children and young people and their families, to deliver a range of locally co-ordinated preventive services for 5–13 year olds at risk.

  (b) the Local Network Fund for Children and Young People enabling community groups to provide activities and services for children and young people experiencing poverty and lack of opportunity.

  (c) the Identification, Referral and Tracking project, in the context of work with local authorities on Local Preventive Strategies, to support all local authorities in developing systems to ensure that children and young people at risk do not fall through the gaps in services.

  (d) smaller scale initiatives for specific purposes, such as recent development work to test approaches to preventing young people running away and supporting them when they do; and community cohesion work with children from seven cities around the country to discuss what it means to be British.

  The Unit also holds a small central budget for research and evaluation requirements, communications and the effective dissemination of emerging good practice.

  Projects within the Unit are being rolled out at a pace which will enable them to spend their budgets in full by 2005–06.

  Congestion Charging
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the estimated cost is to his 552W
  Department of the Central London Road User Charging Scheme for (a) 17 February 2003 to 31 March 2003, and (b) 1 April 2003 to 31 March 2004. [81886]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  [holding answer 19 November 2002]: Any additional costs to my Department as a result of the congestion charging scheme will be just one element within wider costs which have to be met from budgets for official travel and other costs.

  Deaf Children (Education)
  Jon Trickett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what steps are being taken to ensure that deaf and hard of hearing children can access the deaf accommodation model of inclusion in education; [83160]

  (2) what steps are being taken on behalf of deaf and hard of hearing children to ensure that they are placed in mainstream schools with a significant deaf peer group. [83161]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  Local education authorities make provision for deaf and hearing impaired children in a range of settings appropriate to their own needs and preferences and the preferences of their parents. Placement can be in a mainstream class, with or without a learning resource base for the deaf and hearing impaired, a maintained special school, or an independent or non-maintained special school.

  Specialist teachers and support staff play a key role in ensuring equality of opportunity for all pupils. The law requires specialist teachers of the deaf to have an additional qualification equivalent to the Council for the Advancement of Communication with Deaf People Stage 1 qualification. Tools such as the Centre for Studies on Inclusive Education's Index for Inclusion, which was sent to all schools in April 2000, can be used to identify barriers to learning and participation. Early indications are that schools adopting this sort of approach have seen standards rise for all their pupils.

  Suitable accommodation must be available. The Department has already published Building Bulletin 94, Inclusive School Design, which provides guidance on accommodating pupils with special educational needs and disabilities in mainstream schools. Consultations are currently taking place on a further building bulletin focusing on the acoustic design of schools.

  Degrees
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what discussions he has had with private institutions or organisations on the award of degrees; [83872]

  (2) what recent representations he has had from private organisations on the award of degrees. [83874]

  Margaret Hodge
  I have had no meetings or discussions with private institutions or organisations on the award of degrees. The Privy Council is responsible for the granting of degree awarding powers and I can confirm that they have received applications from private organisations for the granting of degree awarding powers which are currently being considered under the Quality Assurance Agency's process of scrutiny.

  Early School Leavers
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the rate of early school leavers was in England in the last year for which figures are available. [83200]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 25 November 2002]: By law, children in England should not leave full-time education in school until the last Friday in June in the school year in which a child reaches 16. Figures are not available centrally on those that do leave early, for whatever reason. Some indication can be obtained by comparing pupil numbers from the same cohort at ages 14 and 15 in successive Annual Schools Censuses. The difference between the numbers of pupils aged 14 in 2001 and aged 15 in 2002 registered at all schools in England as shown by the Department's Annual Schools' Census was 9,600—a fall of 1.6 per cent. However, this comparison will be affected by the net impact of population migration, differences in the numbers of pupils educated other than at school and those on remand or in Young Offenders institutions; it will also exclude pupils leaving school after the Census date (in January) but before the regulations entitle them to do so (in June).

  Education Funding
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether the new system for funding schools will require local LEAs to spend at SSA level; whether it will link the ACA factor to real salary costs in schools; and whether it will narrow the funding gap between the highest and lowest funded schools. [82428]

  Mr. Miliband
  LEAs cannot be required to spend at the level of their assessment. We will expect them to take that level into account, but our principal expectation will be that they should pass on increases in schools funding to their schools budgets. The top up for Area Costs is designed to take account of pay costs and also the extra funding needed for recruitment and retention. The new system will be based on evidence of need.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on when the disparity in funding per student in higher and further education will be ended. [82690]

  Margaret Hodge
  We have no plans to equalise unit funding per student for Higher Education and Further Education. Different funding levels reflect the differences between the costs of higher education and further education courses. We have announced significant additional resources for FE over the next three years to meet the needs of the sector and will be setting out our strategy and the outcomes of the spending review for HE in January.

  Education Maintenance Allowance
  Shona McIsaac
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many young people have received the education maintenance allowance in north east Lincolnshire. [82920]
  554W
  Margaret Hodge
  The number of students in North East Lincolnshire receiving an Education Maintenance Allowance (EMA) in each academic year, since the pilot began, is set out in the table.

  Academic year

  Number of students receiving EMA payments

  2000–01

  733

  2001–02

  11,344

  2002–03

  11,041

  1 Includes students who started courses in the previous year.

  Exclusions
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many pupils have been excluded from(a) state secondary schools and (b) state primary schools in (i) the Ribble Valley and Fulwood, (ii) Lancashire and (iii) the north-west of England in each of the last five years.[82378]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The information on permanent exclusions is shown in the following table. Information on fixed term exclusions is not held centrally.

  Number of permanent exclusions in maintained primary and secondary schools1

  1996–97

  Maintained primary

  Maintained secondary

  Number of exclusions

  Percentage of the school population2

  Number of exclusions

  Percentage of the school population2

  Ribble Valley

  1

  0.01

  25

  0.33

  Lancashire

  42

  0.03

  353

  0.40

  North West

  234

  0.03

  1,649

  0.38

  England

  1,573

  0.04

  10,463

  0.34

  1997–98

  Maintained primary

  Maintained secondary

  Number of exclusions

  Percentage of the school population2

  Number of exclusions

  Percentage of the school population2

  Ribble Valley

  1

  0.01

  21

  0.27

  Lancashire

  43

  0.04

  240

  0.33

  North West

  265

  0.04

  1,530

  0.34

  England

  1,539

  0.03

  10,187

  0.33

  1998–99

  Maintained primary

  Maintained secondary

  Number of exclusions

  Percentage of the school population2

  Number of exclusions

  Percentage of the school population2

  Ribble Valley

  0

  0.0

  14

  0.18

  Lancashire

  32

  0.03

  209

  0.29

  North West

  225

  0.03

  1,324

  0.29

  England

  1,366

  0.03

  8,636

  0.28

  1999–2000

  Maintained primary

  Maintained secondary

  Number of exclusions

  Percentage of the school population2

  Number of exclusions

  Percentage of the school population2

  Ribble Valley

  1

  0.01

  6

  0.07

  Lancashire

  19

  0.02

  144

  0.19

  North West3

  194

  0.03

  1,072

  0.24

  England3

  1,226

  0.03

  6,713

  0.21

  555W

  2000–01

  Maintained primary

  Maintained secondary

  Number of exclusions

  Percentage of the school population2

  Number of exclusions

  Percentage of the school population2

  Ribble Valley

  2

  0.02

  21

  0.25

  Lancashire

  34

  0.03

  207

  0.28

  North West3

  204

  0.03

  1,139

  0.25

  England3

  1,436

  0.03

  7,305

  0.23

  1 Includes middle schools as deemed.

  2 The number of permanent exclusions expressed as a percentage of the number (headcount) pupils in primary and secondary schools.

  Maintained nursery, primary1 secondary1 and all special schools: school meal arrangements January 2002 By Leeds West Parliamentary Constituency and England

  Maintained nursery and primary schools2

  Maintained secondary schools2

  All special schools2,3

  Number on roll

  Number known to be eligible for free meals

  Percentage known to be eligible for free meals

  Number on roll

  Number known to be eligible for free meals

  Percentage known to be eligible for free meals

  Number on roll

  Number known to be eligible for free meals

  Percentage known to be eligible for free meals

  England

  4,405,639

  754,511

  17.1

  3,260,931

  486,353

  14.9

  87,734

  33,695

  38.3

  Leeds West

  7,932

  1,999

  25.2

  4,093

  1,007

  24.6

  193

  80

  41.5

  1 Includes middle schools as deemed.

  2 Excludes boarding pupils.

  3 Excludes pupils who are also registered at a mainstream school.

  Further Education Funding
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the unit costs are of educating students in further education in(a) vocational and (b) academic courses in England. [83935]

  Margaret Hodge
  In 2002–03 we plan for total funding of £4,090 per full time equivalent student in further education sector colleges.

  This figure is for students on all courses, as the Department does not allocate money separately for vocational and academic courses. The figure includes additional funds for 2002–03 announced in June for the 'Success for All' strategy, and in September for the Teaching Pay Initiative and the College Pay Initiative.

  Graduate Incomes
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment he has made of the total income over the average working life of(a) graduates and (b) non-graduates; and what the sources are for this information. [82773]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 25 November 2002]: Using Labour Force Survey data from the four quarters autumn 2000 to summer 2001, we have estimated that, on average, graduates whose highest qualification is a first degree earn around £1,075,000 over a working life. This figure relates to Great Britain, and is based on gross earnings from main job. The equivalent figure for

  First degree graduates in mathematics, science and technology—higher education institutions in England 2000–01

  Numbers

  Percentages

  Female

  Male

  Total

  Female

  Male

  Medicine and dentistry

  2,446

  2,254

  4,700

  52

  48

  Subject allied to medicine1

  12,428

  3,159

  15,587

  80

  20

  Biological sciences

  9,260

  5,393

  14,653

  63

  37

  556W
  3 Permanent exclusions for 2000/01 are estimated as a number of local education authorities have not confirmed the data for their schools.

  Source:

  Annual Schools Census

  Free School Meals
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many schoolchildren in Leeds West are in receipt of free school meals; and what this number is as a percentage of the total. [81490]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The information requested is shown in the following table.

  graduates and non-graduates, collectively, is around £675,000. Average lifetime earnings for only non-graduates would be significantly lower than this figure.

  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment he has made of the difference between the incomes of non-graduates and graduates in the five years after graduation. [82947]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 26 November 2002]: The information requested is not available.

  However, using Labour Force Survey data from the four quarters autumn 2000 to summer 2001, we estimate that first-degree graduates earn on average around £73,000 over the five years between the ages of 20 to 24 years inclusive. This figure relates to Great Britain, and is adjusted to take into account the likelihood of being in employment. The equivalent figure for graduates and non-graduates, collectively, is around £55,000. Average earnings over the ages of 20 to 24 years for only non-graduates would be significantly lower than this figure.

  Graduates (Gender Balance)
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what gender balance is in graduates of mathematics, science and technology in England. [83201]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 25 November 2002]: The latest available information is shown in the table.
  557W

  First degree graduates in mathematics, science and technology—higher education institutions in England 2000–01

  Numbers

  Percentages

  Female

  Male

  Total

  Female

  Male

  Veterinary science

  300

  127

  427

  70

  30

  Agriculture and related subjects

  1,091

  715

  1,806

  60

  40

  Physical sciences

  4,262

  6,620

  10,882

  39

  61

  Mathematical sciences

  1,442

  2,185

  3,627

  40

  60

  Computer science

  2,449

  8,655

  11,104

  22

  78

  Engineering and technology

  2,623

  14,379

  17,002

  15

  85

  Architecture, building and planning

  1,277

  3,564

  4,841

  26

  74

  Total

  37,578

  47,051

  84,629

  44

  56

  1Includes nursing

  Literacy Levels
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the levels of literacy in coalfield areas are, and how this compares with the national average for citizens born in the United Kingdom.[82248]

  Mr. Miliband
  The information is as follows:

  (a) Levels of literacy in coalfield areas

  The following table shows estimated literacy levels in the main coalfield districts (those districts with more than three 'coalfield wards').

  District name

  Percentage of population with 'low', 'lower' or 'very low' literacy

  Dover

  23.9

  Cannock Chase

  25.6

  Lichfield

  21.0

  Newcastle-under-Lyme

  25.1

  Staffordshire Moorlands

  23.0

  Stoke-on-Trent

  27.6

  Tamworth

  26.7

  North Warwickshire

  23.2

  Nuneaton and Bedworth

  26.0

  Amber Valley

  25.0

  Bolsover

  27.6

  Chesterfield

  26.2

  Erewash

  24.3

  North East Derbyshire

  23.7

  South Derbyshire

  22.1

  Hinckley and Bosworth

  22.3

  North West Leicestershire

  24.1

  Ashfield

  27.0

  Bassetlaw

  24.4

  Broxtowe

  22.3

  Gedling

  22.2

  Mansfield

  26.6

  Newark and Sherwood

  24.0

  Selby

  22.3

  Barnsley

  28.3

  Doncaster

  27.2

  Rotherham

  27.5

  Sheffield

  25.8

  Calderdale

  26.3

  Salford

  27.6

  Wakefield

  26.8

  Wigan

  25.9

  St. Helens

  26.4

  Middlesbrough

  28.9

  Chester-le-Street

  25.3

  Derwentside

  27.4

  Durham

  27.4

  Easington

  30.4

  Alnwick

  26.2

  Blyth Valley

  26.6

  Castle Morpeth

  21.3

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  25.8

  Wansbeck

  29.1

  558W

  District name

  Percentage of population with 'low', 'lower' or 'very low' literacy

  South Tyneside

  29.0

  Sunderland

  28.8

  National average = 24 per cent.

  Note:

  Data at ward level are available as a searchable database on the Basic Skills Agency (BSA) website at www.basic-skills.co.uk/datasite/, which also contains data by parliamentary constituency and by local Learning and Skills Council area

  (b) Levels of literacy of citizens born in the United Kingdom

  The most detailed survey of basic skills in Britain is "Adult Literacy in Britain", published in 1997. This reported that 20 per cent. of the UK population born in the UK had low levels of literacy, compared with 41 per cent. of those born outside the UK.

  The categories of skills referred to in the table above are defined as follows:
  'Average or Above'—Someone in this category will be able to satisfactorily complete most tasks, given that they were straightforward and commonly encountered in everyday life. Respondents were allowed to make some mistakes without being classified as below average or in need of help
  'Low'—These respondents will be regarded as on the borderline of functional literacy and could attain the national standards in literacy and numeracy with relatively limited coursework or assistance
  'Lower'—These respondents have limited literacy and numeracy skills and would need directed assistance in order to reach the national standards. They would be expected to have difficulties in coping with at least some of the everyday literacy and numeracy requirements they encounter
  'Very Low'—These people have severe literacy and numeracy problems and would need intensive assistance to reach national standards.

  Higher Education Funding
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the total budgetary deficit is for each higher education institution. [83938].

  Margaret Hodge
  In 2000–01, there were 48 higher education institutions with budget deficits out of a total of 130. Higher education institutions include their accounts in their published annual reports.

  Medical Students
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many students who took up
  559W
  Medical degrees in (a) this academic year and (b) in each year since 1997 were from overseas, and what proportion this represents. [83278]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 25 November 2002]: The latest information is shown in the table. Figures for autumn 2002 entry will be released by the Universities and Colleges Admissions (UCAS) service in January 2003.

  Students entering first degree medical courses by domicile higher education institutions in the UK

  Home

  Overseas

  Total

  Percentage overseas

  1997–98

  5,328

  605

  5,933

  10

  1998–99

  4,676

  468

  5,144

  9

  1999–2000

  4,560

  446

  5,006

  9

  2000–01

  5,185

  487

  5,672

  9

  2001–02

  5,635

  581

  6,216

  9

  Recruitment (Over-50s)
  Mr. MacDougall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many people employed in his Department are aged over 50. [81689]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  940 out of a total of 4,529 staff employed in the Department for Education and Skills are aged over 50.

  Research Grants
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the block grant to each of the higher education institutions was for research in the last year. [84394]

  Margaret Hodge
  The research grant allocated to each of the higher education institutions funded by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) in 2002–03 is as follows:

  University

  HEFCE research grant

  Anglia Polytechnic University

  369,996

  Aston University

  4,739,803

  University of Bath

  11,696,494

  Birkbeck College

  6,356,682

  University of Birmingham

  29,314,995

  Bournemouth University

  453,947

  University of Bradford

  5,439,649

  University of Brighton

  3,174,399

  University of Bristol

  28,833,167

  Brunel University

  6,199,814

  University of Cambridge

  67,815,439

  University of Central England in Birmingham

  971,690

  University of Central Lancashire

  902,907

  City University

  4,942,344

  Coventry University

  880,828

  De Montfort University

  4,187,608

  University of Derby

  233,690

  University of Durham

  15,939,398

  University of East Anglia

  11,022,718

  University of East London

  1,368,279

  University of Essex

  7,642,647

  University of Exeter

  9,156,817

  University of Gloucestershire

  854,067

  Goldsmiths College

  6,206,767

  University of Greenwich

  1,940,965

  University of Hertfordshire

  2,061,217

  University of Huddersfield

  1,134,142

  University of Hull

  5,064,625

  560W

  University

  HEFCE research grant

  Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine

  60,692,241

  Keele University

  4,834,720

  University of Kent at Canterbury

  5,585,307

  King's College London

  37,500,846

  Kingston University

  1,157,466

  Lancaster University

  11,884,500

  University of Leeds

  30,972,773

  Leeds Metropolitan University

  676,231

  University of Leicester

  12,561,900

  University of Lincoln

  180,941

  University of Liverpool

  21,741,046

  Liverpool John Moores University

  2,268,923

  London Guildhall University

  200,068

  Loughborough University

  10,975,201

  University of Luton

  313,199

  University of Manchester

  38,929,069

  University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology

  12,821,087

  Manchester Metropolitan University

  3,164,334

  Middlesex University

  1,756,066

  University of Newcastle

  22,884,565

  University of North London

  550,422

  University of Northumbria at Newcastle

  1,265,803

  University of Nottingham

  25,284,000

  Nottingham Trent University

  2,675,485

  Open University

  6,248,694

  University of Oxford

  64,923,006

  Oxford Brookes University

  2,137,811

  University of Plymouth

  2,998,359

  University of Portsmouth

  3,297,150

  Queen Mary, University of London

  12,645,553

  University of Reading

  16,371,430

  Royal Holloway, University of London

  9,426,576

  University of Salford

  5,561,665

  University of Sheffield

  30,211,758

  Sheffield Hallam University

  3,003,902

  University of Southampton

  30,965,099

  South Bank University

  1,713,812

  Staffordshire University

  819,509

  University of Sunderland

  1,382,446

  University of Surrey

  14,179,884

  University of Surrey Roehampton

  1,035,712

  University of Sussex

  11,761,037

  University of Teesside

  399,677

  Thames Valley University

  36,003

  University College London

  66,788,665

  University of Warwick

  20,031,902

  University of West of England, Bristol

  2,100,493

  University of Westminster

  2,112,509

  University of Wolverhampton

  731,183

  University of York

  14,544,637

  General colleges

  Bath Spa University College

  245,427

  Bolton Institute of Higher Education

  242,356

  Buckinghamshire Chilterns University College

  330,847

  Canterbury Christ Church University College

  191,069

  Chester College of Higher Education

  129,189

  University College Chichester

  180,424

  Edge Hill College of Higher Education

  45,882

  King Alfred's College, Winchester

  172,886

  Liverpool Hope

  89,645

  University College Northampton

  295,534

  St. Mary's College

  109,625

  Southampton Institute

  31,779

  University College Worcester

  70,425

  York St. John College

  8,968

  Specialist institutions

  Bishop Grosseteste College

  0

  Arts Institute at Bournemouth

  0

  Institute of Cancer Research

  8,556,017

  Central School of Speech and Drama

  0

  Cranfield University

  4,668,054

  Cumbria College of Art and Design

  0

  Conservatoire for Dance and Drama

  0

  561W

  University

  HEFCE research grant

  Dartington College of Arts

  138,341

  Institute of Education2

  5,216,80

  Falmouth College of Arts

  130,096

  Harper Adams University College

  81,348

  Kent Institute of Art and Design

  114,275

  University of London

  1,967,255

  London Business School

  3,295,361

  London School of Economics and Political Science

  11,945,666

  London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine

  4,691,417

  The London Institute

  5,599,850

  Newman College

  0

  Northern School of Contemporary Dance

  0

  Norwich School of Art and Design

  4,288

  School of Oriental and African Studies

  4,583,785

  School of Pharmacy

  1,998,527

  Ravensbourne College of Design and Communication

  0

  RCN Institute

  0

  Rose Bruford College

  0

  Royal Academy of Music

  319,195

  Royal Agricultural College

  51,948

  Royal College of Art

  1,989,117

  Royal College of Music

  229,406

  Royal Northern College of Music

  167,331

  Royal Veterinary College

  2,446,890

  St. George's Hospital Medical School

  3,425,229

  College of St. Mark & St. John

  26,994

  St. Martin's College

  57,155

  The Surrey Institute of Art and Design, University College

  144,887

  Trinity and All Saints

  37,255

  Trinity College of Music

  0

  Wimbledon School of Art

  759,692

  Writtle College

  0

  Source:

  pp8–14, 'Recurrent grants for 2002–03, Final allocations,' ref:2002/44, Higher Education Funding Council for England, October 2002.

  School Access Initiative
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much was spent on the Schools Access Initiative programme in each year since it was introduced; and which schools are not eligible to apply for financial assistance under the programme. [83168]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The following table gives details of the amount spent on the Schools Access Initiative each year since the scheme was introduced in 1996. A further £100 million per annum will be available in each of the three years 2003–04 to 2005–06.

  Special schools are currently ineligible to benefit from the Initiative. However, from 2003–04, the initiative will be delivered through the Single Capital Pot, which will give LEAs greater flexibility in how they spend the funds. Special schools, as well as mainstream schools, will be eligible to apply.

  Allocations under schools access initiative, 1996–97 to 2002–03

  £ million

  Schools Access Initiative allocation

  1996–97

  10

  1997–98

  4

  1998–99

  11

  1999–2000

  20

  2000–01

  30

  2001–02

  50

  2002–03

  70

  562W

  School Admissions
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what representations he has received from London boroughs concerning limiting secondary school admission to children resident in their own borough; and if he will make a statement. [84119]

  Mr. Miliband
  It is unlawful for local education authorities to limit admission to their schools to children living within their own borough, and we are not aware of any that do so. We have, however, received a representation from one London borough about a proposal on which Camden local education authority is consulting schools and parents, to give some priority in its admission arrangements to children who attend Camden primary schools. We do not believe that to be unlawful.

  Admission arrangements are determined at the local level and it will be up to Camden LEA, after statutory consultations with other admission authorities in the area and neighbouring LEAs, to decide whether to adopt the proposed change to its admission arrangements.

  Secondments
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many(a) head teachers, (b) other school teachers, (c) other school staff and (d) other local education authority staff are seconded to his Department (i) full time and (ii) part time at the most recent date for which information is available. [81957]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The information requested, to 31 October 2002, is set out in the table:

  Secondments to DfES at 31 October 2002

  Head teachers

  Other school teachers

  Other school staff

  Other local education authority staff

  Full time

  2

  —

  1

  43

  Part time

  —

  —

  —

  5

  Total

  2

  —

  1

  48

  Section 91 Agreements
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) if he will review the decision to abolish Section 91 agreements; and if he will make a statement. [84245]

  (2) how many Jewish schools have Section 91 agreements with their LEAs: what representations he has received on behalf of Jewish denominational schools in respect of the abolition of Section 91 agreements; and if he will make statement. [84246]

  Mr. Miliband
  The repeal of Section 91 came into force on 1 October. This will enable pupils to access maintained school places which were previously left unfilled. We do not know how many schools have section 91 arrangements, as my Department does not keep records of these local agreements. However, 10 Jewish schools and the Agency for Jewish Education have written to the Department in support of retaining section 91 arrangements. My Department has made
  563W
  enquiries of these schools' maintaining LEAs and has found that only one of these schools has such an arrangement.

  Student Finance
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment he has made of debt incurred in the course of doing a university degree as a proportion of lifetime income, as an average for graduates. [82775]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 25 November 2002]: Information on student loan accounts is held by the Student Loans Company, and relates to publicly owned debt or to debts held in the private sector following the two Government debt sales. Information on students' private sector debt such as overdrafts and other commercial loans is not available centrally.

  The second cohort of students on a three-year degree course who entered higher education under the new student support arrangements are due to enter repayment in April 2003. The average debt of a borrower with a new income contingent loan entering repayment in that year is estimated to be some £7,380. This includes borrowers who have completed three years of study from 1998 as well as those on shorter courses or who have left higher education early.

  The figure provided is very small when compared to the estimated average lifetime earnings of graduates whose highest qualification is a first degree, which is, undiscounted, around £1,075,000. All of these figures relate to Great Britain.

  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what discussions he has had with the Scottish Executive regarding his Department's inquiry into funding for students in higher education. [82417]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 25 November 2002]: My right hon. Friend holds regular discussions with my Scottish counterpart on a range of issues of mutual interest. I have also spoken with the hon. Gentlemen regarding higher education issues.

  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will estimate the level of funding required if university grants had been maintained at their final level in(a) real terms and (b) actual terms in (i) 1998–99, (ii) 1999–2000, (iii) 2000–01, (iv) 2001–02 and (v) 2002–03, broken down for students originating in (a) England and (b) Wales. [83011]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 25 November 2002]: Under the "Mandatory Awards" scheme in operation up to academic year 1997–98 students received two forms of grant:

  (i) an award for maintenance, and

  (ii) an award paid by LEAs to Higher Education Institutions towards tuition fee costs.

  Tables 1 and 2 show the estimated funding required for LEA expenditure on awards for fees and maintenance in real and cash terms for each of the financial years 1998–99 to 2002–03, assuming that the grants available in 1997–98 had continued thereafter.
  564W

  Table 1: Estimated Grant Funding in real1 terms

  £m

  Year

  England

  Wales

  Total

  1998–99

  1,815

  11

  1,926

  1999–2000

  1,812

  111

  1,922

  2000–01

  1,795

  114

  1,909

  2001–02

  1,823

  115

  1,935

  2002–03

  1,841

  116

  1,957

  1 Figures have been converted to 1998–99 price levels using the September 2002 GDP deflators.

  Note:

  Figures may not sum due to rounding.

  Table 2: Estimated Grant Funding in cash terms

  £m

  Year

  England

  Wales

  Total

  1998–99

  1,815

  111

  1,926

  1999–2000

  1,855

  114

  1,969

  2000–01

  1,880

  119

  1,998

  2001–02

  1,950

  123

  2,073

  2002–03

  2,018

  128

  2,145

  Note:

  Figures may not sum due to rounding

  These are approximate estimates derived by applying the grant arrangements in 1997–98 to numbers of England and Welsh students for the academic years 1998–99 to 2002–03. Costs for English and Welsh students have been pro-rated on the basis of numbers of students from each country.

  Tables 3 and 4 shows the award payments for fees and maintenance made by LEAs in real and cash terms under the "Mandatory Awards" scheme for each of the financial years 1998–99 to 2002–03.

  Table 3: Outturn Grant Payments in real1 terms

  £m

  Year

  England

  Wales

  Total

  1998–99

  1,491

  91

  1,582

  1999–2000

  672

  41

  713

  2000–01

  268

  71

  8

  2001–02

  71

  4

  75

  2002–03

  8

  1

  9

  1Figures have been converted to 1998–99 price levels using the September 2002 GDP deflators.

  Note:

  1. Figures may not sum due to rounding

  2 Figures for England and Wales have been estimated.

  3 2000–01 outturn is provisional.

  Table 4: Outturn Grant Payments (cash terms)

  £m

  Year

  England

  Wales

  Total

  1998–99

  1,491

  91

  1,582

  1999–2000

  688

  42

  730

  2000–01

  281

  18

  298

  2001–02

  76

  5

  80

  2002–03

  9

  1

  9

  Note:

  1 Figures may not sum due to rounding.

  2 Figures for England and Wales have been estimated.

  3 2000–01 outturn is provisional

  Costs for English and Welsh students have been pro-rated on the basis of numbers of students from each country.
  565W
  In addition, students also receive a subsidised loan towards living costs.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what action he is taking to minimise overpayment of student loans under the Inland Revenue collection arrangements. [83940]

  Margaret Hodge
  The Student Loans Company (SLC) has this month introduced a special service for borrowers who have nearly completed repayment of their income-contingent loans. Based on a projection of earnings from the borrower, the SLC will tell the Inland Revenue when repayments should stop being collected. This "self-predictor" model is designed to prevent employers collecting too much and the borrower having to obtain a refund.

  My officials are also working with the SLC on more advanced web-based approaches as part of our programme to modernise the delivery of student support.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what action he is taking in conjunction with the Student Loans Company to improve availability of information on the amount of outstanding loan liabilities for individual graduates. [83941]

  Margaret Hodge
  Borrowers under the pre-1998–99 scheme of mortgage style loans receive annual statements from the Student Loans Company (SLC) showing what has been repaid and the outstanding balance owed. Borrowers can call or write to the SLC at any time, and be given an up to date statement.

  For most borrowers under the current income-contingent loans scheme, repayments will be collected by their employers through deductions from their earnings, with tax and national insurance contributions. These borrowers receive a statement from the SLC after the end of the tax year, once it has received details of what has been collected by the Inland Revenue.

  As well as the yearly statement, borrowers' payslips contain details of their repayments. If a borrower contacts the SLC, it can provide an estimate of the amounts repaid and what is outstanding using the information on the borrower's payslips. Borrowers can contact the SLC over the phone for this information.

  The SLC has this month introduced a service for borrowers under the income-contingent loan scheme who have nearly completed repayment of their loan. Based on a projection of earnings from the borrower, the company will tell the Inland Revenue when repayments should stop being collected. This is designed to prevent employers collecting too much and the borrower having to obtain a refund.

  Self-employed borrowers receive their statements after making their self-assessment return to the Inland Revenue.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will pay interest on repayments in cases where individual graduates have overpaid their student loan liabilities. [83942]

  Margaret Hodge
  Borrowers who have overpaid their student loans, through deductions from their salaries, are entitled to a full refund of the amount overpaid with 566W
  interest. The interest is paid at the same rate as it is charged on the loan—at the rate of inflation—and is tax free.

  Sustainability Strategy
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the sustainability strategy is for his Department; and if he will make a statement on how it has changed since the world summit on sustainable development in Johannesburg. [83499]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  Sustainable development is an integral part of the Department's annual planning cycle, which is subject to mid-year review. We were one of the first Departments to do this.

  We have embraced sustainable development in our Strategic Framework to 2006 "Education and Skills— delivering results; A Strategy to 2006", where we have said publicly that we will deliver:
  "A Departmental Investment Strategy for schools, colleges and universities in England which encourages sustainable development and modernises the estate, helping to enrich communities and make towns and cities better places to live and work in."

  This recognises the significant impact on the social and economic aspects of sustainable development through our core business of raising educational standards and improving skills, including education for sustainable development (ESD). Specific actions include a statutory entitlement to ESD in the revised National Curriculum in England and the introduction of Citizenship as a new National Curriculum subject from September 2002. We are ensuring that we build on this progress through our joint sponsorship with DEFRA of the Sustainable Development Education Panel and through specific school initiatives such as Growing Schools, which promotes the outdoor classroom.

  Furthermore, the Learning and Skills Council have funded 11 pilots to identify and share good practice on education for sustainable development in the Further Education sector, and have plans for a further 12 pilots. While in higher education, we are supporting the Higher Education Partnership for Sustainability (HEPS) project through the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE), which aims to develop a sustainability reporting system for the higher education sector.

  We have reported progress made by the Department for Education and Skills estate in the recent Sustainable Development in Government Report for 2002, launched on 27 November, and towards the UK Sustainable Development headline indicators in the Government Annual Report on Sustainable Development. This Department has a direct influence on two headline indicators: H5—Qualifications at age 19; and H4— working age people with no qualifications, as well as eight lower level "national" indicators.

  In line with new targets set out in the Framework for Sustainable Development on the Government Estate, we will be reporting, along with other Departments, on our various sustainable development impacts, progress and achievements by April 2003. This will take the form of a new website bringing together the various sources

  567W
  of information about the Department for Education and Skills' sustainable development impacts and achievements in one easily accessible place.

  Outcomes from the World Summit on Sustainable Development and first views on follow-up will be reflected in the Government Annual Report on Sustainable Development for 2002. We will consider the outcomes, along with other Departments and will contribute where necessary.

  Teachers (Housing Costs)
  Mr. Horam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what arrangements are being made to help teachers in Further Education Colleges with their housing costs. [82475]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 27 November 2002]: We recognise that staff in the further education (FE) sector need to be able to find affordable homes within a reasonable distance from their work place.

  On 19 November the Secretary of State announced that the total funding for FE is set to rise by £1.2 billion between 2002–03 and 2005–06, a real terms increase of 19 per cent. From next year, colleges which have demonstrated their effectiveness will have three year funding deals allowing them to plan on a longer-term basis, with increases linked to performance. We will also consolidate the funds provided for the Teaching Pay Initiative into core funding. The substantial real terms increases in core funding, over and above the costs of additional students and inflation, and the three year funding agreements should enable colleges to deliver the improvements in pay that staff deserve.

  The Government is also making an additional £1.4 billion available in the period 2003–06 to help improve the supply of affordable housing. As part of this, the Starter Homes Initiative (SHI) aims to help key workers to buy homes in areas where the high cost of housing is undermining recruitment and retention. While FE teachers are not identified as a priority for the SHI, they may be eligible for loans or cash grants in some areas because of local flexibilities in delivering the scheme.

  Universal Career Service
  Dr. Francis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans he has to develop a universal career service. [82887]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  Through the Connexions Service, all young people aged 13 to 19 in England will have access to a Personal Adviser (PA). One of the key roles of the Connexions PA is to provide independent information, advice and guidance on learning and career options. Support may be delivered in class or small group settings, or through one-to-one interviews, depending on the young person's needs. The Connexions Service is now operating in 44 Partnership areas and there will be complete coverage (in all 47 areas, i.e. in all 150 English local education authorities) by 2003.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Benefit Claim Packs
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many benefit claim packs are issued by his Department which refer claimants to Citizens Advice Bureau for advice and assistance. [84227]

  Malcolm Wicks
  During 2001–02, over 21.5 million benefit claim packs were printed and issued to the Department's local offices. The Department does not keep records of the number of these packs which have been issued to members of the public or requested by the Citizens Advice Bureaux.

  Our staff offer people the help and advice they need to claim the benefits they are entitled to, and the support those who are able to work need to find jobs. In accordance with the express wishes of the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, many of our claim packs and leaflets advise people that they can receive independent advice from their local Citizens Advice Bureau. The Department has no information on the number of people who seek such advice and does not keep records of the number who are directed by staff to a Citizens Advice Bureau or other local advisory services.

  Disabled People's Rights
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on how many occasions the Ministerial Taskforce on Civil Rights for Disabled People has met since its establishment; and if he will list its membership. [84436]

  Maria Eagle
  The Disability Rights Task Force met 17 times between 16 December 1997 and 15 November 1999. It no longer exists but its membership when it completed its work was as follows:

  Chair: Margaret Hodge—Minister for Disabled People

  Stephen Alambritis—Federation of Small Businesses

  Bob Benson—Disability Scotland

  Jane Campbell—National Centre for Independent Living

  Elizabeth Clarke—former Business Research Officer, Institute of Directors

  Caroline Gooding—Trade Union Disability Alliance

  David Grayson—National Disability Council

  Rachel Hurst—Rights Now

  David Jenkins—Wales Trade Union Council

  Su Jenkins—Member, Confederation of British Industry

  Brian Lamb—SCOPE

  Colin Low—Royal National Institute of the Blind

  Joe Mann—National League for the Blind and Disabled

  Bert Massie—The Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation

  Brian Pomeroy—Deloitte and Touche Consulting Group

  Philippa Russell—Council for Disabled Children

  Liz Sayce—former Policy Director, Mind (National Association for Mental Health

  Susan Scott-Parker—Employers' Forum on Disability

  Ranjit Sondhi—former Deputy Chairman, Commission for Racial Equality

  James Strachan—The Royal National Institute for Deaf People

  Richard Taylor—Lifespan Healthcare NHS Trust

  Roy Taylor—Community Services, Kingston upon-Thames Local Authority

  569W

  Keith Welton—Mid Yorkshire Chamber of Commerce and Industry Ltd

  Monica Wilson—Disability Action (Northern Ireland)

  Richard Wood—British Council of Organisations of Disabled People

  The titles and organisations named are those relating to the members' positions at the time.

  Funerals
  Mr. Olner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when funeral payments were last capped; and when he will implement the recommendation of the Social Security Committee that the cap on funeral payments should be increased. [83238]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The present Social Fund funeral payments scheme was introduced in 1997. On 27 November, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in his pre-Budget report that a further £15 million will be made available for the scheme. This means that from this coming April, the amount allowed for funeral expenses not specified in regulations will rise from £600 to £700.

  Jobcentre Plus
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what the outturn figures were for(a)the Jobcentre Plus Customer Service Target and (b) the Jobcentre Plus Employer Outcome Target for 2002–03; and if he will make a statement; [82509]

  (2) if he will place in the Library the report on the pilot of the Jobcentre Plus Job Entry Target scheme conducted by his Department. [82512]

  (3) what the outturn figure was in respect of the national Jobcentre Plus Job Entry Target points score for 2002–03, broken down by client group; and if he will make a statement. [82514]

  (4) what the outturn figures were in respect of the Jobcentre Plus Business Delivery Target for 2002–03; and if he will make a statement; [82520]

  (5) how many job entries have been achieved in relation to each of the Jobcentre Plus priority client groups in 2002–03; and if he will make a statement. [82510]

  (6) what job entry target points scores were set for each Jobcentre Plus district for 2002–03; what the latest available outturn figures in respect of the target are for each district, broken down by client group; and if he will make a statement. [82837]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The administration of Jobcentre Plus is a matter for the Chief Executive, Leigh Lewis. I have asked him to reply to the hon. Member.

  Letter from L. Lewis to Mr. Oliver Heald, dated 28 November 2002:

  As Jobcentre Plus is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your questions concerning Jobcentre Plus performance. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.

  You raised a number of detailed questions about Jobcentre Plus performance against our Performance and Resources Agreement (PRA), which I will cover in this reply. You also asked a number of questions about the criteria applied to how job entry points were
  570W
  allocated to specific client groups. I understand the Secretary of State will be responding separately to these as they relate to the underlying policy.

  Before turning to your specific questions it may be helpful if I explain that the Jobcentre Plus Performance and Resource Agreement is a formal annual agreement between the Secretary of State and Chief Executive of the Agency. It sets out clearly the aim, purpose and objectives of the Agency and the targets to be met in this operational year. There are five high level targets and details of these were laid before the House on 19th March 2002.

  I am pleased to say that Jobcentre Plus has made a good start. To the end of October we were 10.6% ahead of our job entry points target profile. This equates to helping 786,116 people into work in our first seven months. You asked for a breakdown of job entries by priority client group:

  Priority Client Group 1: 87,078

  Priority Client Group 2: 207,727

  Priority Client Group 3: 177,219

  Priority Client Group 4: 222,670

  Priority Client Group 5: 91,422

  At the mid year stage we were 5.3 and 1.7 percentage points respectively above our Customer Service and Employer Outcome targets. However, the latest interim figures for the Business Delivery target are showing that we are around two percentage points below the target of 93.4%. This is an area where we are making special efforts to improve performance.

  You have specifically asked for the latest outturn figures, by Jobcentre Plus District, for Job Entry points and latest national outturn figures for Customer Service, Employer Outcomes and Business Delivery. This information is set out in the tables which will be placed in the Library.

  You also asked whether the the report on the pilot of the Jobcentre Plus Job Entry Target structure will be placed in the House Library. We have undertaken a series of studies examining the piloting, and the national implementation, of job entry points. A comprehensive summary report combining findings from the three research studies has been commissioned. This report will be published in March 2003 and a copy will be placed in the Library.

  I hope this is helpful.

  Ministerial Visits (East Lancashire)
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many times he has visited East Lancashire in his official capacity; and what the purpose was of each visit. [82398]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  I have made one visit to East Lancashire since my appointment in May of this year-to the Pensions Centre in Burnley.

  New Deal
  Shona McIsaac
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many(a) young people, (b) people aged over 50 years and (c) people with disabilities have signed up to the New Deal in the Cleethorpes Constituency. [82918]

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

  Total number of participants in Cleethorpes1

  New deal for young people2

  1,750

  New deal 50 plus3

  250

  1 Up to the end of September 2002.
  571W
  2 From January 1998.

  3 From April 2000

  Source

  New deal evaluation database.

  Information at constituency level is not available for the new deal for disabled people.

  New Deal for Lone Parents
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to his answer of 26 November 2002,Official Report, column 210W, on the New Deal for Lone Parents, how many lone parents have found work on the New Deal for Lone Parents, broken down (a) monthly and (b) by gender. [84441]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The information is published in the New Deal for Lone Parents Statistical First Release, which is available in the Library.

  Pension Benefits
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of the relative benefits payable in respect of equal contributions under(a) the Graduated Retirement Benefit Scheme and (b contracted out equivalent pension benefits; and if he will make a statement. [84435]

  Mr. McCartney
  People who contracted out of the Graduated Retirement Benefit Scheme did so on condition that the occupational scheme offered equivalent pension benefits.

  The Graduated Retirement Benefit Scheme and contracted out equivalent pension benefits ended in April 1975. From November 1978 the value of benefits payable under the Graduated Retirement Benefit Scheme has been uprated each year. However, there is no similar requirement that contracted out equivalent pension benefits should be uprated.

  Retirement Benefits
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people(a) contracted out of graduated retirement benefit and (b) were reinstated; and if he will make a statement. [84434]

  Mr. McCartney
  The information requested is not available.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people who applied for a budgeting loan in 2000–01 in Leeds West had an outstanding Social Fund Loan. [83481]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Information on Budgeting Loan applications is not collected at Parliamentary constituency level and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  However, during 2000–01, in the Leeds Social Security district, 22,876 decisions were made on Budgeting Loan applications, of which 14,411 were
  572W
  applications from people with existing Social Fund debt. These figures may include cases where a person has made more than one application.

  Notes:

  1 Existing Social Fund debt includes Crisis Loan debt.

  2 The existence of Social Fund debt does not necessarily affect decisions on Budgeting Loan applications.

  Source:

  100 per cent, scan of the Social Fund computer system.

  State Pension
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will estimate what the state pension would be for(a) a single person and (b) a married couple, if the link with average earnings had not been broken. [83117]

  Mr. McCartney
  The information is in the table.

  The value of the state pension for (a) a single person and (b) a married couple if the link to average earnings had not been broken (£ per week)

  Basic state pension at November 1979

  Actual amount in April 2002

  Amount in April 2002 if the link to average earnings had not been broken

  Single

  23.30

  75.50

  105.70

  Couple

  37.30

  120.70

  169.00

  Notes:

  1 Rates are taken from November 1979 as the earnings link was broken in November 1980.

  2 The Retail Prices Index (all items) has been used as published by the Office for National Statistics.

  3 Average Earnings Index Whole Economy (Non Seasonally Adjusted) as published by the Office of National Statistics.

  4 From April 1994 the basic rate of retirement pension has been increased by 50p on a single person and an additional 20p on a pensioner couple to reflect VAT on fuel.

  5 Figures have been rounded to the nearest 5 pence at each uprating.

  Source:

  Information Centre, Information and Analysis Directorate.

  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what percentage of average earnings the State Pension is for(a) a single person and (b) a married couple. [83118]

  Mr. McCartney
  The information is in the table.

  The percentage of average earnings the State Pension is for (a) a single person and (b) a married couple

  Rate of basic state pension at April 2002 (£ per week)

  Rate as a percentage of average earnings

  Single

  75.50

  16.2

  Couple

  120.70

  26.0

  Note:

  Average weekly earnings of full time adult workers (from New Earnings Survey) as published by the Office of National Statistics.

  Source:

  Information Centre, Information and Analysis Directorate.

PRIME MINISTER

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to visit Gibraltar. [84747]

  The Prime Minister
  I have no immediate plans to do so.

  Sweden
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Prime Minister when he last met the Prime Minister of Sweden. [85150]

  The Prime Minister
  I met the Prime Minister of Sweden at the Party of European Socialists meeting on 15 November in Warsaw.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Police
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has to encourage local police forces to improve response times. [82327]

  Mr. Denham
  A key message of the National Policing Plan, published on 20 November, is the Government's determination to remove the barriers which prevent the police from providing the public with the best possible service.

  The police are well aware of the importance of providing a rapid response to an emergency call. Also, public satisfaction on response times for emergency calls is one of the Best Value Performance Indicators for police authorities. Authorities set targets on the indicator and are required to publish their force's performance in annual Best Value performance plans.

  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to(a) recruit part-time police officers and (b) allow full-time officers to change to part-time if they wish to (i) before and (ii) after they have completed 30 years' service. [82329]

  Mr. Denham
  All new recruits may apply to work part-time, as may established police officers of all ranks, regardless of whether officers have completed 30 years' service or not. Managers must give full consideration to all requests to change to part-time working, taking into account operational needs.

  As part of the Police Negotiating Board (PNB) Agreement of 9 May, part-time working will be made easier for officers in all ranks, regardless of whether they have completed 30 years service or not. We plan to remove the 16 hour a week minimum requirement for part-time working by 1 April 2003; together with the requirement for job sharing in respect of middle and senior ranks. The position of part-time probationers will be given further consideration in PNB.

  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of Lancashire Constabulary's large-scale arrest of drug dealers. [82332]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  We have been kept fully informed of the Lancashire constabulary's activity against drug dealers, most notably Operation Nimrod. This has so far resulted in over 100 people being arrested and dealt with by the courts. Seizures of class A drugs have risen considerably in comparison to last year. The constabulary has commissioned both an internal evaluation of Operation Nimrod as well as an external evaluation by Lancaster university on its impact within the community. These reports are due at the beginning of March.

  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he next expects to meet Chief Police Officers to discuss rural policing. [82337]

  Mr. Denham
  I meet regularly with Chief Police Officers and discuss a wide range of issues with them.
  576W
  Win Griffiths
  39. Mr. To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to enable police officers to spend more time on the beat during their working day. [82341]

  Mr. Denham
  We are committed to tackling the administrative burdens and inefficient working practices that keep officers off the streets. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary established a taskforce, under the chairmanship of Sir David O'Dowd, to identify ways in which forces can free up the time of front line officers. The taskforce's report was published on 17 September this year and contained 52 recommendations to increase the presence of police in communities. We have now set up a steering group, co-chaired by the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Home Office, to take forward these recommendations.

  Two recommendations of the taskforce have already been introduced in the Criminal Justice and Sentencing Bill to allow police officers to grant 'street bail':
  Police officers will be provided with the option to offer an arrested person immediate bail at the scene rather than immediately having to take the person to a police station.
  The requirement to list all property taken into custody is to be removed so that the custody officer would secure all possessions in a scalable property bag and only make a few supporting comments.

  We are also consulting with the judiciary on a provision to be included in the Bill, which will allow officers to obtain search warrants by video, by telephone and by fax. We are reviewing each and every Code of Practice issued under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 to cut unnecessary bureaucracy. A new code A is to commence in April 2003, and new codes B-E are likely to commence by May 2003.

  CCTV
  Colin Burgon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what evaluation he has made of the effectiveness of CCTV in reducing crime levels. [82321]

  Mr. Denham
  Under the Crime Reduction Programme CCTV Initiative, a potential of £170 million will be spent funding 684 public area CCTV schemes, including £60,000 for cameras in Wetherby.

  As a condition of funding, each scheme is required to undertake an independent evaluation of its effectiveness as a tool to assist the police and reduce crime and the fear of crime. These evaluations will cover implementation, impact and cost effectiveness. In addition, to help ensure maximum impact and sustainability of CCTV, a £1.5 million Home Office funded national evaluation programme is being carried out by the Scarman Centre, University of Leicester, on 17 approved CCTV Initiative schemes.

  Police operational experience and various other research studies show that CCTV has considerable crime reduction and detection potential, particularly when used as part of a wider strategy.

  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to introduce portable CCTV systems to small towns; and if he will make a statement. [82324]
  577W
  Mr. Denham
  The Department provides a variety of funding which may be used to establish and run Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) schemes in both large and small urban areas, residential or rural locations. For example, under the Crime Reduction Programme CCTV Initiative a potential £170 million is being invested in 684 CCTV schemes of which 41 are mobile. Decisions on whether to invest in static or mobile CCTV and precise deployment within specific areas are matters for determination by the relevant local crime reduction partners.

  Antisocial Behaviour
  Mr. Michael Jabez Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he is taking to tackle anti-social behaviour which does not constitute a criminal offence. [82322]

  Mr. Denham
  We are committed to combating anti-social behaviour in whatever form it occurs. We have already introduced measures to increase effectiveness of Anti-Social Behaviour Orders and Acceptable Behaviour Contracts, created community support officers and strengthened powers to issue fixed penalty notices for anti-social behaviour. We are working closely across government to build on these and to identify what else we need to do, including new legislation where appropriate.

  Child Protection
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to increase the protection of children from(a) vicious attacks and (b) sexual assault. [82323]

  Hilary Benn
  The "Protecting the Public" sets out proposals to tighten the requirements of the sex offenders' register, improve monitoring of offenders and build in new safeguards against evasion. It also outlines a range of new offences to better protect children from sexual abuse and exploitation including an offence to catch adults who groom children over the internet, with the intention of meeting them and engaging in sexual activity. This offence is designed to protect children from predatory activity, whatever form it takes.

  Extradition
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to implement new extradition procedures. [82325]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The Extradition Bill, which will modernise our extradition laws, was published on 14 November.

  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his policy is on whether the European Arrest Warrant should allow a UK citizen to face trial in another country where there would be a presumption of guilt. [82330]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  All countries to which the European arrest warrant will be extended operate a presumption of innocence. There will be a hearing before a British Judge and a right of appeal where 578W
  concerns about any breach of rights under the European Convention on Human Rights can be revised, prior to any extradition request being carried out.

  Witness Intimidation
  Mr. Prosser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he is taking to protect vulnerable witnesses from intimidation. [82326]

  Hilary Benn
  In July we started a phased implementation of special measures, such as live TV Links, video recorded evidence, and screens to help vulnerable or intimidated witnesses give their best evidence in court. The Criminal Justice and Sentencing Bill will introduce several changes to the rules of evidence and tighten up magistrates' granting of bail to encourage witnesses to give evidence. Guidance has been issued to the police on tackling witness intimidation in the community, and this is also reflected in the new Anti-Social Behaviour Order Guidance published on 12 November.

  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he is taking to provide better treatment for vulnerable and intimidated witnesses. [82339]

  Hilary Benn
  In July, we started a phased implementation of special measures, such as live TV links, video recorded evidence and screens to help vulnerable or intimidated witnesses give their best evidence in court.

  The Criminal Justice and Sentencing Bill will introduce several changes to the rules of evidence to encourage witnesses and make their experience easier:
  in future, witnesses will be able to have in court their original statement that they made to police and refer to it to refresh their memories while giving evidence;
  any witness, if there is a good reason, will be able to give evidence by live television link; and
  the defence will have to prove to the judge that evidence of a witness's previous misconduct, or other bad character evidence, is clearly relevant to the case before they bring it up.

  The Bill tightens up magistrates' granting of bail, partly to prevent re-offending, but also to protect victims and witnesses from intimidation in the run-up to a trial. When considering whether to grant bail, magistrates will have to take into account whether an offender has broken bail conditions before. At the same time, if there is a threat that the offender will intimidate a victim or witness, we are encouraging the prosecution to use this as grounds to challenge bail. We are also extending the prosecution's power to appeal against bail from more serious offences (with a top sentence of five years' custody or more), to any imprisonable offence.

  Guidance has been issued to the police on tackling witness intimidation in the community. All forces have been issued with a training video and a series of prompts which should enable them to identify potential intimidated witnesses and how they should respond to reports of crime without themselves placing witnesses at risk. Home Office Circular Number 12/2001, issued in May last year, advised the police to take immediate positive action to prosecute offenders in cases of intimidation and harassment of witnesses.
  579W
  From 2 December, the courts will be able to order an immediate stop to anti-social behaviour. This should reduce the scope for witness intimidation. The new Anti-Social Behaviour Order (ASBO) guidance, published on 12 November, stresses the importance of offering protection and support to witnesses (as well as victims) of anti-social behaviour.

  Crime (Gravesham)
  Mr. Pond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the level of recorded crime in Gravesham in the last 12 months. [82328]

  Mr. Denham
  According to the most recent published recorded crime figures, in the 12 months to March 2002, crime in Gravesham fell by 4 per cent. This includes a fall of 8 per cent, in domestic burglary; a fall of 11 per cent, in thefts of a motor vehicle and a fall of 7 per cent, in thefts from a motor vehicle.

  Terrorism
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent assessment he has made of support for terrorism among fundamentalist Islamist sects in the United Kingdom. [82331]

  Mr. Blunkett
  The police and security forces closely monitor the activities of those who seek to promote the views of proscribed organisations of whatever background.

  Youth Crime
  Mr. Bryant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what international evidence he has taken into consideration in developing policies to tackle youth crime. [82333]

  Mr. Denham
  Our broad approach to preventing youth crime is to focus on those factors which research and experience, both from within the United Kingdom and abroad, tell us are most likely to increase the risk of criminality, as well as targeted preventative work with the most at risk young people in high crime areas. The risk factors are to do with the family, environment and school, and include behavioural factors such as early drugs and alcohol misuse.

  In October this year we hosted an international seminar on youth crime, bringing together leading academics, practitioners and policy makers, to identify experience and evidence from across the world to inform our approach to youth crime. We shall take forward the outcomes of the seminar in the context of the Green Paper on children at risk announced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 30 October, and they will inform other parts of our programme, such as our drive against antisocial behaviour.

  Prisons
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what is (a) the prison population and (b) the maximum capacity of prisons. [82334]
  580W
  Hilary Benn
  As at 21 November 2002, the prison population stood at 72,477. On the same date, useable operational capacity within prisons was 72,882.

  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of prisoners are sharing(a) two to a cell designed for one and (b) three to a cell designed for two. [82135]

  Hilary Benn
  At the end of October 2002, 19.6 per cent, of the prisoner population were sharing two to a cell designed for one (doubled).

  The number of prisoners sharing three to a cell designed for two is not collected separately. However, at the same date, 22.2 per cent, of the total population were held in overcrowded conditions. This includes prisoners doubled those held three to a cell designed for two and any prisoners overcrowded in dormitories and larger cells.

  Data are provisional and subject to validation by prisons.

  Street Crime
  Mr. Plaskitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the impact of pilot schemes to reduce street crime. [82335]

  Mr. Denham
  On 14 October 2002, my right hon Friend the Home Secretary announced the results of the Street Crime Initiative to date. The figures show that since the start of the Initiative, street crime has fallen by 16 per cent., during the period April to September in the 10 police forces which accounted for over 80 per cent., of the robbery problem. For robbery, the more serious offence, the number of offences in September 2002 was 25 per cent, lower than March for the 10 forces as a whole.

  The figures illustrate that what was an escalating trend has been reversed over the period since the launch of the Street Crime Initiative. There has been a 10 per cent, reduction (4,600) offences in the number of robberies during the period April to September compared to the same period last year.

  Neighbourhood Watch
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will provide central Government funding for Neighbourhood Watch schemes. [82336]

  Mr. Denham
  The Home Office does not provide funding to individual Watch schemes, but directs it towards national initiatives designed to support the sort of local activity which Neighbourhood Watch represents. It also pays for the production of a range of Neighbourhood Watch publications, including a training manual for scheme co-ordinators.

  It would not be possible to fund every local scheme, invidious to choose between them. The essence of local partnership is local people getting together with the police and their local authority to solve local problems.

  Drug Addicts
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of waiting times for access to detoxification treatment for drug addicts. [82340]

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  Waiting times for drug treatment were not systematically reported before the establishment of the National Treatment Agency in 2001. Drug Action Teams are now required to report annually on their progress against NTA waiting time targets.

  Waiting times for drug treatment have already been reduced considerably. In 2001, before the NTA was set up, the average waiting time for inpatient detoxification was 12 weeks. This had fallen to seven weeks by April 2003 and 31 per cent, of DATs have already achieved the NTA's 2003 target of a maximum four week wait. The NTA has set a further target of reducing this to two weeks by 2004.

  Reducing waiting times is key element of our strategy to get more people into treatment. Between 1998 and 2001 the number of drug users entering treatment increased from 45,912 to 66,327. We are on track to meet our target of doubling the number of people in drug treatment by 2008.

  Arnley Prison
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average population of Leeds Prison, Arnley, in 2001–02 was; what the average length 23 of stay was; and what the(a) daily and (b) weekly percentage turnover of inmates was. [83475]

  Hilary Benn
  The average population of Leeds Prison during 2001–02 was 1,233. The information on average length of stay is not recorded: Neither is the daily or weekly turnover of prisoners for that period. The current average daily intake of prisoners is around 40.

  Arson
  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many successful prosecutions there have been for arson in each year since 1992. [83138]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is contained in the table.

  Persons found guilty of arson at all courts, England and Wales, 1992 to 2002

  Year

  Number

  1992

  1,604

  1993

  1,419

  1994

  1,508

  1995

  1,433

  1996

  1,283

  1997

  1,582

  1998

  1,393

  1999

  1,380

  2000

  1,436

  Information for 2001 is not yet available.

  Burglary
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons have been jailed in each year since 1999 under the provisions of the Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000, section 111, for a third offence of burglary. [84299]

  Hilary Benn
  Information reported to the Home Office shows that no sentences under section 111 of the Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 (previously section 4 of the Crime (Sentence) Act 1997) for a third offence of burglary were passed by the end of 2000.

  An offender would have to be apprehended, prosecuted and convicted on three separate occasions since 1 December 1999 to be subject to the mandatory sentence. Such action is likely to take some time.

  Information for 2001 is due for publication shortly.

  Children's Commissioner
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he proposes appointing a children's commissioner for England, Scotland and Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement on the Commissioner for Wales. [83219]

  Mr. Denham
  Responsibility for appointing a children's commissioner rests with the devolved Administrations—my responsibility in this regard is solely for England.

  The Northern Ireland Assembly have drafted a Bill to establish a children's commissioner, and following the suspension of the Assembly in Stormont, this Bill is expected to pass through Westminster as an Order-in-Council before March 2003. A Bill is expected to be published soon to establish a children's commissioner in Scotland.

  As far as England is concerned, the possibility of establishing a children's commissioner is still under consideration. We are considering what role a Commissioner or Ombudsman-type function could play in achieving cultural and political change. There is no one model of a commissioner being developed in the UK—we are seeing in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland three different approaches to the idea. Of the UK's 14 million children, 11.9 million of those live in England, and we would need to be sure that any new structure added value to the existing mechanisms in place for children.

  The Commissioner for Wales is due to publish his first annual report on 28 November, and I look forward with interest to reading about his work over his first year in post.

  Corporate Manslaughter
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many representations he has received in support of the introduction of a corporate manslaughter charge in the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement. [84049]

  Hilary Benn
  We have been unable on the information available to identify the number of representations we have received in support of the introduction of a
  583W
  corporate manslaughter charge in the last 12 months. These have taken the form of letters, a very large number of telephone calls, e-mails etc. The proposals have attracted and continue to attract a lot of interest from a variety of sectors in society, with varying views being put forward.

  DNA Profiles
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many UK citizens have their DNA profiles stored in the Home Office database; and what the net number of additions was in each of the last two months. [82590]

  Mr. Denham
  The national DNA database does not store information relating to the nationality of an individual.

  The total number of profiles held on the database at 31 October 2002 was 1,919,173. The Forensic Science Service calculate that these profiles relate to 1.73 million different individuals.

  The number of profiles added to the database during October 2002 was 39,803.

  The number of profiles added to the database during September 2002 was 36,004.

  East Lancashire
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many times he has visited east Lancashire in his official capacity; and what the purpose was of each visit. [82404]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I have not so far had the opportunity to visit east Lancashire but my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Beverley Hughes) have both visited Burnley as part of their work on community cohesion.

  Elderly People (Fear of Crime)
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures his Department is taking to protect the elderly from fear of crime. [82974]

  Mr. Denham
  The British Crime Survey data have consistently shown that older people are less likely to suffer from both household and personal crimes than other age groups. However, they also tells us that older people are greatly affected by fear of crime.

  The Home Office is working closely to reduce fear of crime with record numbers of police on the streets, new community support officers and greater numbers of community and street wardens, in addition to its wide range of crime reduction programmes being delivered locally.

  Levels of fear of crime among older people are still too high; we are committed to reducing them, and we have been working with charities such as Help The Aged and
  584W
  Age Concern to find new and better ways of tackling fear of crime among seniors as well as crimes against them.

  European Arrest Warrant
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will seek legal advice on Council of the European Union Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between member states with regard to(a) its implementation in Scots law and (b) whether its implementation is a reserved matter; [84225]

  (2) what legal advice he has received on Council of the European Union Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between member states with regard to (a) its implementation in Scots law and (b) whether its implementation is a reserved matter. [84228]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  It is a long-standing convention that the Government do not disclose the content of legal advice they have received or even that legal advice has been obtained.

  Extradition is a reserved matter under Schedule 5 of the Scotland Act 1998. However, Scottish Ministers have responsibility for casework where the fugitive is in Scotland.

  The Scottish Parliament passed a Sewel Motion on the Extradition Bill on 21 November 2002 agreeing that the provisions in the Bill conferring functions on Scottish Ministers should be considered by the United Kingdom Parliament.

  Extradition Bill
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which clauses of the Extradition Bill officials from the Scottish Executive played a role in drafting. [84226]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  Officials from the Scottish Executive have been involved at all stages of the drafting of the Extradition Bill.

  Female Prisons
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what plans he has to convert men's prisons to house the female prison population; how many(a) establishments are to be converted and (b) places will be provided, and when they are due to open; [82880]

  (2) what plans he has for new women's prisons; how many (a) establishments and (b) places are planned; and when they are due to open. [82879]

  Hilary Benn
  It is planned that the new prison scheduled to open at Ashford, near Heathrow, in 2004 will be a female prison of 450 places. It is also planned
  585W
  that the new prison scheduled to open at Peterborough in Cambridgeshire in 2005 will have 840 places: 360 female and 480 male places.

  There are currently no other plans to open new female prisons, or to convert any male prisons into female prisons.

  Humberside Police
  Shona McIsaac
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) police officers and (b) civilian support staff were employed by Humberside Police in (i) 2000, (ii) 2001 and (iii) 2002. [82921]

  Mr. Denham
  The information is set out in the table.

  Year (as at 31 March)

  Number of police officers1

  Number of civilian support staff1,2

  2000

  1,932

  840

  2001

  1,917

  808

  2002

  2,058

  816

  1 Full-time equivalent numbers

  2 Excludes traffic wardens

  Humberside Police has been allocated 137 Crime Fighting Fund recruits over three years from April 2000 (47 in 2000–01, 41 in 2001–02 and 49 in 2002–03).

  Metropolitan Police
  Mr. Horam
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average age of retirement of police officers was in the Metropolitan Police in each of the last five years; and what the cost to public funds of pensions for all retired staff was in each of the last 10 years. [82477]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 27 November 2002]: I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that:

  (a) the average age of retirement of police officers was in the Metropolitan Police:

  Average Age

  1997–98

  52.3

  1998–99

  52.6

  1999–2000

  52.6

  2000–01

  52.2

  2001–02

  52.5

  (b) the net cost of pensions for police officers and civil staff and dependent pensions, death benefits and pension transfer (comprising pensions paid, lump sums, widows and widowers payments) of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) was as follows.

  £000

  MPS net pensions total

  1992–93

  127,698

  1993–94

  144,923

  1994–95

  178,331

  1995–96

  174,062

  1996–97

  208,457

  1997–98

  229,585

  586W

  £000

  MPS net pensions total

  1998–99

  253,074

  1999–2000

  254,528

  2000–01

  259,673

  2001–02

  280,872

  Mr. Horam
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the detection rate was in the Metropolitan police area for each of the last three years; and what guidance he gives for estimating detection rates. [82480]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 27 November 2002]: The requested details are given in the table.

  Percentage

  Metropolitan police

  Year ending March

  Detection rate1

  1999–20002

  16

  2000–013

  15

  2001–02

  14

  1 Detection rates: the ratio of offences detected in a year to offences recorded in the year.

  2 There was a change in the guidance for counting detections on 1 April 1999 (See below). Detection rates after this date are therefore not directly comparable with previous years.

  3 On 1 April 2000, the Metropolitan police transferred parts of its area to three surrounding forces; Essex, Hertfordshire and Surrey. This boundary change would have affected the number of offences recorded and detected by the Metropolitan police. The figure given here incorporates the effects of the boundary change.

  The counting rules for detections introduced on 1 April 1999 provide more precise and rigorous criteria for recording a detection, with the underlying emphasis on the successful result of a police investigation. The most significant of these criteria is that there must be significant evidence to charge the suspect with a crime (whether or not a charge is actually imposed) so that, if given in court, it would be likely to result in a conviction. Detections obtained by the interview of a convicted prisoner are no longer included, and any detections where no further police action is taken generally have to be approved by a senior police officer or the Crown Prosecution Service. An offence is said to be cleared up/or detected in the following circumstances:

  (a) A person has been charged or summonsed for the offence.

  (b) a person has been cautioned.

  (c) the court has taken the offence into consideration (TIC).

  (d) where no further action is taken, the case is not proceeded with e.g. because the offender is under the age of criminal responsibility, the offender has died, because the victim or an essential witness is permanently unable to give evidence, or no useful purpose would be served by proceeding with the charge.

  Some offences have much higher detection rates than others because there is a high likelihood of the victim being able to identify the offender, e.g. assault, and the majority of sexual offences. This would have an affect on the overall detection rate, therefore, it would be a better measure to look at specific offence detection rates rather than the overall rate.
  587W
  The Home Office counting rules for recorded crime were again revised as from April 2002 in order to incorporate the new National Crime Recording Standard (NCRS), which aims to introduce a greater degree of consistency to the ways in which crime is recorded in different police forces and to take a more victim orientated approach to crime recording. The effect will be to increase significantly the number of crimes in the recorded crime count which in turn may affect detection rates. Some police forces introduced the new Standard in advance of national implementation, but figures given above for the Metropolitan police will not be affected as the force adopted the principles of the Standard in April 2002.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, when he intends to reply to the letter to him dated 26 September from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mr. Mohammad Tavs. [82019]

  Mr. Blunkett
  A reply was sent to my right hon. Friend on 27 November 2002.

  National Probation Service
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much the National Probation Directorate charges each probation area for the maintenance of each computer terminal under the STEPS contract; and how much is paid to STERIA by the National Probation Directorate for the maintenance of each computer terminal as part of the STEPS Contract. [84301]

  Hilary Benn
  The National Probation Directorate currently levies a £485 per desktop recharge on probation areas for the 2002/03 financial year. The recharge figure covers the provision of maintenance, support service charges including the provision. of the helpdesk during normal office hours, and support of the case management system.

  Payments made to the company under the STEPS contract are covered by commercial confidentiality clauses that are normal in such contracts.

  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to prepare a national strategy to promote awareness of and confidence in the work of the National Probation Service; what its terms of reference are; and when it will be published. [83231]

  Hilary Benn
  The promotion of community sentences to the public and the wider work of the National Probation Service are part of the national strategy to increase confidence in the criminal justice system. As part of the Government's 2002 Spending Review the Home Office shares a Public Service Agreement (PSA) target with the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Attorney-General's Office to improve the level of public confidence in the criminal justice system.

  Since, April 2001 the National Probation Service has been developing its communications in particular with sentencers in order to build up confidence in and awareness of, probation work, including new
  588W
  developments in community sentencers that help reduce reoffending. Activities include a video on the Probation Service 'What Works' programme, and plans for publications to disseminate information, and for probation participation at events organised for magistrates and judges.

  This work is co-ordinated and funded by the National Probation Directorate, but much of the communication at local level occurs between local probation areas and local benches and Crown courts.

  An action plan, bringing together the media strategy, internal communications and communications with sentencers, will be published in spring 2003. Future work will be informed by recently commissioned public perception research, due for publication in December, which the National Probation Service intends to repeat annually.

  Police Arrest Procedures
  Stephen Hesford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to review the procedures police officers have to undertake once they have arrested a suspect. [82968]

  Mr. Denham
  The Home Office in partnership with the Cabinet Office has conducted a fundamental review of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which examined the basic requirements of The Police and Criminal Evidence (PACE) Act and the codes that underlie police procedures.

  Based on the findings and recommendations of this report, the following changes are proposed in the Criminal Justice Bill:
  We will give police officers the option to offer an arrested person street bail. At an officer's discretion, s/he would be able to release an arrested person on immediate bail at the scene of the crime on the condition that they must attend a specified police station at a specified time in the future. This allows them to prioritise their work load to attend to more serious crime and to put the necessary arrangements in place before they interview the person (eg where an appropriate adult will need to be in attendance with a juvenile).
  The time-consuming requirement to list a detained person's property will be amended so that the custody officer would secure all possessions in a sealable property bag and only make a few supporting comments about the contents if necessary. This and any subsequent access would be done in the presence of the detained person. This has the potential to save resources without compromising protections.
  We propose to extend the circumstances in which a review of detention could be done by telephone. It would no longer be obligatory for the reviewing officer to conduct them in person and would ultimately enable officers to overcome the time restrictions that hinder the process.

  In addition, section 38 of the Police Reform Act 2002, which is due to be implemented on 2 December, will enable chief officers of police to designate suitably skilled and trained support staff to exercise certain police powers as detention officers, investigating officers and escort officers. Enabling civilians to exercise certain police powers will help to free-up police officers for patrol and increase police visibility. This is consistent with a number of recommendations arising from the Policing Bureaucracy Taskforce which was commissioned to give a Police Service view of what

  589W
  could be done to tackle the administrative burdens and inefficient working practices which keep police officers off the streets.

  Police Investigations
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many investigations in the last year resulted in the police taking no further action; and if he will make a statement. [83682]

  Mr. Denham
  During 2001–02, 1,291,396 recorded offences were detected by the police of which 199,5671 (15 per cent.) were detected with no further action by the police. This means that 4 per cent, of all recorded crime is detected in this way. More detailed information on method of detection is published in table 8.02 of "Crime in England and Wales 2001–02". A copy of this publication is available in the Library.

  The figures for crimes detected with no further action by the police above exclude those undetected crimes that are not investigated beyond initial reporting.

  The current methods of detection are:

  Charge/summons

  Caution

  Taken into consideration; and

  Other (no further action)

  The "Other" category are those in which the case is not proceeded with -ie there is no legal sanction against the offender.

  1 This figure excludes detections for Durham, which are not broken down by method of detection, and thus represent something of an under-estimate.

  Police Numbers
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers are attached to each Basic Command Unit in England and Wales. [83674]

  Mr. Denham
  Information on the number of officers in each Basic Command Unit (BCU) is provided annually (31 March) by each police force to Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary. The tables setting out the position for 31 March 2002 have been placed in the Library.

  Policing by each BCU would additionally be supported by officers deployed to other operational roles, such as traffic officers, police support units and dog and mounted sections.

  Year

  Total number of deaths in police custody

  Number of inquest verdicts where neglect was a contributory factor

  Inquest verdicts

  Inquest verdicts awaited

  1992

  48

  0

  —

  0

  1993

  31

  0

  —

  0

  1994

  39

  0

  —

  0

  1995–96

  50

  2

  1. Accidental death contributed to by neglect

  0

  2. Natural causes contributed to by neglect

  1996–97

  57

  2

  1. Drug abuse contributed to by neglect

  0

  2. Accidental death—aggravated by neglect

  1997–98

  69

  1

  Accidental death contributed to by neglect

  0

  1998–99

  67

  2

  1. Natural causes contributed to by self-neglect

  1

  Police Technology
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what research he has commissioned into the development of less lethal technologies for use by the police. [83681]

  Mr. Denham
  The Home Office's Police Scientific Development Branch have published two reports, in April 2001 and November 2001, detailing their research into less lethal technologies for the police.

  Previous Convictions
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the changes his proposals for revealing previous convictions to a jury will make to the law on similar fact evidence. [82084]

  Hilary Benn
  The Government proposes to place the admissibility of evidence of previous misconduct on a statutory basis in a Criminal Justice Bill, which was introduced in Parliament on 21 November. Our proposals will ensure that all evidence of bad character, including previous convictions, is admissible where it is relevant to a matter at issue in a trial. This will represent a fundamental change to the current law on previous misconduct, including the similar fact rule. There will be a discretion to exclude evidence of bad character if its prejudicial effect exceeds its probative value. However, the proposed scheme will create a clearly inclusionary approach under which relevant bad character evidence will not be excluded unless the court is satisfied that there is good reason to do so.

  Our proposals will also offer new protection to witnesses, to guard against unnecessarily wide ranging and humiliating attacks on their character. The current rules offer no such protection.

  Prison Deaths
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many inquests into deaths in(a) police and (b) prison custody resulted in a verdict of neglect in each of the last 10 years; and if he will make a statement. [83683]

  Mr. Denham
  The Home Office publishes annual statistics of deaths in police custody or otherwise following contact with the police. There have been no inquest verdicts of neglect but a number where neglect has been a contributory factor, which are shown in the table.
  591W

  Year

  Total number of deaths in police custody

  Number of inquest verdicts where neglect was a contributory factor

  Inquest verdicts

  Inquest verdicts awaited

  2. Non-dependent abuse of drugs aggravated by neglect

  1999–2000

  70

  1

  Accident contributed to by neglect

  1

  2000–01

  53

  1

  Death by misadventure with contributory neglect

  8

  2001–02

  70

  0

  54

  The Prison Service has only been collecting data on neglect riders to inquest verdicts since the beginning of 2001. In that time there have been four inquest verdicts with neglect riders. All four verdicts were returned in 2002, three of them referring to deaths in 2001. This does not include one case of natural causes aggravated by self-neglect.

  Prison Hospital Beds
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which prisons do not have(a) in-patient beds and (b)24 hour nursing care. [83181]

  Hilary Benn
  Health services in the following prisons are based on primary care and have no in-patient beds or 24 hour nursing care:

  Acklington,

  Albany,

  Ashwell,

  Askham Grange,

  Blantyre House,

  Blundeston,

  Brockhill,

  Buckley Hall,

  Camp Hill,

  Channing's Wood,

  Coldingley,

  Cookham Wood,

  Dover,

  Down view,

  Drake Hall,

  Durham (Female),

  East Sutton Park,

  Erlestoke,

  Everthorpe,

  Featherstone,

  Ford,

  Guy's Marsh,

  Haslar,

  Haverigg,

  Hewell Grange,

  Highpoint South,

  Hollesley Bay Colony,

  Huntercombe,

  Kingston,

  Kirkham,

  Kirklevington Grange,

  592W

  Lancaster,

  Latchmere House,

  Leyhill,

  Lindholme,

  Littlehey,

  Lowdham Grange,

  Maidstone,

  Moorland Open (Hatfield),

  Morton Hall,

  The Mount,

  North Sea Camp,

  Portland,

  Ranby,

  Reading,

  Rochester,

  Send,

  Shepton Mallet,

  Shrewsbury,

  Spring Hill,

  Stafford,

  Standford Hill,

  Stocken,

  Sudbury,

  Swinfen Hall,

  Thorn Cross,

  Usk/Prescoed,

  The Verne,

  Way land,

  Wealstun,

  Weare,

  Wellingborough,

  Werrington,

  Whatton,

  Wymott.

  Prison Nurses
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) nurses and (b) prisoners there are in each prison in the UK; and what the ratio is of nurses to prisoners. [83179]

  Hilary Benn
  The information available for England and Wales is set out in the table. It relates only to nursing staff or other staff with nursing experience working in prison health care that are employed by the Prison Service. Information about the numbers of prisoners in each establishment in England and Wales is available in the Home Office quarterly publication "Prison Population Brief, a copy of which is on the
  593W
  Home Office website at www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/prisons1 html. Matters concerning Scotland are for the devolved administration to answer. While the

  Nurses and health care officers in prison establishments as at 31 October 2002

  Area Est. Group

  Principal officer

  Senior officer

  Prison officer

  Nursing grades

  East Midlands (North)

  Lincoln

  1

  4

  6

  6

  North Sea Camp

  1

  Nottingham

  2

  4

  13

  Ranby

  1

  5

  1

  Sudbury

  1

  2

  Whatton

  1

  East Midlands (North) Total

  3

  6

  15

  24

  East Midlands (South) Ashwell

  4

  Gartree

  1

  2

  6

  6

  Glen Parva

  2

  2

  31

  Leicester

  1

  1

  3

  12

  Onley

  2

  10

  Stocken

  1

  6

  Wellingborough

  5

  East Midlands (South) Total

  4

  4

  13

  74

  Eastern

  Bedford

  1

  1

  11

  Blundeston

  2

  12

  Chelmsford

  1

  2

  1

  16

  Grendon

  5

  3

  6

  Highpoint

  1

  1

  7

  Littlehey

  1

  2

  5

  Norwich

  1

  2

  5

  18

  The Mount

  1

  6

  Wayland

  1

  3

  3

  Eastern Total

  2

  14

  18

  74

  High Security Prisons

  Belmarsh

  1

  3

  5

  37

  Durham

  1

  6

  24

  Frankland

  2

  11

  8

  Full Sutton

  1

  4

  4

  4

  Long Lartin

  2

  15

  Wakefield

  1

  3

  1

  13

  Whitemoor

  2

  6

  9

  Woodhill

  1

  3

  13

  12

  High Security Prisons Total

  4

  18

  48

  122

  HQ

  Area off—Kent, Surrey, Sussex

  1

  HQ

  1

  Standards Audit Unit

  2

  1

  Training and Development

  1

  1

  HQ Total

  3

  0

  0

  4

  Juvenile Establishments

  Hollesley Bay

  1

  2

  4

  Huntercombe

  3

  2

  Werrington

  1

  1

  2

  6

  Wetherby

  1

  1

  9

  Juvenile Establishments Total

  1

  3

  8

  21

  Kent, Surrey and Sussex

  Blantyre House

  1

  1

  Canterbury

  1

  1

  4

  3

  Coldingley

  1

  1

  2

  Dover

  1

  1

  4

  Elmley

  1

  2

  7

  9

  Ford

  1

  2

  Highdown

  1

  2

  16

  Lewes

  2

  3

  7

  Maidstone

  1

  1

  3

  Rochester

  1

  1

  4

  4

  Standford Hill

  1

  2

  594W
  institutions in Northern Ireland are dissolved, responsibility rests with Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office.
  595W

  Nurses and health care officers in prison establishments as at 31 October 2002

  Area Est. Group

  Principal officer

  Senior officer

  Prison officer

  Nursing grades

  Swaleside

  1

  1

  1

  23

  Kent, Surrey and Sussex Total

  6

  13

  25

  63

  London

  Brixton

  1

  4

  13

  18

  Feltham

  2

  2

  23

  Latchmere House

  1

  Pentonville

  2

  5

  36

  Wandsworth

  1

  3

  3

  32

  Wormwood Scrubs

  2

  2

  11

  30

  London Total

  6

  11

  35

  139

  North London

  Acklington

  1

  7

  Castington

  1

  13

  Deerbolt

  12

  Holme House

  1

  2

  4

  21

  Kirklevington

  2

  North East Total

  1

  3

  5

  55

  North West

  Buckley Hall

  Garth

  2

  1

  9

  13

  Haverigg

  1

  1

  3

  Hindley

  1

  1

  8

  15

  Kirkham

  1

  3

  Lancaster

  Lancaster Farms

  22

  Liverpool

  1

  9

  26

  31

  Manchester

  4

  1

  1

  25

  Preston

  1

  3

  13

  8

  Risley

  1

  1

  13

  Thorn Cross

  1

  2

  North West Total

  9

  18

  62

  123

  South West

  Bristol

  1

  4

  16

  Channings Wood

  1

  1

  2

  2

  Dartmoor

  1

  2

  3

  9

  Dorchester

  2

  8

  Erlestoke

  3

  Exeter

  2

  2

  1

  18

  Gloucestershire

  1

  1

  3

  9

  Guys Marsh

  1

  1

  3

  Leyhill

  1

  1

  3

  Portland

  2

  2

  3

  The Verne

  3

  Weare

  2

  South West Total

  6

  12

  17

  79

  Thames Valley and Hampshire

  Aylesbury

  1

  1

  9

  Bullingdon

  1

  5

  10

  Haslar

  3

  Kingston

  1

  2

  1

  Parkhurst

  1

  2

  11

  15

  Reading

  1

  3

  6

  Winchester

  4

  9

  10

  Thames Valley and Hampshire Total

  1

  10

  31

  54

  Wales

  Cardiff

  1

  1

  5

  15

  Swansea

  1

  2

  4

  12

  Usk/Prescoed

  4

  Wales Total

  2

  3

  9

  31

  West Midlands

  Birmingham

  1

  4

  9

  14

  Brinsford

  22

  Featherstone

  2

  3

  Shrewsbury

  6

  Stafford

  1

  5

  2

  Stoke Heath

  14

  Swifen Hall

  1

  1

  1

  596W 597W

  Nurses and health care officers in prison establishments as at 31 October 2002

  Area Est. Group

  Principal officer

  Senior officer

  Prison officer

  Nursing grades

  West Midlands Total

  1

  6

  17

  62

  Women's Prisons and YOIs

  Askham Grange

  3

  Brockhill

  10

  Bullwood Hall

  11

  Cookham Wood

  5

  Drake Hall

  6

  East Sutton Park

  2

  Eastwood Park

  1

  14

  Foston Hall

  10

  Highpoint North

  1

  1

  14

  Holloway

  38

  Low Newton

  1

  1

  12

  Morton Hall

  1

  New Hall

  20

  Send

  4

  Styal

  23

  Women's Prisons and YOIs Total

  1

  1

  3

  173

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  Everthorpe

  1

  2

  Hull

  1

  8

  18

  Leeds

  3

  11

  37

  Lindholme

  1

  2

  7

  Moorland

  1

  3

  9

  7

  Wealstun

  1

  4

  Yorkshire and Humberside Total

  1

  10

  30

  75

  Grand Total

  51

  132

  336

  1,173

  Prison Sentences
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of cases heard in(a) magistrates and (b) Crown courts resulted in a sentence of imprisonment in each of the Criminal Justice

  Magistrates Courts

  Criminal justice system area

  of which: Defendants proceeded against1

  Sentenced2

  Given immediate custody

  Percentage given immediate custody 4

  Avon and Somerset

  49,754

  36,307

  1,728

  4.8

  Bedfordshire

  16,937

  12,644

  983

  7.8

  Cambridgeshire

  12,171

  9,720

  582

  6.0

  Cheshire

  32,419

  25,887

  1,348

  5.2

  Cleveland

  23,857

  17,972

  1,013

  5.6

  Cumbria

  16,482

  13,282

  539

  4.1

  Derbyshire

  31,688

  24,739

  1,326

  5.4

  Devon and Cornwall

  42,993

  32,511

  1,378

  4.2

  Dorset

  19,366

  14,563

  877

  6.0

  Durham

  18,906

  14,243

  899

  6.3

  Essex

  54,044

  42,305

  2,000

  4.7

  Gloucestershire

  19,003

  13,992

  497

  3.6

  Greater Manchester

  142,015

  108,632

  4,860

  4.5

  Hampshire

  57,713

  44,937

  1,988

  4.4

  Hertfordshire

  27,576

  20,431

  758

  3.7

  Humberside

  28,820

  22,746

  1,475

  6.5

  Kent

  34,673

  26,026

  1,794

  6.9

  Lancashire

  66,718

  47,601

  2,116

  4.4

  Leicestershire

  35,195

  26,592

  1,408

  5.3

  Lincolnshire

  22,757

  17,990

  550

  3.1

  Merseyside

  53,400

  38,661

  2,548

  6.6

  Metropolitan police5

  242,946

  187,649

  12,177

  6.5

  Norfolk

  17,642

  14,531

  747

  5.1

  Northamptonshire

  20,084

  14,235

  878

  6.2

  Northumbria

  64,470

  48,613

  2,026

  4.2

  598W
  System areas in the last year for which figures are available.

  Hilary Benn
  The information requested is shown in the table for England and Wales, 2000.

  Statistics for 2001 will be available in December.
  599W

  Magistrates Courts

  Criminal justice system area

  of which: Defendants proceeded against1

  Sentenced2

  Given immediate custody

  Percentage given immediate custody 4

  North Yorkshire

  19,097

  14,433

  876

  6.1

  Nottinghamshire

  35,972

  26,510

  1,929

  7.3

  South Yorkshire

  47,474

  36,614

  2,401

  6.6

  Staffordshire6

  Suffolk

  18,964

  13,931

  655

  4.7

  Surrey

  20,466

  15,496

  418

  2.7

  Sussex

  39,519

  28,944

  1,472

  5.1

  Thames Valley

  61,646

  43,625

  1,657

  3.8

  Warwickshire

  18,525

  14,905

  406

  2.7

  West Mercia

  32,316

  24,394

  1,157

  4.7

  West Midlands

  114,743

  75,711

  4,543

  6.0

  West Yorkshire

  105,906

  71,113

  3,810

  54

  Wiltshire

  19,072

  14,217

  472

  3.3

  Dyfed Powys

  17,878

  13,009

  433

  3.3

  Gwent

  26,768

  20,829

  648

  3.1

  North Wales

  21,009

  16,657

  867

  5.2

  South Wales

  56,107

  40,252

  2,015

  5.0

  Total England and Wales

  1,835,084

  1,367,951

  72,018

  5.3

  The Crown Court

  of which

  Criminal Justice System area

  Defendants tried

  Sentenced3

  Given immediate custody

  Percentage given immediate custody 4

  Avon and Somerset

  1,858

  1,392

  707

  50.8

  Bedfordshire

  652

  472

  330

  69.9

  Cambridgeshire

  783

  568

  379

  66.7

  Cheshire

  1,431

  1,103

  702

  63.6

  Cleveland

  932

  737

  470

  63.82

  Cumbria

  607

  480

  274

  57.1

  Derbyshire

  1,346

  1,029

  592

  57.5

  Devon and Cornwall

  1,399

  1,030

  549

  53.3

  Dorset

  679

  503

  316

  62.8

  Durham

  715

  580

  337

  58.1

  Essex

  1,100

  892

  527

  59.1

  Gloucestershire

  414

  328

  155

  47.3

  Greater Manchester

  5,677

  4,316

  2,515

  58.3

  Hampshire

  2,522

  1,753

  958

  54.6

  Hertfordshire

  879

  628

  431

  68.6

  Humberside

  1,081

  926

  586

  64.42

  Kent

  2,316

  1,684

  1,049

  62.3

  Lancashire

  2,509

  2,018

  1,240

  61.4

  Leicestershire

  1,350

  1,064

  621

  58.4

  Lincolnshire

  634

  510

  272

  53.3

  Merseyside

  2,711

  1,953

  1,255

  64.3

  Metropolitan police5

  12,987

  8,391

  5,327

  63.5

  Norfolk

  848

  639

  362

  56.7

  Northamptonshire

  613

  525

  384

  73.1

  Northumbria

  2,137

  1,765

  927

  52.5

  North Yorkshire

  932

  734

  423

  57.6

  Nottinghamshire

  2,103

  1,649

  966

  58.6

  South Yorkshire

  2,448

  2,017

  1,189

  58.9

  Staffordshire 6

  1,170

  942

  611

  64.9

  Suffolk

  664

  497

  509

  62.2

  Surrey

  600

  437

  274

  62.7

  Sussex

  1,651

  1,280

  862

  67.3

  Thames Valley

  1,425

  1,066

  710

  66.6

  Warwickshire

  308

  273

  199

  72.9

  West Mercia

  1,138

  905

  602

  66.5

  West Midlands

  5,621

  4,259

  2,525

  59.3

  West Yorkshire

  4,643

  3,560

  2,065

  58.0

  Wiltshire

  297

  251

  173

  68.9

  600W 601W

  The Crown Court

  of which:

  Criminal Justice System area

  Defendants tried

  Sentenced3

  Given immediate custody

  Percentage given immediate custody4

  Dyfed Powys

  451

  316

  159

  50.3

  Gwent

  905

  720

  415

  57.6

  North Wales

  586

  436

  299

  68.6

  South Wales

  2,307

  1,770

  1,113

  62.9

  Total England and Wales

  75,429

  56,398

  34,169

  60.6

  1 Includes only prosecutions against defendants completed in magistrates' courts including those committed for sentence to the Crown Court.

  2 Includes those sentenced in the magistrates' court and committed for sentence to the Crown Court.

  3 Excludes offenders committed for sentence.

  4 Expressed as a percentage of those sentenced.

  5 Includes City of London.

  6 Staffordshire Police Force were only able to supply a sample of data for magistrates' courts proceedings covering one full week in each quarter for 2000. Estimates based on this sample are included in the England and Wales figures only.

  Prisoners (Drug Taking)
  Linda Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what punishments are given to prisoners who, by urine test, are discovered to have taken(a) heroin and (b) cannabis. [80531]

  Hilary Benn
  Punishments vary according to the discipline record of the prisoner concerned and local factors, such as the extent of any drug problems within the prison. A urine test showing a hard drug, such as heroin, will often attract a punishment of additional days. A lesser punishment, including loss of privileges or loss of earnings, would be more likely for a test showing cannabis.

  Prisons (Mother and Baby Units)
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many women's prisons provide mother and baby units, and what the capacity is of those units. [83673]

  Project

  Amount per year (£)

  Total (£)

  North East Lincolnshire

  Partnership Development Fund 2000–03

  64,000/64,000/58,500

  186,500

  Small Retailers in Deprived Areas 2001–03

  12,135/24,309

  36,444

  Freeman Street CCTV 2001–02

  177,000

  177,000

  North East Lincolnshire CCTV Control Room 2001–02

  175,750

  175,750

  Safer Communities Initiative 2002–03

  79,110

  79,110

  Communities Against Drugs 2001–03

  188,500/188,500

  377,000

  Reducing Burglary Initiative (Grimsby) 2000–01

  544,752

  544,752

  Total

  1,576,556

  North Lincolnshire

  Partnership Development Fund 2000–03

  44,000/44,000/40,200

  128,200

  Small Retailers in Deprived Areas 2001–03

  10,000/20,000

  30,000

  Ashby Town Centre CCTV 1999–2000

  64,500

  64,500

  Albert Mason CCTV Scheme 2001–02

  189,244

  189,244

  Safer Communities Initiative 2002–03

  51,253

  51,253

  Communities Against Drugs 2001–03

  132,100/132,100

  264,200

  Targeted Policing Initiative R2—Multi Agency Problem Soling Project 2001–03

  80,000/268,000

  348,000

  Total

  1,075,397

  Overall spend

  2,651,953

  602W
  Hilary Benn
  There are four prison mother and baby units covering England and Wales. They are at Holloway in London, New Hall near Wakefield, Styal in Cheshire, and Askham Grange, an open prison in York. These provide a total of 68 places.

  Two new units are also under construction. One is at Eastwood Park in Gloucestershire and the other at Askham Grange. These will provide an extra 22 places.

  Two new build prisons at Ashford and Peterborough will also have accommodation for mothers and babies.

  Projects (Lincolnshire)
  Shona McIsaac
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much funding his Department has allocated to projects in(a) North East Lincolnshire and (b) North Lincolnshire since 1997, broken down by departmental initiatives. [82917]

  Mr. Denham
  The table outlines projects that have been funded in both North East Lincolnshire and North Lincolnshire.
  603W
  In addition to this, mainstream funding of £391.6 million has been allocated to Lincolnshire for policing since 1997. Police resources are allocated between all 43 forces in England and Wales according to a formula that allocates funding to provide a standard level of service. It is then a matter for the Police Authority to set a budget and the Chief Constable to determine how resources should be used, taking local views into account wherever possible.

  Reoffenders
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) men and (b) women reoffended after release from prison in 2001–02. [83672]

  Hilary Benn
  Self-reported reoffending rates are not currently measured. However reconviction rates for persons released from prison are published annually as National Statistics. Two year reconviction rates for persons released from prison in 2001–02 will not be available until 2004–05.

  Resettlement Pathfinder Projects
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the interim results are from the evaluation, under the Crime Reduction Programme, of the resettlement pathfinder projects which run from January 2000 until April; and what plans he has for further investment in support for work with discharged prisoners. [82962]

  Hilary Benn
  An initial application for advice on the work piloted by resettlement pathfinders has already been submitted to the Correctional Services Accreditation Panel (formerly the Joint Accreditation Panel). The response from the panel was encouraging but indicated that further developmental work was required specifically in relation to young adult offenders, women and minority ethnic offenders. To allow for this further work to proceed the three current resettlement pathfinders (Pare, Hull and Lewes) have been extended and are scheduled to run to at least the autumn of 2003.

  The core programme (For-A-Change) has now been piloted with a young adult offender group and plans are being developed to establish a new pathfinder project to be delivered to short-term female prisoners. The programme material is to be reviewed to ensure that it addresses the specific needs of minority ethnic offenders and those with low levels of literacy.

  To ensure that this work adequately reflects recent national reports on resettlement published by the Social Exclusion Unit (SEU) and jointly by the probation and prisons inspectorates, a joint prison/probation service project board has been established. This board will focus on the needs of short-term prisoners (those serving less than 12 months).

  The Criminal Justice Bill, published last week, includes proposed legislation for the introduction of 'custody plus'. The experience gained through the delivery of the current resettlement pathfinders will be used to inform planning undertaken by the National Probation Service and the prison services for the introduction of this new sentence.
  604W
  The report of the resettlement pathfinders evaluation, which will give interim findings, is currently being prepared for publication.

  Sex Offenders
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) sex offender orders, (b) disqualification orders and (c) restraining orders are in place, and what assessment his Department has made of their effectiveness. [82673]

  Hilary Benn
  There have been 173 sex offender orders made in England and Wales between 1 December 1998 and 31 March 2002.

  Information on disqualification orders and restraining orders, introduced in 2001 are not yet available.

  Paper 155 in the Police Research Series, published in the summer of 2002: "The Police Perspective on Sex Offender Orders: A preliminary review of policy and practice" showed that the police found sex offender orders to be a useful tool and that orders were perceived to be a practical mechanism for a multi-agency approach to the management of high-risk sex offenders.

  The Police Reform Act 2002 contained a number of changes to improve the effectiveness and flexibility of sex offender orders. This included the introduction of interim sex offender orders. Interim orders will enable arrangements to be put in place to protect the public before a decision on a full order has been taken by the Court. The changes will be implemented on 2 December and we have issued new guidance to the police and courts on using sex offender orders. Additionally, on 19 November we published our proposals for further legislation in this area in the Command Paper, "Protecting the Public." In relation to sex offenders, these proposals include:
  Registered offenders will be required to confirm annually and in person at their local police station that the information held about them is still up to date.
  A new order to make those convicted of sex offences overseas register their details when they come to the United Kingdom.
  Reducing the period within which a sex offender must notify the police of change of name or address from 14 days to three.
  Offenders will be required to provide their National Insurance details when registering. This will make it easier to identify and find those offenders who try to evade the registration requirements.

  Women Prisoners
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the(a) main categories of offence for women prisoners and (b) re-offending rates for drug offences among women prisoners were in each of the last five years. [82864]

  Hilary Benn
  Information requested on main offence categories of women is shown in the table.
  605W

  Women first received into prison in England and Wales in 2001, by offence type and type of first reception

  Offence group

  Total

  Untried

  Convicted unsentenced

  Sentenced

  Non-criminal

  Violence against the person

  4,318

  561

  191

  557

  9

  Sexual offences

  29

  10

  4

  15

  —

  Burglary

  527

  357

  75

  95

  —

  Robbery

  395

  231

  43

  120

  1

  Theft and handling

  4,587

  1,350

  1,715

  1,522

  —

  Fraud and forgery

  678

  162

  117

  399

  —

  Drugs offences

  1,452

  763

  234

  455

  —

  Other offences

  2,981

  671

  530

  980

  —

  Offences not recorded

  997

  241

  255

  501

  —

  Total

  12,164

  4,346

  3,164

  4,644

  10

  Re-offending rates are not normally measured as they rely on the self-reporting of offending by offenders. Such an approach can lead to questions over the reliability of data based on individuals' recollection and willingness to impart their offending behaviour to an official source.

  However two-year reconviction rates for females released from prison after serving a sentence for a standard list drug offence are available. The rates are shown in the table.

  Two year reconviction rates for females discharged from prison after serving sentence for a standard list drugs offence

  Year of discharge

  Number of females discharged after serving a sentence for a standard list drugs offence

  Percentage reconvicted within two years for any standard list offence

  1994

  244

  18

  1995

  298

  19

  1996

  428

  26

  1997

  554

  26

  1998

  700

  25

  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many women are in prison; and of these, how many(a) are on remand, (b) are from black and ethnic minority groups and (c) have no previous convictions. [82876]

  Hilary Benn
  At 31 October 2002, there were 4,427 females in prison. Of these, 984 were on remand and 1,316 were from ethnic minority groups.

  Information on the sentenced prison population held on 30 June 2000 has been analysed by the number of standard list offences for which a prisoner had received a conviction. On that date, 32 per cent, of females held in prison in England and Wales were known to have no previous convictions prior to the sentence which resulted in imprisonment. In addition, criminal histories for a further 11 per cent, of females could not be located on the Home Office Offenders Index.

  Young Offenders
  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent discussions he has had with the Lord Chancellor about his plans for the bailing of persistent young offenders. [82338]
  606W
  Hilary Benn
  Home Office Ministers frequently discuss criminal justice matters with the Lord Chancellor and other Government colleagues. We decided this year to implement extended secure remand powers in respect of 12–16 year olds who repeatedly commit imprisonable offences while on bail or remand, together with bail tagging for juveniles. We have also funded an expansion of the Intensive Supervision and Surveillance Programme. Together these changes give the courts much more choice where persistent young offenders are facing trial.

  Mr.Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many incidents of self- harm there were in young offender institutions in each year since 1997; [82748]

  (2) how many young offenders took their own lives while in custody in each year since 1997. [82747]

  Hilary Benn
  The information requested is in the tables. Table 1 covers the 79 self-inflicted juvenile and young offender deaths between 1997 and 20 November 2002. Table 2 covers the number of recorded incidents of self-harm by juveniles and young offenders between 1998 and 30 June 2002, data on self-harm in this format not having been available before 1998.

  Table 1. Showing the number of self-inflicted deaths of juveniles and young offenders in custody between 01.01.1997 and 20.11.2002

  Juveniles (15–17 years)

  Young offenders (18–20 years)

  Total under 21 years (juveniles and young Offenders)

  1997

  0

  9

  9

  1998

  3

  11

  14

  1999

  2

  13

  15

  2000

  3

  13

  16

  2001

  3

  10

  13

  2002

  2

  10

  12

  Total

  13

  66

  79

  The Prison Service employs the term "self-inflicted death" which includes all those deaths where it appears the person may have acted specifically to take his/her own life.
  607W

  Table 2. Recorded incidents of self-harm among juveniles and young offenders in custody 1 January 1998 to 30 June 2002

  Juveniles (15–17 years)

  Young offenders (18–20 years)

  Total under-21 years (juveniles and young Offenders)

  1998

  252

  746

  998

  1999

  205

  825

  1,030

  2000

  288

  1,069

  1,357

  2001

  402

  1,343

  1,745

  2002

  260

  739

  999

  Total

  1,407

  4,722

  6,129

  Prison Service, with the support of the Youth Justice Board, is currently developing a suicide and self-harm prevention strategy. This is being taken forward progressively through a three year programme, which commenced in April 2001. Efforts are being targeted where the risks are highest within a broad preventative approach. The prisoners most at risk—in local prisons, on remand, in the early weeks and months of custody— will be better identified and cared for by better trained and supported staff. We aim to encourage a supportive culture in prisons based on good staff-prisoner relationships, a constructive regime and a physically safe environment. Six pilot prisons will act as the test bed for the full range of new safer custody policies and standards, and will be independently evaluated to determine which elements should subsequently be rolled out to the wider prison estate.

  Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the ome Department what percentage of young people are oung offenders(a) in Staffordshire and (b) on average in England. [82975]

  Hilary Benn
  4.2 per cent, of all young people (aged 10–17 inclusive) in Staffordshire were convicted or dealt with by police reprimand or warning in 2001. The proportion for England as a whole was 3.2 per cent.

  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what research has been evaluated by his Department on the most appropriate method of deterrent to prevent young offenders from re offending. [83976]

  Hilary Benn
  The Home Office and the Youth Justice Board (YJB) are currently evaluating the overall impact of the justice youth reforms and their component programmes.

  Statistics published in June this year for offenders dealt with in July 2000, showed a 14.6 per cent, reduction in reconviction rates compared with 1997. Independent evaluation reports have been published: on Youth Offending Teams, the introduction of the Referral Order, reconvictions after Final Warnings, and Parenting programmes. The YJB expects shortly to publish further evaluation reports on cognitive behaviour, mentoring, drugs and alcohol, education, training and employment, prevention, and interventions in support of final warnings.

HEALTH

  Spectacle Vouchers
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to increase the value of vouchers for the purchase of spectacles for people on low incomes; and if he will make a statement. [84854]

  Mr. Lammy
  Optical voucher values are reviewed every year and we will be making an announcement about the 2003–04 rates shortly.

  Recruitment
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action his Department is taking to encourage private recruitment agencies to sign up to the Government's guidelines on banning the recruitment of nurses from developing countries. [84892]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department has written to those commercial agencies it is aware of, asking them to provide references from national health service and other customers confirming compliance with the code of practice. The code of practice states that developing countries should not be targeted for recruitment.

  The list of agencies who are working in line with the principles of the code of practice appears on the Department's website at www.doh.gov.uk/international-recruitment and NHS organisations are strongly advised to refer to the list when establishing new contracts.

  The Department will write again to those agencies who have not replied and to any other agencies brought to its attention.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent discussions he has had with the South African health department regarding the recruitment of nurses to the UK. [84893]

  Mr. Hutton
  Departmental officials visited South Africa last year to share the United Kingdom's strategy and position on international recruitment and cooperation. The South African Ministry of health has asked for the Department's assistance with workforce evelopment and the establishment of a chief nursing officer post. Officials are due to visit South Africa in February 2003, to meet with senior officials of the Department of Health South Africa.

  A&E Waiting Times
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the single longest wait recorded in an accident and emergency department has been this year. [83292]

  Mr. Lammy
  This information is not available.

  Accidental Deaths
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many accidental deaths of people on low incomes have occurred in each year since 1997. [83170]

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

  Air Ambulances
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on sponsorship arrangements for air ambulances. [84027]

  Mr. Lammy
  In England, there are 12 air ambulance services provided by 12 independent air ambulance charities. Fund raising for air ambulances is organised by independent local charities. In most cases the national health services also supports the services by providing fully trained paramedics to crew the aircraft when they respond to emergencies. In addition, in 2001–02 the Government allocated £1.3 million to Five of the 12 charities. Consideration is being given to further Government funding in 2002–03.

  Cancelled Operations
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many operations were cancelled in each of the last 10 years(a) as a total figure and (b) as a percentage of all patients treated. [83291]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information on the total number of operations cancelled are not collected. Figures are collected on the number of patients whose operations are cancelled by the hospital for non-clinical reasons at the last minute. Data were not collected on cancelled operations before 1994–95.

  These data, as a percentage of elective general and acute admissions and first finished consultant episodes, are provided in the table.

  Year

  Quarter

  Number of operations cancelled at the last minute1

  Cancelled operations as percentage of general and acute elective first FCE admissions

  2002–03

  Quarter 1

  14,808

  1.11

  2001–02

  Quarter 1

  20,833

  1.65

  Quarter 2

  20,901

  1.57

  Quarter 3

  20,036

  1.50

  Quarter 4

  19,973

  1.47

  Whole year 2001–02

  81,743

  1.55

  2000–01

  Quarter 1

  17,033

  1.27

  Quarter 2

  16,965

  1.24

  Quarter 3

  18,844

  1.35

  Quarter 4

  24,976

  1.78

  Whole year 2000–01

  77,818

  1.41

  1999–2000

  Quarter 1

  12,313

  0.93

  Quarter 2

  12,017

  0.90

  Quarter 3

  15,769

  1.18

  Quarter 4

  20,143

  1.46

  Whole year 1999–2000

  60,242

  1.12

  1998–99

  Quarter 1

  12,384

  0.97

  Quarter 2

  11,470

  0.87

  Quarter 3

  14,611

  1.07

  Quarter 4

  17,685

  1.32

  Whole year 1998–99

  56,150

  1.06

  1997–98

  Quarter 1

  12,019

  1.01

  Quarter 2

  11,550

  0.95

  Quarter 3

  12,476

  1.02

  Quarter 4

  14,460

  1.18

  Whole year 1997–98

  50,505

  1.04

  1996–97

  Quarter 1

  11,595

  0.98

  Quarter 2

  11,055

  0.90

  Quarter 3

  13,023

  1.06

  Quarter 4

  16,374

  1.38

  Whole year 1996–97

  52,047

  1.08

  610W

  Year

  Quarter

  Number of operations cancelled at the last minute1

  Cancelled operations as percentage of general and acute elective first FCE admissions

  1995–96

  Quarter 1

  11,860

  1 04

  Quarter 2

  11,457

  0.97

  Quarter 3

  14,514

  1.19

  Quarter 4

  16,652

  1.34

  Whole year 1995–96

  54,483

  1.14

  1994–95

  Quarter 1

  11,603

  1.08

  Quarter 2

  10,186

  0.91

  Quarter 3

  11,874

  1.02

  Quarter 4

  14,466

  1.22

  Whole year 1994–95

  48,129

  1.06

  1Operations cancelled at the last minute are the number of patients whose operations are cancelled on the day patients are due to arrive or after arrival in hospital or on the day of their operation.

  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how
  many operations were cancelled(a) on the day of admission and (b) prior to admission for non-clinical reasons in each quarter since June 2001, broken down by NHS hospital trust. [84039]

  Mr. Hutton
  Data are collected on the number of operations cancelled by the hospital for non-clinical reasons on the day patients are due to arrive or after arrival in hospital or on the day of their operation. These data are not broken down into whether an operation was cancelled on the day of admission or prior to admission. These data are available at trust level on the Department's website at www.doh.gov.uk/hospitalactivity/data—requests.htm.

  Community Health Councils
  Ms Drown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if it is his policy that Community Health Council staff will not be made redundant until the Community Health Council has been formally abolished; [84068]

  what guidance he plans to give employing authorities on making redundancy payments to Community Health Council staff; [84067]

  if he will offer salary protection in cases where posts for the Clearing House staff are graded at salaries lower than those paid to Community Health Council staff; [84069]

  what the total cost is of making all remaining Community Health Council staff redundant. [84066]

  Mr. Lammy
  The Government takes the view that community health council (CHC) staff have valuable skills which are important to the smooth running of the national health service. We are working closely with the trade unions to ensure every action is being taken to support CHC staff to find suitable alternative employment. This includes the setting up of a clearing house system, training and careers interview facilities.

  We are also currently working with the trade unions and other interested parties to develop a human resources (HR) framework which will provide support to CHC staff and managers. The HR framework will cover a variety of areas including employment options and the role of the clearing house system that will be

  611W
  established to help CHC staff find employment in the NHS family and the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health (CPPIH).

  The CPPIH has agreed to advertise all their vacancies through the clearing houses as well as in the national and local press. CHC staff applying for a post with the CPPIH who meet the specific job criteria would be guaranteed an interview.

  The Government currently has no plans to make CHC staff redundant until all employment options have been fully considered. It is therefore not possible to give a redundancy cost at this time.

  Redundancy terms for CHC staff, as strategic health authority (StHA) employees, are covered in Section 45 of the General Whitley Council Handbook or in accordance with the contract of employment for senior and general managers. A copy of the General Whitley Council Handbook is available in the Library.

  Pay protection arrangements for those staff who find suitable alternative employment in a StHA are outlined in Section 48 of the General Whitley Council handbook.

  Where CHC staff find suitable alternative employment in NHS trusts, trusts have the power to recognise previous service in the NHS.

  Community Pharmacies
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many community pharmacies there were in each health authority in each of the past five years. [84018]

  Mr. Lammy
  Information about the number of community pharmacies in each health authority in England in the past five years has been placed in the Library.

  Decontamination Units
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS acute trusts had ordered mobile decontamination facilities and associated protective clothing between receipt of a letter dated 22 October from Dr. David Harper and 7 November. [84010]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department of Health's chief scientist wrote to the national health service on 22 October to remind all NHS trust chief executives of current policy on this issue and to remind the small percentage of trusts who had yet to place an order.

  A total of seven NHS acute trusts ordered mobile decontamination facilities and associated protective clothing between 22 October and 7 November.

  Diabetes
  Helen Southworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will publish the national service framework for diabetes. [84282]

  Mr. Lammy
  We shall be publishing the delivery strategy for the diabetes national service framework in the next few weeks.

  Doctors' Work Rotas
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health
  what assessment he has made of the impact of doctors working in shifts on the level of perioperative deaths in NHS hospitals. [83451]

  Mr. Hutton
  Each year the National Confidential Enquiry into Perioperative Deaths reports on deaths that occurred in the most recent 12 months for which figures are available. There has been no separate assessment of the impact of shift working on the level of perioperative deaths in the national health service. We are however, moving to a position where out of hours cover is provided by more experienced doctors, and this will be supported by our commitment in the NHS Plan to increase the number of consultants and doctors.

  Drugs
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for health which drugs referred to NICE have been rejected and subsequently subjected to the appeal mechanism; and which of them were successfully approved. [83309]

  Mr. Lammy
  [holding answer 25 November 2002]: In total 56 appraisals have reached the stage where an appeal could be received; of these 19 received appeals and seven of these were upheld, six relating to drugs. The thrust of the recommendations changed in one of the appraisals as a result of an appeal, namely Rituximab for follicular non-Hodgkins lymphoma.

  Dangerous Severe Personality Disorder
  Stephen Hesford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the number of individuals with dangerous severe personality disorder in(a) prison and (b) the general population; and what assessment he has made of trends in the number of people with DSPD. [82426]

  Hilary Benn
  I have been asked to reply.

  We estimate that there are between 2,100 and 2,400 individuals who are dangerous as a result of a severe personality disorder (DSPD). The majority of these individuals will be in prison or a secure hospital. We estimate that at any one time 1,400 will be in prison and a further 400 will be detained on court orders under the legal category of psychopathic disorder in secure psychiatric hospitals. We also estimate that a further 300 to 600 men may be living in the community at any one time, of whom most will have been recently detained in prison or hospital.

  There is no information currently available to make an assessment of likely trends in the number of people who are dangerous as a result of severe personality disorder in prison or the general population. However, the number of restricted patients detained in secure hospitals for a psychopathic disorder has remained around 400 for over 10 years.

  East Midlands Ambulance Trust
  Mr. Alan Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on how many occasions the response time to category A calls to the East Midlands Ambulance Trust took(a) over 30 minutes and (b) over one hour, in

  613W
  (i) the county of Rutland and (ii) the Melton borough council area, in each of the last 12 months for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [83012]

  Mr. Lammy
  [holding answer 28 November 2002]Information about ambulance emergency response times to Category A calls is not available specifically for the county of Rutland or the Melton borough council. The latest information available about the proportion of emergency calls resulting in an ambulance arriving at the scene of the reported incident within the Government's target response times for the East Midlands Ambulance National Health Service Trust, and all other ambulance trusts, is contained in the Department of Health Statistical Bulletin "Ambulance Services, England 2001–02". A copy of the bulletin is available in the Library and available at www.doh.gov.uk/public/sb0213.htm.

  General Practitioners
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many general practitioners, in each London borough, are operating a closed-list policy; and if he will make a statement; [83657]

  (2) what steps he is taking to encourage more general practitioners to set up practice in Inner and Greater London; and if he will make a statement. [83658]

  All parctioners1plan GPs2 unstricted principals and equivalents (UPEs)3in Kent and Madway strategic health authority and England as at 31 March 2002 (by April 2002 boundaries)

  Number (headcount)

  Total

  Under 30

  30 to 34

  35 to 39

  40 to 44

  45 to 49

  50 to 54

  55 to 59

  60 to 64

  65 to 69

  70 and over

  Unknown

  England

  All practitioners

  32,011

  1,305

  3,557

  5,497

  6,272

  5,376

  4,633

  3,379

  1,419

  506

  66

  1

  Percentage

  4.1

  11.1

  17.2

  19.6

  16.8

  14.5

  10.6

  4.4

  1.6

  0.2

  0.0

  of which:

  Kent and Niedway St HA

  All practitioners

  946

  26

  77

  149

  180

  176

  154

  117

  56

  11

  0

  0

  Percentage

  2.7

  8.1

  15,8

  19.0

  18.6

  16.3

  12.4

  5.9

  1.2

  0.0

  0.0

  1 All practitioners include GMS unrestricted principals, PMS contracted GPs, PMS salaried GPs, restricted principals, assistants, GP registrars, salaried doctors (para 52 SFA), PMS other and GP retainers.

  2NHS plan GPs include GMS unrestricted principals, PMS contracted GPs, PMS salaried GPs, restricted principals, assistants, salaried doctors (para 52 SFA) and PMS others.

  3 UPEs include GMS unrestricted principles, PMS contracted GPs and PMS salaried GPs.

  4Converted to match April 2002 boundaries (formerly East Kent HA and West Kent HA)

  Source:

  Department of Health General and Personal Medical Services Statistics.

  Hospital Transport Scheme
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the cost of the Hospital Transport Scheme was in each
  of the past five years. [84089]

  Mr. Lammy
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Latex Allergy
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action his Department will take to implement the conclusions of the second summit on latex allergy. [83943]
  614W
  Mr. Hutton
  The information on closed lists is not held centrally.

  We are committed to expanding the primary care work force both through national and local initiatives. The London work force development confederation has introduced a number of specific programmes to expand the GP work force in London by 225 general practitioners. These include:
  The London Deanery's successful expansion of the number of training places in GP practices for GP Registrars. This year there are an additional 51 training places for GPs in London. Primary care trusts will be able to build on this success by setting up new and more flexible contracts for newly qualified GPs.
  More flexible career opportunities, particularly those designed to retain GPs close to retirement age, are also being put into place by London PCTs including a flexible career scheme which will commence shortly, designed to attract GPs back into practice for part-time working.
  A London wide international recruitment scheme which will commence in 2003 to build on the successful recruitment of 17 French GPs in South East London.

  GPs (Age Distribution)
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the age distribution is of general practitioners in(a) Kent and (b) England. [82739]

  Mr. Hutton
  The age distribution of general practitioners in England and Kent Medway Strategic Health Authority as at March 2002 is shown in the table.

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department of Health has agreed to work closely with the Health and Safety Executive and other key stakeholders to produce new guidance on the use of latex products in the national health service. We expect that this guidance will be published in Health and Safety Week 2003 and will be circulated throughout the NHS.

  Mental Health (Nottingham)
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many specialist mental health beds for young people are provided by the Nottingham Healthcare NHS Trust. [84033]
  615W
  Mr.Lammy
  There are 12 specialist mental health beds for young people in Nottinghamshire.

  NHS Funding
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what funding for the NHS per head of population was spent on primary care and secondary care in(a) North Staffordshire, (b) the West Midlands and (c) on average in England in 2001–02. [83547]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information on the expenditure per weighted head of population on primary, secondary and total healthcare in North Staffordshire Health Authority, West Midlands Region and England is shown in the table.

  2001–02 expenditure on primary and secondary healthcare per weighted head of population

  £ per head

  Primary

  Secondary

  Total

  North Staffordshire HA

  199.86

  691.34

  891.20

  West Midlands region

  212.88

  616.79

  829.67

  All England

  207.75

  603.49

  811.24

  Notes:

  1.In many health authorities there are factors which distort the expenditure per head. These include:

  the health authority acting in a lead capacity to commission healthcare on behalf of other health bodies;

  and asset revaluations in NHS trusts being funded through

  health authorities.

  For these reasons expenditure per head cannot be compared reliably between health authorities.

  2. Allocations per weighted head of population provide a much more reliable measure to identify differences between funding of health authorities.

  3. Expenditure is taken from audited health authority and primary care trust summarisation forms which are prepared on a resource basis and therefore differ from cash allocations in the year. The expenditure is the expenditure on primary, secondary and total healthcare by the health authority and by the primary care trusts within each health authority area. The majority of General Dental Services expenditure is not included in the health authority or primary care trust summarisation forms and is separately accounted for by the Dental Practice Board. An element of pharmaceutical services expenditure is accounted for by the Prescription Pricing Authority and not by health authorities.

  4. Health authorities and primary care trusts should account for their expenditure on a gross basis. This results in an element of double counting in 2001–02 where one body acts as the main commissioner and is then reimbursed by other bodies. This has been removed to provide comparability in the answer as far as possible.

  Sources:

  Health authority audited summarisation forms 2001–02

  Primary care trust audited summarisation schedules 2001–02

  Weighted population estimates 2001–02

  Regional comparisons are all based on those existing in 2001–02

  NHS Plus
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many clients NHS Plus has served since November 2001; and what has been its total income [84092]

  Mr. Lammy
  NHS Plus providers are a network of 115 occupational health departments in the national health service in England selling services to non-NHS employers. Each occupational health department is 616W
  autonomous and their finances are managed by their individual trust. Detailed information on the number of clients and income is not collected centrally.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made on the implications of the deficits of the(a) South Worcestershire Primary Care Trust and (b) Worcestershire Acute Hospitals Trust. [83517]

  Mr. Lammy
  [holding answer 26 November 2002]: Departmental officials in the Directorate of Health and Social Care (DHSC) Midlands and East of England and West Midlands South Strategic Health Authority (StHA) are working closely with both Worcestershire Acute Hospitals National Health Service Trust and South Worcestershire Primary Care Trust (PCT) to minimise the deficit forecast for the end of the financial year 2002–03. The PCT is conducting a review of services to consider more efficient ways of provision in the acute, community and primary care sectors. As part of the normal monitoring process undertaken by the DHSC and StHA, the organisations are producing longer-term financial strategies within their service development plans for 2003–04 to 2005–06, as required by all health economies nationally.

  NHS Trusts (Compacts)
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what proportion of NHS trusts have signed up to local compacts; [84096]

  (2) what proportion of primary care trusts have signed up to local compacts. [84094]

  Mr. Lammy
  The Department is determined to see all national health service organisations in England signed up to a geographically relevant local compact by 31 March 2004. Information from the NHS in the list shows the following NHS trusts and primary care trusts have signed up to local compacts, as at 29 November 2002.

  NHS trusts and primary care trusts

  Ashton, Leigh and Wigan PCT

  Bebington and West Wirral PCT

  Birkenhead and Wallasey PCT

  Brighton and Hove PCT

  Camden PCT

  Central Liverpool PCT

  Central Manchester and Manchester Children's University

  Hospital NHST

  Central Suffolk PCT

  Clatterbridge Centre for Oncology NHST

  Coventry PCT

  Croydon PCT

  East Staffordshire PCT

  Ellesmere Port and Neston PCT

  Enfield PCT

  Halton PCT

  Kensington and Chelsea PCT

  North Cheshire Hospitals NHST

  617W

  North Liverpool PCT

  North Sheffield PCT

  North Warwickshire PCT

  Northampton PCT

  Northamptonshire Heartlands PCT

  Oldham PCT

  Rugby PCT

  Sheffield South West PCT

  Sheffield West PCT

  South Downs Health NHST

  South East Dorset PCT

  South East Sheffield PCT

  South Liverpool PCT

  South Sefton PCT

  South Warwickshire General Hospitals NHST

  South Warwickshire PCT

  South West Dorset PCT

  Southport and Formby PCT

  Southport and Ormskirk Hospitals NHST

  St. Helens PCT

  Stockport PCT

  University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHST

  Wandsworth PCT

  West Lancashire PCT

  West Norfolk PCT

  Wirral Hospital NHST

  Wrightington, Wigan and Leigh Health Services NHST

  Nurses (Recruitment)
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health with which developing countries the NHS has an agreement to recruit nurses(a) directly and (b) through commercial agencies. [84890]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Government have agreements to recruit nurses from the Philippines, India and Indonesia. University hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire national health service trust have an agreement to run a pilot to recruit nurses from China.

  In addition, NHS employers are able to establish exchange programmes for nurses from developing countries, in line with the guidance on nursing recruitment.

  The NHS does not work with commercial agencies to recruit directly from developing countries.

  Nurses (Redbridge)
  Linda Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how he intends to improve the recruitment and retention of nurses in Redbridge. [80537]

  Mr. Hutton
  The National Health Service set targets to increase the workforce in the NHS. Figures released earlier this year show that between September 1999 and September 2001, an extra 20,740 nurses joined the health service.

  New targets were set by the Government, in the 2002 budget, to recruit 35,000 nurses and this will become part of the continuing drive to recruit more health professionals for the NHS.
  618W
  Both Barking, Havering and Redbridge NHS Trust and Redbridge Primary Care Trust are actively pursuing policies to recruit additional nursing staff. There has been an increase of eight extra nurses in primary care and community settings.

  Barking, Havering and Redbridge NHS Trust has had an active international programme in place since 2001 and currently 85 nurses from the Philippines are now working in the trust, with plans to welcome a further cohort next month. 75 percent, of the recently qualified registered nurses across a range of services have successfully been recruited locally, with an expected 40 newly qualified registered nurses commencing employment within the trust in January 2003.

  Oxford Centre for Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolism
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the work of the Oxford Centre for Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolism. [84017]

  Mr. Lammy
  The Oxford Centre for Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolism, which was launched by the then Secretary of State for Health, my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, in January 1999, makes an important contribution to research in diabetes and other endocrine diseases.

  Patient Advocacy
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will ensure that the Patient Advocacy and Liaison Service provides carers with information about the discharge of patients and the support services available to their carers; and if he will make a statement. [84234]

  Mr. Lammy
  Patient advice and liaison services are available to provide a range of information to patients, carers and their families, including information on discharge arrangements and support services. Such information is also available from other units in trusts and through general practitioners.

  Pharmacy Services
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many pharmacies participated in the Essential Small Pharmacies Scheme in each of the past five years, broken down according to size of turnover. [84019]

  Mr. Lammy
  The available information is shown in the table. Information about the size of turnover of the pharmacies participating in the essential small pharmacy scheme (ESPS) is not held centrally.

  Community pharmacies receiving payment under Essential Small Pharmacies Scheme at 31 March England, 1997 and 2001

  Year end

  Number of community pharmacies

  31 March 1997

  256

  31 March 1998

  255

  31 March 1999

  255

  31 March 2000

  262

  31 March 2001

  243

  Private Health Schemes
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if private health scheme customers can benefit from the use of NHS facilities and medical care; and if he will make a statement. [83458]

  Mr. Hutton
  The first priority of national health service bodies is to treat NHS patients. However, as a way of raising additional income, NHS bodies are permitted to provide accommodation and services privately to patients who undertake to pay for them, or on whose behalf such undertakings are given, provided this does not interfere with their NHS duties. These patients may include customers of private health schemes.

  Residential Drug Treatment Centres
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many residential drug treatment centres there are in Nottinghamshire. [82930]

  Mr. Lammy
  There is currently one residential rehabilitation centre located in Nottinghamshire. It is a private unit: The Priory Clinic Nottingham, Ransom Road, Nottingham, NG3 5GS.

  Sight Tests
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of people over 60 have had sight tests in each year since 1999. [84029]

  Mr. Lammy
  The table shows the number of national health service sight tests paid for in England for the years ending 31 March 2000 to 2002.

  General Ophthalmic Services: number of NHS sight test paid for by Health authorities in England for patients aged 60 and over

  Year

  Total number of sight tests (million)

  1999–2000

  3.3

  2000–01

  3.8

  2001–02

  4.0

  Information on the number of people having NHS sight tests is not collected centrally. The number of sight tests can not be equated with the number of people as some groups are advised to have more than one sight test in a year.

  Suspended Doctors
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of doctors suspended for over six months are(a) women and (b) from ethnic minorities; and if he will make a statement. [82991]

  Mr. Hutton
  As of 30 September 2002, the latest date for which figures are available, there were 38 hospital and community medical and hospital dental staff suspended for more than six months. Of these, 10 were women. We do not collect information by ethnic group.

  Vocational Rehabilitation
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans his Department has to widen the remit of NHS Plus to include vocational rehabilitation. [84045]
  620W
  Mr. Lammy
  NHS Plus providers are a network of 115 occupational health departments in the national health service in England. They provide a wide range of occupational health services, which includes advice on rehabilitation. Occupational health services are a component of vocational rehabilitation and it therefore already falls within the remit of the NHS Plus unit to sell each service to those providing vocational rehabilitation.

  Where possible, NHS Plus will offer support to the Government's latest vocational rehabilitation initiatives, the "Health, Work and Recovery" programme, led by the Department for Work and Pensions and "Pathways to Work: Helping People into Employment", the new Green Paper presented to Parliament on 18 November by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Empty Homes
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many empty homes each Government Department has disposed of in(a) 1998–99,(b) 1999–2000, (c) 2000–01 and (d) 2001–02; and if he will make a statement. [83818]

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

  Business Improvement Districts
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what arrangements are to be put in place under proposals for business improvement districts for a minimum threshold of businesses voting in the ballot and what safeguards will be put in place for low-turnover businesses to pay the levy. [84415]

  Mr. Leslie
  The rules governing the BID ballot are set out in the Local Government Bill. A successful ballot will have to meet two tests. Firstly, a simple majority of those voting in the BID ballot must vote in favour. Secondly, those voting in favour must represent a majority by rateable value of the hereditaments (rateable properties) of those voting. This "dual-key" mechanism means that a scheme cannot be forced through by large firms against the wishes of small firms, or vice versa. We do not intend to introduce a third test, namely that for a vote to succeed a set percentage of those entitled to vote must vote in favour. We believe that the "dual-key" provides sufficient protection for small businesses, including those with a low turnover.

  Civil Contingencies
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister(1) whether his Department's bid to the Capital Modernisation Fund for an additional £217 million to fund extra equipment and training for firefighters for a CBRN emergency has been successful; [82586]

  (2) how many CBRN decontamination facilities have been established since 11 September; and where they are located; [82587]
  621W
  (3) how much additional funding has been granted to each fire authority since 11 September 2001 for CBRN training, protection equipment and additional search and rescue equipment [82585]

  Mr. Leslie
  I refer the right hon. Member to the answers given to the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) on 2 December 2002,Official Report.

  Coalfields Regeneration Trust
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the work of the Coalfields Regeneration Trust, with particular reference to Stoke on Trent North. [83438]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Coalfields Regeneration Trust is an independent UK wide grant making body launched in 1999 as part of the Government's response to the Coalfield Task Force Report published in 1998. Working with partners, it delivers the social and economic regeneration of the coalfields in England, Scotland and Wales.

  No separate figures are available for the funding of projects by the Trust in the Stoke on Trent North area. However, during its first round of funding (1999–2002) the Coalfields Regeneration Trust made 11 grants with a value of £670,000 to the wider Stoke on Trent area. Since the inception of the second round of funding from April 2002 a further five grants have been made with a value totalling £458,300.

  A wide range of community projects have been supported by these grants including the provision of new community facilities, the refurbishment of former miners welfare facilities and the provision of work based training opportunities to disaffected young people.

  Council Tax
  Mr.Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if his Department will fully fund the new discretion to be given to local authorities to reduce council tax on hardship grounds. [84490]

  Mr. Leslie
  No. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford) announced on 19 November 2002, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has decided that authorities exercising the proposed new powers to create their own council tax discounts and exemptions will have to meet the costs of these new discounts or exemptions.

  Decent Homes
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) how many households owned by councils have met the Government's decent homes target in each local authority; [83410]

  (2)how many homes have reached the decent homes target; [83407]

  (3)how many households in the registered social landlord sector have met the Government's decent homes target. [83409]
  622W
  Mr. McNulty
  Initial estimates from the 2001 English House Condition Survey are that, at April 2001, 1.6 million local authority and 1 million registered social landlord owned homes met the decent home standard.

  Local authorities' estimates of the number of homes they own that met the standard at April 2002 are mapped out in the following table. The data from the two sources are not directly comparable, as not all local authorities have supplied data and less stock is owned by local authorities in 2002 than 2001.

  Homes which met the decent home standard at April 20021

  Stock owning local authority

  Number

  Adur

  2,900

  Alnwick

  1,400

  Amber Valley

  1,700

  Arun

  3,600

  Ashfield

  4,000

  Ashford

  5,600

  Aylesbury Vale

  5,400

  Babergh

  2,300

  Barking and Dagenham

  10,800

  Barnet

  7,000

  Barnsley

  14,600

  Barrow-in-Furness

  2,300

  Basildon

  11,400

  Bassetlaw

  6,200

  Berwick-upon-Tweed

  1,100

  Birmingham

  15,000

  Blaby

  2,100

  Blackpool

  1,300

  Blyth Valley

  2,100

  Bolsover

  1,900

  Bolton

  10,200

  Bournemouth

  4,700

  Bracknell Forest

  6,100

  Bradford

  #

  Braintree

  1,900

  Brent

  4,300

  Brentwood

  2,000

  Bridgnorth

  2,500

  Brighton and Hove

  3,600

  Bristol

  14,400

  Bromsgrove

  3,200

  Broxbourne

  3,400

  Broxtowe

  3,500

  Bury

  5,200

  Cambridge

  5,800

  Camden

  7,500

  Cannock Chase

  1,700

  Canterbury

  3,400

  Caradon

  1,400

  Carlisle

  #

  Carrick

  900

  Castle Morpeth

  800

  Castle Point

  1,600

  Charnwood

  5,600

  Chelmsford

  #

  Cheltenham

  1,400

  Cherwell

  2,000

  Chesterfield

  4,400

  Chester-le-Street

  5,100

  Chorley

  3,000

  City of London

  #

  Colchester

  3,200

  Copeland

  1,600

  Corby

  2,900

  Craven

  900

  Crawley

  8,500

  Crewe and Nantwich

  #

  Croydon

  8,700

  Dacorum

  10,000

  Darlington

  5,800

  623W

  Homes which met the decent home standard at April 20021

  Stock owning local authority

  Number

  Dartford

  2,200

  Daventry

  3,400

  Derby

  7,700

  Derwentshire

  4,800

  Doncaster

  17,300

  Dover

  3,000

  Dudley

  17,500

  Durham

  5,700

  Ealing

  10,400

  Easington

  3,900

  East Devon

  4,400

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  6,900

  Eastbourne

  1,200

  Ellesmere Port and Neston

  4,100

  Enfield

  8,900

  Epping Forest

  5,400

  Erewash

  #

  Exeter

  1,000

  Fareham

  1,900

  Fenland

  2,100

  Forest Heath

  2,700

  Forest of Dean

  #

  Gateshead

  15,300

  Gedling

  2,300

  Gloucester

  2,900

  Gosport

  2,500

  Gravesham

  4,400

  Great Yarmouth

  4,400

  Greenwich

  8,300

  Guildford

  5,000

  Hackney

  1,400

  Halton

  5,400

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  9,400

  Harborough

  1,400

  Haringey

  13,100

  Harlow

  8,300

  Harrogate

  2,400

  Harrow

  4,200

  Hartlepool

  3,700

  Havering

  11,700

  Herefordshire

  #

  High Peak

  1,800

  Hillingdon

  7,300

  Hinckley and Bosworth

  3,600

  Hounslow

  4,200

  Hyndburn

  3,600

  Ipswich

  5,400

  Isles of Scilly

  0

  Islington

  11,900

  Kensington and Chelsea

  3,000

  Kettering

  3,700

  Kings Lynn and West Norfolk

  2,200

  Kingston upon Hull

  6,900

  Kingston upon Thames

  2,400

  Kirklees

  8,100

  Knowsley

  #

  Lambeth

  26,800

  Lancaster

  4,200

  Leeds

  33,900

  Leicester

  6,300

  Lewes

  2,600

  Lewisham

  10,300

  Lincoln

  6,500

  Liverpool

  8,300

  Luton

  5,400

  Macclesfield

  4,200

  Maidstone

  2,900

  Manchester

  24,900

  Mansfield

  1,600

  Melton

  #

  Merton

  4,100

  Mid Bedfordshire

  #

  Mid Devon

  2,400

  624W

  Homes which met the decent home standard at April 20021

  Stock owning local authority

  Number

  Mid Suffolk

  1,800

  Middlesbrough

  6,000

  Milton Keynes

  10,000

  Mole Valley

  3,100

  New Forest

  2,900

  Newark and Sherwood

  4,300

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  7,200

  Newham

  11,500

  North Cornwall

  1,700

  North East Derbyshire

  4,800

  North East Lincolnshire

  6,200

  North Hertfordshire

  6,100

  North Kesteven

  2,000

  North Lincolnshire

  4,100

  North Norfolk

  2,900

  North Shropshire

  1,700

  North Somerset

  4,300

  North Tyneside

  9,400

  North Warwickshire

  800

  North West Leicestershire

  4,600

  Northampton

  5,000

  Norwich

  7,200

  Nottingham City

  18,000

  Nuneaton and Bedworth

  3,700

  Oadby and Wigston

  1,200

  Oldham

  15,500

  Oswestry

  1,900

  Oxford

  3,400

  Pendle

  2,500

  Peterborough

  5,900

  Plymouth

  12,200

  Poole

  3,200

  Portsmouth

  7,700

  Preston

  1,800

  Purbeck

  1,100

  Reading

  5,000

  Redbridge

  3,300

  Redditch

  6,800

  Reigate and Banstead

  #

  Ribble Valley

  1,100

  Richmondshire

  1,400

  Rochdale

  5,600

  Rochford

  1,500

  Rossendale

  3,300

  Rotherham

  14,900

  Rugby

  3,900

  Runnymede

  2,300

  Rushcliffe

  #

  Rutland

  1,000

  Salford

  5,700

  Salisbury

  4,900

  Sandwell

  8,900

  Scarborough

  2,800

  Sedgefield

  6,300

  Sedgemoor

  2,800

  Sefton

  9,500

  Selby

  2,500

  Sheffield

  17,100

  Shepway

  2,300

  Slough

  3,500

  Solihull

  11,900

  South Bedfordshire

  4,900

  South Cambridgeshire

  #

  South Derbyshire

  1,800

  South Gloucestershire

  5,700

  South Holland

  2,300

  South Kesteven

  5,800

  South Lakeland

  2,800

  South Norfolk

  2,500

  South Northamptonshire

  #

  South Tyneside

  14,400

  Southampton

  5,700

  Southend-on-Sea

  4,300

  625W

  Homes which met the decent home standard at April 20021

  Stock owning local authority

  Number

  Southwark

  47,200

  St. Albans

  5,000

  St. Edmundsbury

  #

  St. Helens

  #

  Stafford

  2,300

  Stevenage

  1,300

  Stockport

  5,900

  Stockton-on-Tees

  3,200

  Stoke-on-Trent

  12,900

  Stroud

  3,600

  Sutton

  4,700

  Swindon

  7,800

  Tamworth

  2,700

  Tandridge

  2,400

  Taunton Deane

  5,800

  Teesdale

  500

  Teignbridge

  2,600

  Tendring

  1,500

  Thanet

  3,300

  The Medway Towns

  2,700

  Three Rivers

  2,000

  Thurrock

  9,300

  Torridge

  1,200

  Tower Hamlets

  5,200

  Trafford

  3,400

  Uttlesford

  2,700

  Vale Royal

  #

  Wakefield

  32,500

  Walsall

  4,400

  Waltham Forest

  4,600

  Wandsworth

  15,900

  Wansbeck

  0

  Warrington

  6,300

  Warwick

  3,100

  Watford

  3,600

  Waveney

  4,400

  Waverley

  4,200

  Wealden

  2,000

  Wear Valley

  3,300

  Wellingborough

  3,800

  Welwyn Hatfield

  9,100

  West Lancashire

  #

  Westminster

  2,400

  Wigan

  15,300

  Winchester

  5,300

  Wirral

  9,500

  Woking

  2,800

  Wokingham

  2,400

  Wolverhampton

  11,400

  Constituency/ward

  LA name

  Rank of health domain

  Rank of education domain

  Rank of housing domain

  Rank of access domain

  Tamworth

  Bourne Vale

  Lichfield

  6,438

  4,062

  2,390

  858

  Fazeley

  Lichfield

  2,377

  2,292

  3,640

  3,582

  Little Aston

  Lichfield

  7,673

  8,017

  7,769

  1,826

  Mease Valley

  Lichfield

  5,443

  4,899

  4,772

  489

  Shenstone

  Lichfield

  6,118

  5,694

  7,828

  1,303

  Stonnall

  Lichfield

  5,620

  6,249

  8,357

  3,000

  Tame

  Lichfield

  6,406

  5,142

  8,341

  1,938

  Amington

  Tamworth

  3,104

  1,629

  1,602

  6,530

  Belgrave

  Tamworth

  2,797

  1,083

  1,280

  6,938

  Bolehall

  Tamworth

  2,475

  456

  3,075

  7,766

  Castle

  Tamworth

  2,645

  1,745

  6,669

  6,726

  Glascote

  Tamworth

  1,748

  772

  787

  7,384

  Mercian

  Tamworth

  2,990

  3,455

  4,324

  3,967

  Spital

  Tamworth

  2,267

  3,765

  5,660

  4,991

  Stonydelph

  Tamworth

  3,889

  327

  4,676

  4,045

  Trinity

  Tamworth

  5,006

  1,638

  5,194

  5,141

  Wilnecote

  Tamworth

  4,308

  1,547

  3,472

  4,295

  626W

  Homes which met the decent home standard at April 20021

  Stock owning local authority

  Number

  Worcester

  2,900

  Wycombe

  4,800

  York

  5,500

  1 Figures have been rounded to the nearest 100. Authorities marked with a # did not supply the information in their HRA Business Plan Statistical Appendix.

  Deprivation
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the position of(a) Tamworth and (b) Sutton Coldfield constituencies is in the national table of deprivation. [84174]

  Mrs. Roche
  The table shows how all wards in the Tamworth and Sutton Coldfield constituencies are ranked according to the Index of Multiple Deprivation and the six other domains included in the Indices of Deprivation 2000 (ID 2000). Under the ID 2000, the most deprived ward is ranked 1, while the least deprived is ranked 8,414.

  Constituency/ward

  LA name

  Rank of index of multiple deprivation

  Rank of income domain

  Rank of employment domain

  Tamworth

  Bourne Vale

  Lichfield

  4,965

  6,550

  6,411

  Fazeley

  Lichfield

  2,786

  2,786

  3,104

  Little Aston

  Lichfield

  8,117

  8,371

  7,655

  Mease Valley

  Lichfield

  4,915

  5,159

  7,266

  Shenstone

  Lichfield

  6,203

  5,532

  6,603

  Stonnall

  Lichfield

  7,537

  7,209

  6,826

  Tame

  Lichfield

  7,341

  8,084

  6,806

  Amington

  Tamworth

  2,569

  2,187

  3,520

  Belgrave

  Tamworth

  2,028

  1,707

  3,080

  Bolehall

  Tamworth

  2,425

  3,568

  3,071

  Castle

  Tamworth

  3,635

  3,729

  3,573

  Glascote

  Tamworth

  1,003

  593

  1,697

  Mercian

  Tamworth

  3,883

  3,959

  3,848

  Spital

  Tamworth

  3,382

  3,049

  2,878

  Stonydelph

  Tamworth

  2,255

  2,076

  4,096

  Trinity

  Tamworth

  5,315

  5,892

  6,297

  Wilnecote

  Tamworth

  3,962

  4,183

  5,274

  Sutton Coldfield

  Sutton Four Oaks

  Birmingham

  7,033

  5,950

  5,430

  Sutton New Hall

  Birmingham

  4,991

  3,972

  4,148

  Sutton Vesey

  Birmingham

  6,626

  5,535

  5,028

  627W

  Constituency/ward

  LA name

  Rank of health domain

  Rank of education domain

  Rank of housing domain

  Rank of access domain

  Sutton Coldfield

  Sutton Four Oaks

  Birmingham

  5,406

  7,891

  8,117

  3,570

  Sutton New Hall

  Birmingham

  3,992

  6,598

  4,870

  4,791

  Sutton Vesey

  Birmingham

  5,178

  6,885

  7,113

  4,550

  Empty Homes
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister which Government Departments and agencies have(a) adopted and (b) not adopted the revised guidance on securing the better use of empty homes published by the DETR in 1999; and if he will make a statement. [83814]

  Mr. McNulty
  The information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. All relevant departments and agencies were consulted in drawing up the guidance and should follow the good practice procedures it sets out. We announced in our response to the Transport, Local Government and Regions Select Committee report on Empty Homes that we intend to issue strengthened guidance to take account of latest best practice. The guidance will be published in the new year.

  Empty Properties
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many empty properties there were in England and Wales in each year since January 1997 in each local authority area [83413]

  Mr. McNulty
  Information relating to the number of empty properties in each local authority in England for each year from 1 April 1997 to 1 April 2001 (latest data available) has been placed in the House Library. For information on properties in Wales I refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales

  Fire Service
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what groups in the Fire Service are disadvantaged by current shift arrangements [83257]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Research1 commissioned by the Government found that the difficulty of balancing home life with Fire Service hours and shift requirements is a potential barrier to the recruitment of women and single parents, and within communities with strong family ties.

  1 Home Office Fire Research and Development Group Research Reports 4/1999, 2/2000, 3/2000 and 4/2000, copies of which can be found in the House Library

  Fire Service (Modernisation)
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he
  will list the components that make up the modernisation programme for the Fire Service; and what anticipated pay uplift percentages would be awarded to each achieved component of the modernisation programme. [84488]
  628W
  Mr. Raynsford
  The Government have established the Independent Review of the Fire Service, under Sir George Bain, to examine modernisation and pay in the Fire Service. In its Position Paper, issued on 11 November 2002, the Independent Review recommended that above-inflation pay increases should only be paid if accompanied by modernisation. Modernisation includes:full-time firefighters working in the same crew as retained (part-time) firefighters;
  ending the ban on overtime;
  allowing management to change, where necessary, the rigid shift system of two days on, two nights on, then four days off in order to provide a better service;
  giving firefighters some medical training as paramedics, and allowing them to carry resuscitation equipment such as defibrillators;
  the Fire Service sharing control rooms between brigades and with other emergency services, to provide a more efficient response; and
  taking action to improve the management of sickness in the Fire Service to reduce the high numbers who retire early through sickness and ill-health

  The full Position Paper is available at: www.irfs.org.uk/docs/positionpaper/index.htm and a copy has been placed in the House Libraries

  It is for the local government employers and the FBU to negotiate the level of pay in the Fire Service. The Government have made it clear that anything over and above the four per cent, offered to firefighters must be paid for by modernisation.

  Fire Services (CBRN)
  David Davis
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister
  whether his Department's bid to the Capital Modernisation Fund for money for extra equipment and training for firefighters for a CBRN emergency has been successful [82390]

  Mr. Leslie
  £43 million is being provided from the Capital Modernisation Fund for mass decontamination facilities, including personal protective equipment for firefighters and associated set-up costs, such as initial training for the Fire Service in England and Wales.

  David Davis
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much additional funding has been granted to each fire authority since 11 September 2001 for(a) CBRN training, (b) protection equipment and (c) additional search and rescue equipment [82391]

  Mr. Leslie
  The additional funding for CBRN related equipment and activities will not be distributed to individual fire authorities but administered centrally by the Government. The project will be overseen by the New Dimension Group, comprising all the main fire service stakeholders. Fire authorities have been
  629W
  involved in the establishment of regional planning teams, the specification and order of equipment and the specification of training. CBRN training and personal protective equipment represent £7.63 million and £6.3 million respectively of the funds from the Capital Modernisation Fund. A considerable amount of work is being undertaken in partnership with the stakeholders to assess operational and resource requirements for search and rescue facilities.

  Firefighters' Dispute
  Andrew Selous
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what his policy is on who will pay for a settlement of the firefighters' pay dispute above four per cent [84214]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Any pay award, not affordable within existing public expenditure, must be paid for by modernisation.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what advice Army officers have given to his Department regarding crossing Fire Brigades Union picket lines to use fire fighting equipment. [83197]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has neither sought nor received any advice from Army officers regarding crossing Fire Brigades Union picket lines. The military have already been given access to all the fire engines they have asked for, with an initial tranche of 27 red engines made available on the 15 November. It is expected that up to 100 will be made available from local authority reserves during the next few days.

  Grants
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list the grants funded by his Department for which individual members of the public and organisations may apply; and if he will make a statement as to(a) the total of such funding in the last financial year, (b) the total number of awards and (c) their administrative costs [82195]

  Mr. Leslie
  Grant programmes funded by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister for which the public or organisations may apply are listed below, together with the total expenditure outturn for 2001–02.

  £000

  New deal for communities

  85,288

  Community chest

  6,918

  Special grants programme

  1,731

  List of all large scale voluntary transfers which have taken place since 1997

  Date of transfer

  Authority

  Number of households

  Annual total

  28 February 1997

  Cotswold DC

  4,282

  7 March 1997

  South Staffs C

  5,273

  19 March 1997

  Lichfield DC

  4,921

  7 July 1997

  South Oxfordshire DC

  5,018

  22 September 1997

  Eden C

  1,510

  21,004

  5 January 1998

  LB Lambeth1 Moorlands

  515

  9 February 1998

  LB Bexley

  4,118

  630W

  £000

  Tenant participation grant

  3,845

  Rough sleepers

  41,833

  In addition funding from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister supports some grants payable by local authorities and some grants payable by the Housing Corporation (the latter mostly to registered social landlords).

  The number of awards made under each programme is not held centrally and could only be provided at disproportionate cost. Many of these grant schemes are administered by intermediaries, such as local partnerships, or voluntary bodies, who are responsible for specific grant allocations.

  The administration of grant programmes is carried out by a number of different units within the Office and Government Offices to which a range of staff make a contribution. It is not possible to provide an accurate estimate of these costs centrally. A small proportion of the totals given above may relate to the administration costs of bodies such as partnerships managing programmes.

  Housing Market Initiative
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what criteria were set governing the allocation of pilot projects to given areas under the Housing Market Renewal Fund initiative. [83875]

  Mr. McNulty
  The areas invited to establish low demand pathfinder projects were identified in two ways. First, we analysed data from the statistical returns compiled by local authorities as part of the Housing Investment Programme and, where available, local housing market studies undertaken by the Centre for Urban and Regional Studies (Birmingham University). Second, we looked at the scale of the low demand problem across housing markets, rather than individual local authorities. We sought to identify the most acute problems of low demand in terms of scale and intensity of the problem.

  Local Authority Housing
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many Council households have been transferred under stock transfer in each local authority area, in each year since 1997 [83406]

  Mr. McNulty
  The table lists those local authorities that have undertaken large-scale voluntary transfers since 1997 and the number of Council households in each transfer.
  631W

  List of all large scale voluntary transfers which have taken place since 1997

  Date of transfer

  Authority

  Number of households

  Annual total

  9 February 1998

  LB Bexley

  4,097

  2 March 1998

  Congleton BC

  4,061

  9 March 1998

  Oldham BC1 Limehurst

  642

  19 March 1998

  Liverpool CC1 Windermere

  493

  23 March 1998

  LB Merton1 Pollards Hill

  1,018

  23 March 1998

  LB Tower Hamlets1 Poplar II

  1,852

  23 March 1998

  Kerrier DC

  3,732

  30 March 1998

  LB Hackney1 Kingsmead

  951

  30 March 1998

  LB Brent1 Fortunegate/Church End

  1,481

  30 March 1998

  Basildon DC1 Vange

  708

  30 March 1998

  West Somerset DC

  1,869

  31 March 1998

  Stoke-on-Trent CC1 Bentilee

  917

  27 April 1998

  Tewkesbury BC

  3,066

  1 May 1998

  Rother DC

  3,058

  20 July 1998

  LB Lambeth1 Lansdowne Green

  681

  7 December 1998

  LB Tower Hamlets1 Poplar II

  2,431

  25 January 1999

  Wirral1 Leasowe

  1,082

  35,690

  1 February 1999

  Tameside1 Westashton

  901

  22 February 1999

  West Devon BC

  1,446

  1 March 1999

  South Somerset DC

  8,883

  1 March 1999

  East Lindsey DC

  5,102

  5 March 1999

  Liverpool CC Pinehurst

  646

  8 March 1999

  Manchester CC

  1,030

  15 March 1999

  LB Hackney1 Morningside

  1,084

  22 March 1999

  South Hams District Council

  3,096

  17 March 1999

  LB Hammersmith and Fulham1 Old Oak

  668

  22 March 1999

  LB Hackney1 Upper Clapton

  1,000

  25 March 1999

  Telford and Wrekin C

  13,081

  29 March 1999

  LB Enfield

  1,194

  29 March 1999

  Worthing BC

  2,525

  29 March 1999

  Bath and North East Somerset C

  9,887

  29 March 1999

  Manchester CC East Wythenshawe

  6,667

  29 March 1999

  LB Greenwich 1 Charlton Triangle

  1,280

  29 March 1999

  LB Hackney1 Haggerston

  661

  31 March 1999

  Allerdale BC

  3,704

  31 March 1999

  Allerdale BC Saiterbeck

  727

  14 June 1999

  Preston BC1 Avenham

  1,121

  5 July 1999

  LB Lambeth1 Central Stockwell

  2,358

  21 June 1999

  Birmingham CC Central Areas

  2,813

  26 September 1999

  LB Islington1 Barnsbury

  647

  26 September 1999

  LB Islington' 10 Estates

  739

  4 October 1999

  Liverpool CC Speke Garston

  4,382

  18 October 1999

  West Lindsey DC

  3,929

  25 October 1999

  LB Lambeth1 St. Martins

  1,033

  29 November 1999

  Boston BC

  4,871

  20 December 1999

  Tynedale DC

  3,564

  89,039

  31 January 2000

  Newcastle under Lyme BC

  9,887

  7 February 2000

  Restormel BC

  3,577

  14 February 2000

  Manchester CC (Colshaw Farm)

  600

  21 February 2000

  North Devon DC

  3,293

  6 March 2000

  LB Hackney1 Stamford Hill

  1,095

  6 March 2000

  LB Hackney1 Pembury Estate

  1,241

  8 March 2000

  Burnley BC

  5,330

  20 March 2000

  Manchester CC Sale Estate

  1,655

  20 March 2000

  Weymouth and Portland C

  3,105

  20 March 2000

  Huntingdon DC

  6,650

  27 March 2000

  Elmbridge BC

  4,894

  27 March 2000

  Test Valley BC

  5,495

  27 March 2000

  Wyre Forest DC

  6,056

  27 March 2000

  Manchester CC Whitefield Estate

  1,033

  27 March 2000

  LB Tower Hamlets1 THCH

  1,551

  27 March 2000

  Tameside

  8,532

  MBC

  7,934

  17 July 2000

  LB Richmond

  7,139

  22 September 2000

  Coventry CC

  20,125

  2 October 2000

  Fylde BC

  1,905

  27 November 2000

  Chester CC

  7,096

  11 December 2000

  Horsham DC

  4,650

  112,843

  12 February 2001

  LB Tower Hamlets

  196

  19 February 2001

  East Northamptonshire DC

  3,495

  19 February 2001

  Torbay C

  2,947

  23 February 2001

  Staffordshire Moorlands DC

  3,132

  632W 633W

  List of all large scale voluntary transfers which have taken place since 1997

  Date of transfer

  Authority

  Number of households

  Annual total

  6 March 2001

  Calderdale MBC

  12,759

  13 March 2001

  Chichester DC

  5,321

  19 March 2001

  Mendip DC

  4,326

  26 March 2001

  West Wiltshire DC

  3,284

  26 March 2001

  West Oxfordshire DC

  3,643

  26 March 2001

  East Staffordshire BC

  5,637

  26 March 2001

  Manchester CC Handforth Estate

  659

  26 March 2001

  Sunderland CC

  36,356

  28 March 2001

  Blackburn with Darwen BC

  9,886

  1 October 2001

  Shrewsbury and Atcham BC

  5,500

  5 November 2001

  Mid-Bedfordshire DC

  3,084

  100,225

  4 March 2002

  Derbyshire Dales

  3,287

  11 March 2002

  Chelmsford BC

  6,902

  18 March 2002

  East Hertfordshire

  2,687

  DC

  3,237

  25 March 2002

  Erewash BC

  5,847

  25 March 2002

  Reigate and Banstead BC

  4,846

  24 June 2002

  St. Edmundsbury

  5,947

  1 July 2002

  Vale Royal BC

  6,813

  1 July 2002

  St. Helens MBC

  14,632

  15 July 2002

  Redcar and Cleveland BC

  11,625

  15 July 2002

  Knowsley MBC

  17,090

  30 September 2002

  LB Waltham Forest

  2,574

  14 October 2002

  LB Hackney CC Sheltered Stock

  954

  14 October 2002

  LB Harrow

  518

  86,959

  Total number of dwellings that have been transferred since 1997

  445,760

  1 Indicated the transfer was an Estates Renewal Challenge Fund scheme

  Note:

  We have interpreted Mr. Pickles' question to mean Large Scale Voluntary Transfers. These are transfers by a single local authority of 500 or more households to a single landlord within any five-year period.

  Local Authority Performance
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the means by which scores for(a) OFSTED,(b) SSI and (c) other inspections are aggregated in the Comprehensive Performance Assessment process; and what criteria must be met for a local authority to achieve each CPA Grade. [83590]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Audit Commission are responsible for the methodology used in the Comprehensive Performance Assessment (CPA) of local authorities. Full details are available in the Audit Commission's publication, "Final Framework for CPA for Single Tier and County Councils", and on their website at www.audit-commission.gov.uk with a summary in Annex A, which has been placed in the Library.

  In practice, OFSTED, SSI and other inspection scores are translated into a 1 to 4 scale, multiplied by the appropriate weighting, and added together to produce an overall performance score. Councils are allocated to a CPA category on the basis of their overall performance score and their corporate assessment score, together with the application of various rules that, for example, mean that a council must achieve a level of performance in key services to be 'excellent' or 'good'.

  May 2002

  June 2002

  July/August 2002

  September 2002

  Barnsley MBC

  Coventry CC

  Bracknell Forest BC

  Bath and North East Somerset

  Bedfordshire CC

  Devon CC

  Buckinghamshire CC

  Birmingham City

  Bournemouth BC

  East Sussex CC

  Bury MBC

  Blackburn with Darwen BC

  Brighton and Hove City

  Essex CC

  Cambridgeshire CC

  Blackpool BC

  634W
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list the dates of(a) CPA inspections of each local authority and (b) other inspections which contribute to the CPA process. [83591]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The dates on which Corporate Assessments were carried out for English county, metropolitan and unitary councils and London boroughs, are tabled below. Other inspection work contributing to the overall performance score for each authority is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Annex —Comprehensive Performance Assessment List of Phases for Single Tier and County Councils

  The corporate assessments for the 10 pathfinder councils took place in April 2002:

  Bolton MBC

  LB of Camden

  LB of Havering

  Hertfordshire CC

  Kent CC

  Leeds MBC

  Borough of Telford and Wrekin

  Wigan MBC

  Wiltshire CC

  RB of Windsor and Maidenhead

  635W

  May 2002

  June 2002

  July/August 2002

  September 2002

  Cheshire CC

  Halton BC

  City of York

  Bristol City

  Derbyshire CC

  Isles of Scilly

  Corporation of London

  City of Bradford

  Dorset CC

  Knowsley MBC

  Cumbria CC

  Calderdale MBC

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  LB of Bexley

  Derby City

  Cornwall CC

  Gateshead MBC

  LB of Bromley

  Dudley MBC

  Darlington BC

  Hampshire CC

  LB of Greenwich

  Durham CC

  Doncaster MBC

  Kirklees MBC

  LB of Hammersmith and Fulham

  Isle of Wight

  Hartlepool BC

  LB of Barking and Dagenham

  LB of Haringey

  Kingston upon Hull

  Herefordshire CC

  LB of Kensington and Chelsea

  LB of Islington

  LB of Brent

  Lancashire CC

  LB of Lewisham

  LB of Richmond upon Thames

  LB of Baling

  LB of Barnet

  LB of Newham

  LB of Southwark

  LB of Harrow

  LB of Croydon

  LB of Sutton

  Leicester City

  LB of Lambeth

  LB of Enfield

  Norfolk CC

  Leicestershire CC

  LB of Redbridge

  LB of Hackney

  Northamptonshire CC

  Luton BC

  LB of Tower Hamlets

  LB of Hillingdon

  Nottinghamshire CC

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne City

  Lincolnshire CC

  LB of Hounslow

  Oxfordshire CC

  North Yorkshire CC

  Liverpool City

  LB of Merton

  Peterborough City

  Rotheram MBC

  North Lincolnshire

  LB of Waltham Forest

  Poole BC

  Sandwell MBC

  North Somerset

  LB of Wandsworth

  Sefton MBC

  Slough BC

  North Tyneside MBC

  Manchester City

  Staffordshire CC

  St.Helens MBC

  Oldham MBC

  Milton Keynes

  West Sussex CC

  Surrey BC

  Portsmouth City

  North East Lincolnshire

  Wirral MBC

  Tameside MBC

  RB of Kingston upon Thames

  Northumberland CC

  Wokingham

  Trafford MBC

  Reading BC

  Nottingham City

  Worcestershire CC

  Wakefield City

  Redcar and Cleveland BC

  Plymouth City

  Rochdale MBC

  Salford City

  Rutland CC

  Sheffield City

  Somerset CC

  Shropshire CC

  South Gloucestershire

  Solihull MBC

  Stockport MBC

  South Tyneside MBC

  Stockton-on-Tees BC

  Southampton City

  Stoke-on-Trent City

  Southend-on-Sea BC

  Swindon BC

  Suffolk CC

  Warrington BC

  Sunderland City

  West Berkshire

  Thurrock BC

  Wolverhampton City

  Torbay

  Walsall MBC

  Warwickshire CC

  Westminster City

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what(a)i qualifications are required and(b) criteria are adopted for selection of members of CPA inspection teams. [83592]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The composition and recruitment of CPA inspection teams is a matter for the Audit Commission. However, I understand that the teams that conducted the corporate assessment element of CPA were made up of: a team leadereither a senior Audit Commission inspector or auditor; an Audit Commission inspector; an appointed auditor; a peer councillor; and a peer officer.

  Peer Councillors and officers were appointed with the help of the Local Government Association and the Improvement and Development Agency. Team members were all senior staff with the relevant skills and experience.

  Local Government Bill
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether he plans that each order laid before the House under Clause 97 of the Local Government Bill relating to charging and trading will(a) contain aprovision for the Secretary of State to revoke such anorder and (b) specify the circumstances for such a revocation. [84424]
  636W
  Mr. Leslie
  Clause 97 confers powers enabling my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister by order, to amend, repeal, revoke or disapply the application of any order, to amend, repeal, revoke or disapply the application of any enactment that restricts a best value authority's ability to charge for the provision of a discretionary service or carrying out trading in its functions. By virtue of provisions contained in the "Interpretation Act 1978," it is unnecessary for the order itself to make express provision as to its revocation. Having made an order under clause 97 for the purpose of revoking an enactment which restricts charging or trading, we would not expect to make a further order revoking that initial order.

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister under clause 99 of the Local Government Bill relating to the Audit Commission assessment of English Local Authorities Performance, whether the Audit Commission will be free to set its own criteria; and what appeal mechanism there will be against a particular assessment. [84425]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The clause requires the Audit Commission to provide a report on local authorities' performance and to categorise individual authorities. The Commission will be responsible for all decisions on such a report and the categorisations.
  637W
  The Commission have set out their disputes procedure in the publication "Quality Assurance Procedures and Dispute Resolution for Single Tier and County Councils". Full details are available on the Audit Commission's website at www.audit-commission. gov.uk.

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what safeguards there will be to stop trade distortion and unfair competition in the proposed new powers to allow local authorities to trade; and how full cost recovery will be included in the pricing of services or goods traded. [84426]

  Mr. Leslie
  The power to trade conferred by the provisions is only exercisable through a company within the meaning of Part V of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. The Competition Act 1998 and the Companies Act 1985 will apply in the normal way to these operations. The new trading powers will therefore be subject to the same regulation as other commercial bodies. This will help ensure a level playing field with private sector competitors.

  Clause 97 provides for my right hon. Friend, the Deputy Prime Minister to make an Order enabling best value authorities to trade in any of their ordinary functions. Trading is expected to take place on a commercial basis, that is, charges fixed at more than cost recovery. We expect to issue guidance on the ways in which local authorities may use the powers, aspects of competition law that authorities will need to take into account and how to avoid distortion of markets.

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what reason underlies his policy on the abolition of the statutory safeguards relating to local authorities powers to borrow in relation to charging and trading. [84427]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Local Government Bill makes provision to allow local authorities to borrow for capital expenditure without Government consent, where they can service the debt from their revenues. This freedom would be subject to safeguards for national and local taxpayers. Any borrowing by an authority relating to services where it is exercising its powers to charge or to trade would therefore be subject to these rules.

  Local Government (Anti-fraud Practices)
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister pursuant to the answer given to the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham on 25 November 2002,Official Report, column 119W, what action he is taking to encourage local authorities who do not have an anti-fraud and corruption strategy to implement one. [84766]

  Mr. Leslie
  A high proportion of fraud perpetrated against local authorities is benefit fraud. One of the Government's current best value performance indicators for local authorities requires authorities to state whether they have a strategy for combating such fraud. The Benefit Fraud Inspectorate, which is part of the Department for Work and Pensions, reports on benefit administration across both central government agencies and local authorities with particular emphasis on standards of counter fraud and security performance. Auditors appointed by the Audit Commission have a responsibility to review and report on the prevention and 638W
  detection of fraud and corruption in the authority. New Codes of Conduct, which have applied to all local authorities since May 2002, include provisions relating to the proper use of an authority's resources.

  Local Government Finance
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will meet an all party delegation from East Sussex County Council to discuss proposals for the reform of local government funding. [83914]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will shortly be consulting on the Government's proposals for the funding of local authorities revenue expenditure in 2003–04. It would probably be impossible to arrange a meeting with every individual authority which would ideally like one. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has therefore suggested to authorities that it would be helpful if they could make any representations as part of broader delegations, for example on the basis of special interest groups. If particular authorities judge that their case cannot be made effectively in this way, requests for individual meetings will be considered.

  Local Government Reorganisation
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the cost was of each local government reorganisation since 1972. [83903]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Following the 1972 reorganisation, a number of unitary authorities were established in England during the 1990's. The information requested on these reorganisations is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Nevertheless supplementary credit approvals (SCAs) were given to authorities affected by reorganisation to enable them to borrow money to meet the one off indirect costs of reorganisation. The SCAs to all reorganised authorities in England totalled £492.3million.

  New Homes
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many(a) new home (i) starts and (ii) completions and(b) demolitions there were in each quarter from 1996 to the most recent available date in the City of Newcastle upon Tyne. [84224]

  Mr. McNulty
  The number of new dwellings started and completed in the City of Newcastle upon Tyne is shown in the following table. Available information on demolitions is that the local authority reported 612 dwellings demolished in the financial year 2001–02.

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  New dwellings

  Year/quarter

  Starts

  Completions

  1996

  1

  65

  81

  2

  68

  75

  3

  35

  81

  4

  103

  90

  1997

  1

  40

  29

  2

  125

  52

  639W

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  New dwellings

  Year/quarter

  Starts

  Completions

  3

  55

  20

  4

  77

  53

  1998

  1

  105

  80

  2

  57

  95

  3

  74

  135

  4

  83

  36

  1999

  1

  32

  56

  2

  76

  96

  3

  88

  60

  4

  116

  122

  2000

  1

  209

  93

  2

  149

  103

  3

  111

  87

  4

  181

  189

  2001

  1

  124

  69

  2

  122

  129

  3

  143

  87

  4

  138

  109

  2002

  1

  231

  139

  2

  87

  68

  Public Service Agreements
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list the local PSA targets for each local authority that has entered into a local PSA agreement for(a) 2001–2 and (b) 2002–03. [84909]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The targets are contained in the agreements, copies of which have been placed in the Library. The targets are also summarised for each authority on the Local PSA web site. The address of this web site is: http://www.local-regions.odpm.gov.uk/lpsa/index.htm.

  Regional Government
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what funding or authorisation for spending will be provided for yes and no campaigns in regions which decide to hold a referendum on regional assemblies. [83441]

  Mr. Raynsford
  This is a matter for the Electoral Commission under the provisions of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (sections 108–110 and schedule 12). The Government will not fund any "yes" or "no" campaigns.

  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister which national bodies accountable to Government operate on a(a) wholly and (b) partial regional basis; and in each case to which regional government office they report. [83816]
  640W
  Mr. Leslie
  As set out in annex C of the White Paper Your Region, Your Choice (Cm 5511; annexes updated in August 2002), apart from the Government Offices, there can be up to four main types of government presence in a region:central government agencies with local or regional offices (such as the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency);
  national non-departmental public bodies ('quangos') with local or regional offices (such as English Nature or the Prescription Pricing Authority);
  regional non-departmental public bodies (such as the Regional Developmental Agencies);
  local organisations located in a region (such as port authorities).

  An indicative list of the public bodies active in a particular region (the North East in this case) is included in the White Paper annex.

  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many people are employed by the(a) Regional Development Agency and (b) Regional Assembly in Somerset. [83390]

  Mr. Leslie
  In the year to 31 March 2002, the South West England Development Agency employed an average of 197 people, serving the whole of the region. There are approximately 12 staff, based in Taunton, working nearly exclusively in support of the agenda of the South West Regional Assembly. The SWRA secretariat also supports the work of two other regional organisations: the South West Local Government Association and the South West Provincial Employers. Staff work flexibly across all three parts.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what recent evaluations have been undertaken of the effectiveness of the Regional Co-ordination Unit and Government Office network; and if he will make a statement. [84149]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Government Offices contribute to the delivery of the programmes of a number of different Government Departments and these are set out in the Corporate Plan for the Regional Co-ordination Unit and Government Office network. Performance against the Corporate Plan is monitored quarterly and the outcomes reported to sponsor Departments.

  A copy of the Corporate Plan for the network will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Rough Sleepers
  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he next plans to undertake a street count of those living rough in(a) Bristol and (b) Somerset. [83343]

  Mrs. Roche
  Local authorities are responsible for homelessness in their areas and as such also take responsibility for the co-ordination and timing of street counts. It is the policy of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister that in areas where more than 10 people are sleeping rough, a count should take place at least every twelve months. This would apply to any local authority areas in Bristol or Somerset.

  Standard Spending Assessment
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many submissions have been received in the consultation period on the reform of the SSA. [82951]
  641W
  Mr. Raynsford
  The Government received around 55,000 letters from the public relating to the Formula Grant Review, the great majority of these are the result of various campaigns that have been organised. One such campaign was organised by the F40 Group of local authorities, of which Staffordshire is a constituent authority, on education funding and produced approximately 53,000 responses in total.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister do not record the details of the senders of campaign letters as a matter of course. For this reason, and since very many from the F40 campaign are multiple copies of the same letter by the same people to different Ministers, it is not possible to provide a more precise answer, except at disproportionate cost.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is currently taking decisions on the new system to replace SSAs, carefully considering the full range of evidence, pressures and points that have been put to us. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will announce its proposals for the new system to Parliament at the time of the next provisional local government finance settlement, which it expects will be around the beginning of December 2002.

  Supporting People Strategy
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many letters he has received from(a) local authorities, (b) service providers and (c) service users regarding the implementation of the Supporting People strategy. [84765]

  Mr. McNulty
  The implementation of the Supporting People programme has been designed as a participatory process involving representatives from local authorities and service providers as well as prospective service users from an early stage. Forums for communication, including email and telephone help lines, an online discussion area, regular stakeholder meetings and organised conference events are built into the programme development model. As a result the implementation team receives and responds to huge volume of correspondence by letter, email, telephone and other media covering a wide-range of implementation issues. This approach to implementation has proved effective in bringing key-stakeholders into the programme development process but due to the volume of correspondence dealt with and the diverse issues that it covers it is not possible to provide a breakdown of the overall figures in the format requested.

  Sustainability Strategy
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the sustainability strategy is for his Department; and if he will make a statement on how it has changed since the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg. [83497]
  642W
  Mr. Leslie
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister makes a significant contribution to the UK's pursuit of sustainable development through our aim of thriving, inclusive and sustainable communities in all regions. In addition to this, work is under way to assess what mechanisms could be employed to ensure that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister continues to improve its contribution to sustainable development. This work will take on board the outcomes of the Johannesburg Summit.

  Timber
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister for what reason the Office of Government Commerce's Green Public Private Partnerships guide makes no reference to the Government requirement that all timber should be procured from legal and sustainable sources; and if he will require the guide to be amended to reflect Government policy. [82855]

  Mr. Leslie
  The function of the Green Public Private Partnerships guide is to raise awareness of sustainability issues in a PPP context, and to direct project managers towards appropriate sources of advice and practical help.

  Annex A of the guide provides advice on materials, drawing specific attention to the Government's timber policy. Detailed advice on the application of the policy is set out in the key guidance documents that project managers are referred to at paragraph 2.3 of the guide.

  Valuation Tribunal
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the costs will be of setting up the new Valuation Tribunal Service; what the running cost will be each year; and how many employees it will have. [84422]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is establishing the Valuation Tribunal Service (VTS) to provide central direction to Valuation Tribunals (VTs), to help spread best practice, strengthen corporate identity and capacity and improve customer service. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is still working on the details but currently estimates that the set-up costs will be no more than a few hundred thousand pounds, and a similar annual amount for additional running costs. This expenditure will be met from the existing baseline for Valuation Tribunals through savings already achieved through rationalisation of staff and offices plus further savings which will result from the dissolution of the non statutory Valuation Tribunal Management Board and its fora.

  VTs currently employ around 165 staff and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has no plans for that to change except for the recruitment of a small number of HQ staff. Future staffing requirements will be a matter for the VTS to determine. It will want to take into account its workload and the impact of the Non Domestic Rates revaluation in 2005, the Council Tax revaluation in 2007 and other matters relating to the efficient management of the service.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Local Government Reviews (Consultation)
  The Minister for Local Government and the Regions(Mr. Nick Raynsford)
  I am today launching a soundings exercise on the level of interest in each English region (outside London) in holding a referendum about establishing an elected regional assembly. I will be writing to all Members in the English regions outside London about the soundings exercise to invite their views. Copies of the document have also been deposited in the Vote Office for convenience.

  I am also publishing today, for consultation, a draft of the guidance to the Boundary Committee for England on local government reviews.

  Copies of the soundings and consultation papers have been deposited in the House Libraries. They are also available on the ODPM web site. Responses to both the soundings exercise and the consultation on the guidance are requested by 3 March 2003.

  The Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill currently before Parliament enables the Secretary of State, by order, to specify the region (s) to hold a referendum about establishing an elected regional assembly. Before the Secretary of State can order a referendum, the Bill requires that the Boundary Committee for England has been directed to carry out, and has made recommendations arising out of, a local government review of the region. The level of interest in holding a referendum will be a key factor in deciding where a review is to be carried out. So this policy gives people a choice.

  Our proposals for elected regional assemblies will increase democracy, not bureaucracy. In regions where people vote to have an elected assembly we intend to streamline government by moving to a wholly unitary local government structure. Before an order causing a referendum to be held in the region can be made, the Boundary Committee will have conducted a review of local government in the region and made its recommendations for the best unitary structure for those parts of the region that currently have both a county and district council.

DEFENCE

  Afghanistan (International Security Assistance Force)
  The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon)
  We welcome the decision by the United Nations' Security Council on 27 November 2002 to adopt Resolution 1444, extending the authority of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) to deploy for a further twelve months, from 20 December 2002. The extension comes in 60WS
  recognition of the valuable work undertaken by the ISAF in helping to provide a secure environment in Kabul, allowing the Transitional Islamic State of Afghanistan, headed by President Karzai, to pursue the difficult task of rebuilding the country.

  The new Resolution reaffirms the remit of the ISAF as covering Kabul and its immediate environs. The Resolution recognizes that security within Afghanistan is primarily a matter for the Afghans themselves and commends their efforts to establish representative, professional and multi-ethnic security forces.

  Germany and the Netherlands have offered to assume jointly the role of ISAF Lead Nation upon the completion of Turkey's tenure in command. The United Kingdom anticipates remaining a significant contributor to the ISAF. At a Force Generation Conference on 27 November, the United Kingdom offered to provide Staff Officers, an Infantry Company and a Bulk Fuel Installation. Together with their associated support forces, these total over three hundred troops, which is consistent in size with our current deployment.

  Medical Preparedness
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie)
  Smallpox is a deadly and highly contagious disease that could be used as a biological weapon. Currently, we do not assess that there is any immediate threat to our Armed Forces from smallpox. But the consequences of any release of smallpox could be very serious, so we continue to monitor the threat closely, and take precautions.

  We continually review the package of defensive measures against chemical and biological attack available to our armed forces, which includes vaccination. We have decided to offer vaccination against smallpox to a small number of specialist military personnel who face a greater risk of exposure to smallpox by virtue of their specialisation. This will include those NBC specialists and specialist medical personnel who would form the spearhead of our defensive response, including vaccination teams, in the event of a confirmed, suspected or threatened release of smallpox. The Department of Health, with whom we are working closely, is planning to vaccinate a similar cohort of healthcare professionals.

  As with other vaccines, vaccination against smallpox will be voluntary and on the basis of informed consent.

  This work has been taken forward under the cross-Governmental Civil Contingency machinery for which the Home Secretary has overall responsibility.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Council of the European Union
  The Minister for Europe (Mr. Denis MacShane)

  DECEMBER

  2—Brussels—Meeting on Macro Economic Dialogue (Ministerial Troika)

  3—Brussels—ECOFIN

  2–3—Brussels—Employment, Social Policy, Health & Consumer Affairs Council

  61WS

  4— Brussels—Meeting of the Presidium

  5–6—Brussels—Transport, Telecom & Energy Council

  9—Brussels—General Affairs Council

  9–10—Brussels—Environment Council

  12–13—Copenhagen—European Council

  16–19—Brussels—Agricultural & Fisheries Council

  19—Brussels—Meeting of the Presidium

  20—Brussels—Justice & Home Affairs & Civil Protection Council

  20–21—Brussels—Convention Plenary—External Action & Defence Working Group Conclusions

  Date

  Location

  Event

  JANUARY

  9

  Brussels

  Meeting of the Praesidium

  9

  Brussels

  Agriculture & Fisheries Council (to be confirmed)

  16

  Brussels

  Meeting of the Praesidium

  20

  Brussels

  EUROGOUP (evening)

  20

  Brussels

  Convention Plenary

  20–21

  Brussels

  Agriculture & Fisheries Council

  21

  Brussels

  ECOFIN

  24

  Nafplion

  Employment Council (Ministerial Informal)

  27–28

  Brussels

  General Affairs & External Relations Council

  28

  Brussels

  EU-ASEAN Ministerial

  30

  Brussels

  Meeting of the Praesidium

  FEBRUARY

  5

  Brussels

  Meeting of the Praesidium

  6–7

  Brussels

  Convention Plenary

  10–11

  Brussels

  AGRICULTURE & FISHERIES Council (to be confirmed)

  13

  Brussels

  Meeting of the Praesidium

  17

  Brussels

  EUROGROUP (evening)

  18

  Brussels

  ECOFIN

  20

  Brussels

  EDUCATION, YOUTH & CULTURE Council (to be confirmed)

  22

  Thessaloniki

  Energy Council (Ministerial Informal)

  24–25

  Brussels

  General Affairs & External Relations Council Agriculture & Fisheries

  26

  Brussels

  Meeting of the Praesidium

  27–28

  Brussels

  Convention Plenary

  27–28

  Brussels

  Justice & Home Affairs Council

  28

  Brussels

  Employment, Social Policy, Health & Consumer Affairs Council

  MARCH

  1–2

  Ioannina

  Informal Education

  3

  Brussels

  Competitiveness Council

  4

  Brussels

  Environment Council

  6

  Brussels

  Meeting of the Praesidium

  6

  Luxembourg

  Employment, Social Policy, Health & Consumer Affairs Council

  6

  Luxembourg

  EUROGROUP (evening)

  7

  Luxembourg

  ECOFIN

  7

  Luxembourg

  Transport, Telecom & Energy Council

  13

  Brussels

  Meeting of the Praesidium

  14–15

  Athens

  (Informal Defence Meeting)

  17–18

  Brussels

  Convention Plenary

  17–18

  Luxembourg

  Agriculture & Fisheries Council

  18–19

  Luxembourg

  General Affairs & External Relations Council

  21

  Brussels

  European Council

  27

  Brussels

  Meeting of the Praesidium

  27

  Veria

  Justice and Home Affairs Council (Ministerial Informal)

  27–28

  Luxembourg

  Transport, Telecom & Energy Council

  62WS

  Date

  Location Athens

  Event

  27–28

  Athens

  EU-Rio Group, EU-MERCOSUR

  28–29

  Veria

  Informal Justice & Home Affairs (Veria)

  31

  Brussels

  Agriculture & Fisheries council (to be confirmed)

  APRIL

  2

  Brussels

  Meeting of the Praesidium

  3–4

  Brussels

  Convention Plenary

  4

  Brussels

  Justice & Home Affairs

  4–6

  Hania (Crete)

  Informal ECOFIN (Ministerial)

  5

  Lisbon

  Europe—Africa Summit

  5

  Ioannina

  Ministerial Meeting on Education (Informal)

  10

  Brussels

  Meeting of the Praesidium

  11–13

  Chania

  ECOFIN (Informal)

  14

  Brussels

  General Affairs & External Relations

  14

  Brussels

  Agriculture & Fisheries

  16

  Athens

  European Conference

  16

  Athens

  Signature Of The Accession (Provisional Date)

  23

  Brussels

  Meeting of the Praesidium

  24–25

  Brussels

  Convention Plenary

  MAY

  2–4

  (Greece)

  Gymnich (Informal Foreign Ministers)

  5

  Athens

  Informal Environment (Ministerial)

  5–6

  Brussels

  Education, Youth & Culture Council (to be confirmed)

  8

  Brussels

  Meeting of the Praesidium

  12–13

  Corfu

  Agriculture (Ministerial Informal)

  12–13

  Brussels

  Competitiveness

  12

  Brussels

  EUROGROUP

  13

  Brussels

  ECOFIN

  14

  Brussels

  Meeting of the Praesidium

  14

  Brussels

  Transport, Telecom & Energy Council

  15–16

  Brussels

  Convention Plenary

  16

  Brussels

  EU—ACP Ministerial

  16–17

  Halkidiki

  Informal Regional Policy (Ministerial)

  16–18

  Cruise off Greece

  Informal Transport & Merchant Marine (Ministerial)

  17

  Brussels

  EU—W. Balkans (Zagreb Process)

  19

  Brussels

  General Affairs & External Relations (+ Defence)

  20

  Brussels

  General Affairs & External Relations

  22

  Brussels

  Meeting of the Praesidium

  24

  Thessaloniki

  Informal Culture (Ministerial)

  26–27

  Brussels

  Agriculture & Fisheries Council

  26–27

  Athens

  EUROMED Conference (Mid Term Ministerial)

  27

  Brussels

  Environment Council

  28

  Brussels

  Meeting of the Praesidium

  30–31

  Brussels

  Convention Plenary

  31

  St. Petersburg

  EU—Russia Summit

  JUNE

  2

  Brussels

  EUROGROUP

  2–3

  Alexandroupoli

  Development Co-operation (Ministerial Informal)

  2–3

  Brussels

  Transport, Telecom & Energy

  a

  Council

  3

  Brussels

  ECOFIN

  4

  Brussels

  Meeting of the Presidium

  5–6

  Brussels

  Convention Pleanry

  5–6

  Brussels

  Justice & Home Affairs Council

  5–6

  Brussels

  Employment, Social Policy, Health & Consumer Affairs Council

  11

  Brussels

  Meeting of the Presidium

  11–12

  Brussels

  Agriculture & Fisheries Council

  12–13

  Brussels

  Convention Plenary

  63WS

  Date

  Location

  Event

  17–18

  Brussels

  General Affairs & External Relations

  20–21

  Thessaloniki

  European Council

  22

  Brussels

  General Affairs & External Relations

  24

  Brussels

  Employment, Social Policy, Health & Consumer Affairs Council

  Iraq (Human Rights)
  The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw)
  Today I am publishing a report on human rights abuses in Iraq. It is based on intelligence material, first hand accounts of Iraqi victims of torture and oppression, and reports amassed by NGOs over the past decade. The report examines Iraq's record on torture, the treatment of women, prison conditions, arbitrary and summary killings, the persecution of the Kurds and Shia, the harassment of opposition figures outside Iraq and the occupation of Kuwait.

  The Iraqi regime's contempt for international law and its attachment to weapons of mass destruction were documented in the government's dossier published on 24 September. Its dreadful human rights record is widely known. But I consider it important that Parliament and the public should have accurate information about the awful reality of Saddam Hussein's policy of regime terror, which sustains his rule inside Iraq

HEALTH

  Contingency Planning
  The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Mutton)
  Since the tragic events of September 11th, the Department of Health has strengthened its plans against any deliberate release of biological agents, including smallpox. We have no evidence of a specific threat of a smallpox attack on the UK. However, it is sensible and prudent to ensure that the NHS can deal effectively with any potential threat.

  There are three components to the Department's preparation for response to a possible smallpox emergency: improved vaccine stocks, a plan of action and a cohort of immunised staff who could deal safely with any potential smallpox cases.

  We have already taken action to substantially increase our stocks of smallpox vaccine and we have recently begun a second procurement to add to these stocks.

  The Department of Health is today publishing an interim plan of action for discussion and comment over the coming month. Under this plan, it is intended to establish 12 Regional Smallpox Response Groups around the UK. They will consist of Infectious disease physicians and paediatricians, public health physicians, microbiologists/ virologists, acute care and communicable disease control nurses and occupational health staff.
  64WS
  This core group of NHS staff will need to be immune to smallpox and therefore able to react quickly and work safely with patients with actual or suspected smallpox. Preparations for the vaccination of these key workers is now underway. I expect these vaccinations to be completed by the end of next month. It is intended to vaccinate around 350 health care staff across the UK. This will be on an entirely voluntary basis with informed consent. The Ministry of Defence, with whom we are working closely, is planning to vaccinate a similar cohort of specialist military personnel.

  The Plan also explains how smallpox cases would be handled in various scenarios. The Department of Health's primary strategy would be to contain and 'ring vaccinate' around any outbreak. The teams of vaccinated health care staff are central to delivering this strategy.

  These plans are a practical precaution designed to ensure the UK is prepared for any possible smallpox emergency. They are in line with World Health Organisation advice and will be kept under active review.

  Similar interim plans are being prepared for publication by the Devolved Administrations. This work has been taken forward under the cross-Governmental Civil Contingency machinery for which the Home Secretary has overall responsibility.

  National Health Service Pay Modernisation
  The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton)
  I am pleased to be able to announce that on 28 November negotiators representing the UK Health Departments, NHS employers and NHS trades unions successfully concluded negotiations on a new pay system for NHS staff (with the exception of those within the remit of the Doctors and Dentists Review Body and the most senior managers). It represents the most radical transformation of the NHS pay system since the foundation of the service in 1948. The proposed new system will now go out for consultation with organisations representing NHS staff.

  Over the three year period from 2003–04 to 2005–06 the overall package will mean an average increase of 12.5 per cent in basic pay for NHS staff. It will give a 10 per cent pay increase over three years for all staff, plus an average 5.9 per cent in the longer run linked to modernisation.

  The proposed new pay system will be based on a new system of job evaluation. This means that the basic pay that NHS staff receive will reflect the knowledge, responsibility, skills and effort required in their job, rather than their historic job title or occupational group. To progress fully in the new pay system, staff will need to demonstrate a level of applied skills and knowledge appropriate to their level of responsibility.

  The new system will also introduce clearer rewards for staff who work flexibly outside traditional working hours. It will give extra flexibilities for local NHS employers to create new types of jobs and to make extra payments to reflect recruitment and retention pressures. Instead of almost 650 different staff grades and thousands of different allowances, there will be a simple

  65WS
  set of core terms and conditions based on 8 pay bands, including simple, harmonised arrangements for working hours and annual leave.

  The new system is designed to ensure fair pay for staff, based on the principle of equal pay for work of equal value, and a clearer system of career progression. It will also directly support modernisation of patient care. It will provide new opportunities for staff to take on new responsibilities, breaking down old-fashioned demarcations and enabling jobs to be re-designed around the needs of the patient. It will produce a more sensible division of labour, with nurses, therapists and health care assistants taking on new roles that improve NHS productivity and free up more of doctors' and other senior clinicians' time for direct patient care.
  66WS
  Clearer rewards for flexible working will help make NHS services more widely available to patients in the evenings and weekends. Improvements in pay, career and training prospects will help recruit an estimated 10,000 more nurses and other health professionals and an estimated 27,000 health care assistants by 2006–07 in England, particularly in high cost areas such as London. A clearer link between pay and development of knowledge and skills will help deliver higher and more consistent standards of NHS patient care.

  If the new system is approved following consultation, implementation will start in twelve NHS sites in Spring 2003 with full implementation starting in October 2004.

  A summary of the proposed new pay system has been placed in the Library.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Chelmsford.

Identity Cards
Baroness Sharplesasked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress has been made towards introducing a national identity card scheme.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, the Government published a consultation paper on entitlement cards and identity fraud on 3rd July of this year. The consultation period will end on 31st January 2003. We have received over 1,500 letters and e-mails with the majority of respondents who expressed an opinion being in favour of some form of national identity or entitlement card. The introduction of a national entitlement card scheme covering everyone in the country would be a major undertaking. The Government will consider the views expressed very carefully before reaching a decision.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for that reply which, for the first time in eight years, I am actually very happy to receive. Does he agree that there is increasing fraud in this country in every aspect of life? Especially disturbing is the fact that illegal immigrants have been using the identities of 1,000 deceased babies to gain entry to this country.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I agree with those remarks both in relation to identity fraud and the issue of illegal working in this country. As the published consultation document indicated, an entitlement card would be a useful means both of dealing with identity fraud and helping to reduce the amount of illegal working. The paper made it clear that a scheme would not be a complete answer to either of those issues but in certain respects, depending on the scheme, it could help.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, will my noble and learned friend explain to the House how long it might take for an identity card scheme to be introduced if next month the report suggests that that will be so?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, it would take a period of time—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Falconer of Thoroton:—which noble Lords might think is obvious. The consultation document
958
refers to an initial period of three years and a subsequent period of about seven years in which one would have to introduce the appropriate technology, issue everyone with the card and introduce schemes to enable government departments to deal with the matter.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, later today we shall discuss the Crime (International Co-operation) Bill. As part of that exercise of extending co-operation between member states, has the United Kingdom discussed the matter with other countries of the EU?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, there could be a role for an entitlement card in that respect although the detail would obviously have to depend upon negotiations with other countries.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the Minister said that to introduce the measure we are discussing would constitute a major undertaking. However, during wartime it did not seem to take all that long to get identity cards under way. I do not quite understand—perhaps the Minister can explain this—why it constitutes such a major undertaking now.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the measure constitutes a major undertaking because for it to be useful it would have to be universal, it would have to be capable of being used by government departments and it would have to be capable of being used by other organisations that might find it useful. It would take time to introduce a scheme that meets those objectives. The scheme would also need to take advantage of any new technology that might become available, for example, in relation to identity. To suggest that such a scheme could be introduced in a short period of time is to overstate what is achievable.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that every government department appears to have a different identity card at the moment?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I accept that a range of cards are used by individual departments but one of the purposes of the scheme that is outlined in the consultation document is to determine how one introduces a card that would be accepted universally and therefore have real value in providing better services for the system.
Baroness Greengross: My Lords, does the Minister agree that there are at present many partial identity cards? To obtain a very simple permit you have to send in all sorts of original documents which are often lost. The process is cumbersome and difficult. If there could be harmonisation of those cards it would make life much easier as regards travel and a whole range of other aspects of our lives.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, that is very much the case. That is one of the benefits of the

959
universal entitlement card to which the consultation document relates. However, it is important that there be widespread acceptance of it as an entitlement card for it to have the kinds of benefit to which the noble Baroness refers. That may be why it cannot be introduced, as it were, straight away.
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, does my noble and learned friend recognise that there are strong civil libertarian arguments in favour of the introduction of a national identity card? What does my noble and learned friend think of those arguments?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, there are real benefits in civil liberties terms in regard to the introduction of an entitlement card. My noble friend will know, however, that some civil libertarians take a different view. It is worth pointing out that the consultation document makes clear that we are not considering a scheme that will require compulsory carrying of the card. All that we are talking about is a universal entitlement card for which people should perhaps register. We believe that the ability to prove one's identity easily without being compelled to carry a card has real benefits in terms of establishing one's position, sometimes against the state. That is a real benefit.
Lord Howe of Aberavon: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that if he takes account of the average age of noble Lords and the date on which the identity card was abolished, he may still be confident for about a decade ahead of a majority in this House'? Would it not be wise to take advantage of that?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am not clear in what respect I would be taking advantage of that. I have never dared try to calculate the average age of noble Lords. I imagine that that is beyond mathematical calculation. The matter goes back to the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, in that one has to be realistic about the time-scale of the introduction of such a scheme as we are discussing. We all know from previous experience that one should do it in sensible stages so that it works when it is introduced.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: My Lords, does my noble and learned friend the Minister recall that the noble Lord, Lord Woolmer of Leeds, asked a question back in March about the number of national databases held on the average citizen in the UK'? On the eve of the Recess the Government said that they could not answer that question. Will my noble and learned friend indicate whether when the consultative period is concluded the Government will at last be in a position to answer that question and, if not, why not?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I do not recall the question asked in March by my noble friend Lord Woolmer. This is an important issue. I cannot give any undertakings about whether we will be able to answer the question by the end of the period but we shall certainly try.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, when can we expect the decision to which the Minister referred in his Answer'? Will he also say to what extent and how the Government's thinking is being affected by the huge influx of asylum seekers and illegal immigrants?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the consultation period ends on 31st January 2003. We will obviously need a period in which to consider the responses to the consultation and work out the right response. I am afraid that I cannot give any indication of how long after 31st January that will take. On the noble Lord's second question, as I have made clear in relation to a number of questions, the consultation document clearly sets out what the benefits would be of a universal entitlement card, in particular when dealing with illegal working. That connects with the noble Lord's question.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I sat on a European committee with the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, and the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia? We dithered over the decision. Only the Government can decide. Half of the committee was for an identity card and half of the committee was against it. It is no use the Government fiddling around. Will the Minister assure us that he is prepared to make a decision?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I did not realise that the noble Lord had sat on that committee and I did not realise that it had left him so upset about the way in which it had performed or that it had failed to reach a decision. We believe that the right course in relation to entitlement cards is to have a proper debate; that is what we have encouraged. The consultation comes to an end on 31st January 2003. The right thing is for the Government to make a decision in the light of that debate.

London Underground Contracts: Consultancy Costs
2.45 p.m.
Lord Newbyasked Her Majesty's Government:
What has been the cost to date to public funds of the bidding process for the public/private partnerships for the maintenance and renewal of the London Underground system.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I understand from London Transport that it has spent £96.3 million on external consultants for developing

961
the PPP modernisation plans since the Government's announcement on 20th March 1998. This represents less than 1 per cent of the £16 billion investment that will be delivered over the first 15 years of the contracts.
Lord Newby: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer. Is he aware that during the course of the second judicial review on the PPP, the barrister for London Underground, John Howell QC, said that negotiations on the contracts had involved very considerable amounts of money, some £400 million since the beginning of the programme and £100 million since the selection of the preferred bidden;? Will the Minister confirm that the figures quoted by the QC are correct? Will he acknowledge that spending such ridiculously large amounts on contracts that are not yet signed leads many people in London and beyond to believe that this is a fatally flawed project?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not know how the QC reached his figures. I tried very hard to come to a global amount but failed. I gave the Answer in relation to external consultants for London Transport. One could add London Transport staff costs but some of those are not related to the PPP. Much of that amount relates to reorganisation and restructuring. Those costs would have been incurred anyway. There is an argument about whether one should include them. One could also include as part of the contracts the costs incurred by the bidders, which will have to be repaid by the taxpayer in due course. Again, that is normal commercial practice. What should and should not be included is not entirely set. I cannot therefore confirm or deny what the QC is quoted as saying.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, my noble friend told us previously that matters involving PPP or PH are decided not on an off balance sheet basis but in terms of value for money. Would he care to publish figures showing the costs of PPP, including these enormous consultancy fees, in comparison with the proposals from the Mayor of London?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I can certainly give the assurance that the costs of consultancy have been taken into account. When the calculation was made by Ernst & Young, external consultants, the PPP was found to be value for money to the tune of £2 billion.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, does the Minister agree that our experience of the Dome and other enormous projects, some having the potential for massive losses, suggests that expenditure on consultancy fees of less than 1 per cent of the total cost is a pretty good bargain?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Indeed, my Lords; the whole principle behind the PPP is a transfer of risk from the public to the private sector. That transfer of risk involves not only construction costs, as is always
962
the case for work carried out for the public sector by the private sector, but also the maintenance of the infrastructure being created by the initial investment over a period of more than 15 years. The transfer of risk justifies the costs. The noble Lord, Lord Marsh, is entirely right.
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, does the Minister remember saying last week in the debate on the Pre-Budget Report—I believe I have it correctly—that all contingent liabilities above £100,000 are declared in the Red Book? I have been looking for the rail and Tube borrowings to which he referred, which are guaranteed by the Government, but I cannot find them. Can he tell me on what page they appear?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am sorry to say—I wish it were not so—that we have not reached a conclusion on the public/private partnership for London Underground. Therefore, there is no final figure.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, following on what the Minister said, can he indicate when he expects the much-needed investment under the PPP will begin to flow?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, again, I wish that I could. We have virtually reached financial close. We are expecting the state aid approval from the European Commission any day now. Then the outstanding issue will be whether the Mayor chooses to appeal against the European Commission decision on state aid. If so, there will be another substantial delay.

DTI Strategy Unit
2.51 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovilasked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the role of the Department of Trade and Industry's strategy unit; what achievements the unit has to its credit; and what is the total number of its staff and its cost.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, the role of the strategy unit is to measure and assess the country's enterprise and innovation performance, to compare our performance with other countries, to consult our stakeholders and to help develop new policies in areas such as competition policy, enterprise, science and technology, skills and corporate governance. The unit was set up in April by bringing together the department's strategic planning, economic and statistical analysis and communications sections, which consist of 18, 57 and 68 staff respectively. The associated annual staff cost is £5.733 million.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord will forgive me if I say that that Answer

963
does not get us much further. Is he aware that my curiosity drove me to the Civil Service Year Book? To my great surprise I discovered that this gem of a human organisation exists,
"to drive up UK productivity and competitiveness",
and—mark these words—to ensure,
"that this strategy is clearly communicated".
Will the Minister think me rude if I say that his Answer has not contributed to a clear communication on the strategy?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, on the contrary. I thought that in 75 words I did extremely well to cover at least five or six different questions. I hope I was clear. I explained exactly the areas where the unit measures performance, the activities that it undertakes in that respect and how it will help to deliver policy in those areas. I thought the Answer extremely clear and that it conveyed exactly what the unit does.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, perhaps I can help the Minister. Does he recollect that Mr Peter Mandelson, missed by some in what was a short-lived appointment as Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, originated a report detailing the objectives and the benchmarks against which the Department of Trade and Industry would be measured? Can the Minister say when an up-to-date report will be available detailing achievement against such objectives and benchmarks?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the strategy unit has already published the 2002 update of our productivity and competitiveness indicators. In the spring of next year we shall publish both where the resources are allocated within the DTI and the targets for the different parts of the department against which its performance can be measured.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, did the Minister see in The Times today the remarks of Sir Stephen Brown, the chief executive of British Trade International? They appeared under the heading:
"Trade chief says red tape and costs hurt UK".
In the light of the response he has given the House, will the Minister ask the strategy unit to investigate this critical issue which we on this side of the House have been trying to make the Government focus on for some time?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, that is exactly the kind of issue on which it is necessary to have a clear grasp of the facts and figures. The unit can have most impact in exactly that kind of area. On the basis of the extraordinary figures produced in this context by the CBI and the Conservative Party, I would have thought that the strategy unit would be very useful.
Lord Jones: My Lords, does my noble friend know whether the strategy unit ever considers the prospects for Britain's hard-pressed manufacturing industries? Does it ever consider the prospects for the hard-pressed steel industry, particularly in Wales? Is the unit considering any such problems?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, we recently introduced a manufacturing strategy document that considers the impact that the policy areas under the control of the DTI have on manufacturing strategy. We have produced policy proposals for that.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, has the Minister asked the strategy unit to work out how much innovation could have been purchased for £100 million if that money had been spent on innovation for the Underground instead of on consultants' fees?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the noble Lord will be pleased to hear that we are about to start a major review of innovation policy. No doubt—if he feels that it would be a useful exercise—at the end we shall be able to give him an exact figure of what could be purchased with £100 million and how that could be used in other areas.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, in relation to the Minister's answer to my noble friend Lord Hodgson, I am sure that no one in the House disbelieves the Minister when he says that the strategy unit can do what my noble friend asked. However, the question he was really asking was: will it do that?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, those are the kind of indicators that we want to measure. I am sure that keeping an eye on and analysing those figures will be the kind of task that the unit will undertake.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the statue of my late noble kinsman Lord Alanbrooke on the foregreen of the Ministry of Defence, whose plinth states that he was a master of strategy, belies that title as he looks up Whitehall towards Trafalgar Square and not down Whitehall towards the Treasury on which he should sensibly keep an eye?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, that is a very interesting observation. I shall pass it on to the strategy unit.
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, can my noble friend tell the House whether the strategy unit has been able to consider the proposals for the defence export scrutiny committee which some months ago were pressed for at length?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the answer is quite simply no, it has not. I do not believe that that is

965
the kind of issue that it would be expected to consider. As I said, it is considering the particular productivity indicators and the impact they have on the economy.

Disaster Planning
2.57 p.m.
Baroness Blatchasked Her Majesty's Government:
Who is responsible for disaster planning at national level.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, as the Prime Minister made clear in Parliament on 20th November, responsibility for the arrangements for co-ordinating the Government's response to major emergencies lies with the Home Secretary. A system is in place to support him, headed at official level by Sir David Omand, who is the Permanent Secretary in charge of security and intelligence co-ordination.
In supporting my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, all departments have a responsibility to plan, to prepare, to train and to exercise for handling major incidents and emergencies that might occur within their area of responsibility. It is their Ministers' responsibility to ensure that they are ready to take the leading role on behalf of central government in managing the initial response to a major emergency in their field of responsibility, mitigating its immediate effects and organising the development of a recovery plan. Departments are brought together within three Cabinet committees that are chaired by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, previously when I asked this Question in the House I was told that the Minister did not know who was in charge of emergency planning at national level. Having had a more elucidating Answer today, is the Minister aware that there is incredible disquiet among emergency planning officers up and down the country and that the Government's lack of focus, co-ordination and direction is shameful in the light of what happened on 11th September and since?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, no. I think that that is a totally unfair way of looking at the issue. The NAO has looked at it and said that there has been great improvement since 11th September. Obviously, one can never get to a point where everything that has to be done is done. One has constantly to keep the issue under review. That is what we are doing. In a sense it is an unpolitical issue where we must work together to identify what are the best arrangements.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, what is the remit of General Kiszely—in command of the land forces—in this context?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, as I understand the matter, General Kiszely is the member
966
of the Armed Services who is in charge of the deployment of those troops engaged in fire service while the Fire Brigades Union is on strike.
Lord Hunt of Chesterton: My Lords, does the Minister agree that international collaboration is also vital to disaster planning, especially natural disaster planning? Will this organisation he responsible for collaborating with the EU and with the UN system through the international secretariat for natural disaster reduction in Geneva? Is this unit also responsible for collaborating with the UK communities involved in research and humanitarian affairs in this matter?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, obviously it will depend on the precise disaster, but liaison with our EU partners and with the United Nations, both in terms of planning and as to what may happen in relation to an individual disaster, will frequently be vital. That obviously must also be worked out at the planning stage.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is the Minister aware that when the Greater London Council existed each local member had a very detailed emergency plan which they were asked to guard with their lives and which was highly confidential? Of course when the GLC was disbanded they went. What is the present position? Do regional government members in any part of the country have a similar responsibility now? Is there liaison between national, local and regional departments in co-ordinating any kind of emergency?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I was not aware of the position in relation to the GLC, referred to by the noble Baroness. As to planning for emergencies, obviously a vital aspect is the relationship between central government, local government and the Scottish, Welsh and London governances. It is incredibly important that there is proper liaison between those three levels of government. That is part of the contingency planning arrangements.
Lord McNally: My Lords, does the Minister recall that almost every terrorist attack has produced an emergency powers Bill which has chipped away at civil liberties and given more powers to security services, the police and others? If there is to be co-ordination of government departments, does the Minister agree that it would be sensible to have proper parliamentary accountability of what is going on in this area—perhaps paralleling the role of the security service committee, so a committee of senior Privy Councillors could keep an eye on the matter? It is very serious when these matters are taken away into the bureaucracy of Whitehall and when parliamentary probing always gets the, "Well, if only you knew what we knew",

967
answer. There is a need for parliamentary control in these areas. I hope that the Government are sensitive to that.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, in response to recent acts of terrorism, the Government have quite sensibly proposed legislation. The extent to which those particular powers require review was properly debated in this House and another place, and proper safeguards, as required by Parliament, were put in place. What we are discussing at the moment in relation to this Question is contingency planning. That obviously depends on the Government's powers, but it also depends on keeping an eye on those things that one needs to do in order, first, to prevent such a contingency occurring, and, if it does, being able to respond to it adequately. That is what the Question is about.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House which voluntary bodies it is assumed would play a major role in a disaster situation? A few decades ago the WRVS was a very strong organisation with vehicles, cooking implements and so on at its disposal. It played a key role at the time of the east-coast floods at the beginning of the 1950s. Is there any voluntary body in business today with anything like the capability that that voluntary body had a few decades ago? Are we not desperately short of volunteers and voluntary bodies that are well trained to deal with emergencies?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the response to a civil contingency will, depending on the civil contingency, involve a whole range of public, private and voluntary sector bodies. The planning aims to ensure that all those bodies can be mobilised at the appropriate moment.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the Minister may he surprised to know that I am about to congratulate him, or to congratulate someone. While sitting in this seat today, I received a communication from the Yeoman Usher of the Black Rod saying that the National Consumer Council has sent me a package with talcum power in it. I should like to commend those who have opened the package for their vigilance.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, my hopes were raised briefly when the noble Baroness said that she was going to congratulate me. She soon diverted from that possibility to congratulate the Yeoman Usher of the Black Rod on spotting that it was talcum power that was being sent. Perhaps I may also congratulate him.
Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, if there were to be a disaster in Scotland or Wales, who will be ultimately responsible—the United Kingdom Government or the devolved Executive? Will the coordination be any better than it was during the foot and mouth epidemic?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the arrangements for civil contingency planning involve—
968
for example, in relation to particular identified possible civil contingencies—identifying where the lead should be, how it should be dealt with and close co-ordination between the devolved assemblies and central government. Responsibility for particular parts of it may have to be separated depending on the nature of the emergency. But that is what civil contingency planning involves addressing.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, do the Government contemplate among their contingency planning the issue at some stage of gas masks?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, there is a whole range of contingencies, which is what contingency planning seeks to deal with. Of course it will depend on the particular contingency.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, does the Minister recall his colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, in a previous discussion on this subject at Question Time, revealing the existence of the Emergency Planning Committee for London, on which sat a number of very senior officials, including the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary and the Foreign Secretary? When I asked the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, in a Written Question how often that committee met, he said he could not say because it was a matter of national security. Can the noble Lord either tell the House how often it meets, or will he accept that—as the more cynical of us may believe—it never meets at all?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I was not aware of the Answer from my noble and learned friend Lord Rooker.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Rooker. I am sorry. I apologise to him for associating him with all those lawyers. I know that he would regard that as a very unwise remark on my part. I do not know how many times it has met. I do not know whether or not it would be appropriate for me to say how many times it has met. But perhaps I may write to the noble Lord in that respect.

Business
3.7 p.m.
Lord Grocott: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m., my noble friend Lord Filkin will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement on Northern France.

Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to make provision with respect to the driving and use of vehicles drawn by horses or other

969
animals on roads or in other public places; and for connected purposes. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Beaumont of Whitley.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Business of the House: Standing Order 41
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn):My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order 41 (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be dispensed with on Tuesday 10th December next to allow the Motion standing in the name of the Lord McIntosh of Haringey to be taken before the National Minimum Wage (Enforcement Notices) Bill [HL].—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Human Rights Committee
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I should point out that in paragraph (c) the reference should be to Standing Order 74, rather than Standing Order 73.
Moved. That a Select Committee of six Lords be appointed to join with a committee appointed by the Commons as the Joint. Committee on Human Rights:
To consider:

(a) matters relating to human rights in the United Kingdom (but excluding consideration of individual cases);

(b) proposals for remedial orders, draft remedial orders and remedial orders made under Section 10 of and laid under Schedule 2 to the Human Rights Act 1998; and

(c) in respect of draft remedial orders and remedial orders, whether the special attention of the House should be drawn to them on any of the grounds specified in Standing Order 74 (Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments);

To report to the House:

(a) in relation to any document containing proposals laid before the House under paragraph 3 of the said Schedule 2, its recommendation whether a draft order in the same terms as the proposals should be laid before the House; or

(b) in relation to any draft order laid under paragraph 2 of the said Schedule 2, its recommendation whether the draft order should be approved; and to have power to report to the House on any matter arising from its consideration of the said proposals or draft orders; and

To report to the House in respect of any original order laid under paragraph 4 of the said Schedule 2, its recommendation whether:

(a) the order should be approved in the form in which it was originally laid before Parliament; or

(b) that the order should be replaced by a new order modifying the provisions of the original order; or

(c) that the order should not be approved, and to have power to report to the House on any matter arising from its consideration of the said order or any replacement order;

That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the Lords following be named of the committee:

L. Bowness,

L. Lester of Herne Hill,

L. Parekh,

B. Perry of Southwark,

B. Prashar,

B. Whitaker;

That the committee have power to agree with any committee appointed by the Commons in the appointment of a chairman;
That the committee have power to adjourn from place to place;
That the committee have leave to report from time to time;
That the committee have power to appoint specialist advisers;
That the minutes of evidence taken before the committee from time to time shall, if the committee think fit, be printed.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to; and a message was ordered to be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

Procedure of the House Committee
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, l beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Select Committee on Procedure of the House be appointed and that, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords together with the Chairman of Committees be named of the committee:

L. Alderdice,

B. Blatch,

V. Brookeborough,

E. Caithness,

L. Chalfont,

L. Cope of Berkeley,

L. Craig of Radley,

L. Crickhowell,

L. Denham,

L. Donaldson of Lymington,

L. Geddes,

L. Gladwin of Clee,

L. Goodhart,

B. Goudie,

971

L. Grenfell,

L. Grocott,

L. Haskel,

L. Irvine of Lairg (Lord Chancellor),

L. Judd,

B. Rendell of Babergh,

L. Roper,

L. Strathclyde,

B. Symons of Vernham Dean,

L. Trefgarne,

L. Waddington,

B. Warnock,

B. Williams of Crosby,

L. Williams of Mostyn (L. Privy Seal).—(The Chairman of Committees.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Crime (International Co-operation) Bill [H.L.]
3.9 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Filkin): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The Bill marks a significant advance in co-operation against serious crime and terrorism within the European Union. It will enable us to work more closely and effectively with both our European Union partners and others outside the EU.
International crime affects us all. Greater freedom to travel and live in other countries and the growth of international trade mean that crime is no longer confined by national boundaries. But the impact of international crime is often felt on a local scale. It is the larger criminal gangs that facilitate local crimes in the UK—for example, by supplying stolen goods or drugs.
Drug smuggling is one of the main cross-border crimes and the main activity of serious and organised criminals. It is estimated that two-thirds of organised crime groups are involved in drug trafficking, and international drug smugglers feed the local drug markets that in turn lead to theft locally. As many as two-thirds of persistent offenders have a serious drug problem and between a third and a fifth of all acquisitive crime is linked to the need to pay for illegal drugs. Theft and burglary bring insecurity and disruption to their victims, so there is a clear connection between tackling international organised crime and improving the safety of our streets and homes.
Nor is the problem confined to drug trafficking. Other cross-border crimes have an impact on society more widely—such as people trafficking, counterfeiting, money laundering and cigarette smuggling. People trafficking is on the increase: 21,800 illegal entrants were detected in the first nine months of 2000 compared with 16,000 in 1999.
The best way to tackle international crime is to work closely with our neighbours. That is especially true of drug trafficking. The Netherlands and Spain are both
972
significant bases for the secondary distribution of drugs within the EU, including to the UK. We are already working with our EU partners. For example, the first joint investigative team that the UK is setting up is with Spain, targeting cocaine traffickers. During the past 12 months, the UK has worked with Europol on more than 500 UK cases that have required European co-operation. Those have ranged from simple requests for information to major joint operations.
However, we need to do more. Too many obstacles to international investigations serve only to protect the criminal. Bringing multinational gangs to justice may involve several trials in different countries, each with their own criminal procedures. Ensuring success for such complex procedures means reducing the obstacles that block effective cross-border cooperation. That is what the Bill is intended to achieve.
The Bill will make the changes needed to enable the UK to participate in the non-border aspects of the Schengen Convention. The Schengen arrangements provide a clear framework for effective co-operation, especially for cross-border police operations. The UK first applied to participate in the police and judicial cooperation elements of Schengen in May 1999. Our application was accepted a year later, and I welcome this chance to legislate to make good our participation.
The question of UK participation in Schengen has been of considerable interest to your Lordships' House. Under the expert chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, the European Union Committee undertook four separate reports into the Schengen acquis, its incorporation into the EU treaty structure and the UK's intentions towards Schengen. I am happy to note that a report published in March 1999—just before the Government made our formal application to participate in Schengen—concluded that:
"if the United Kingdom does not opt-in, its influence over a broad range of Justice and Home Affairs matters may be seriously diminished … Weaker United Kingdom influence over the development of European policies will mean that such policies will reflect the preferences of others, and fail to take into account particular United Kingdom concerns".
We do not accept that our influence over EU affairs has been in any way weakened during the past few years—indeed, quite the reverse—but active participation in Schengen will serve only to strengthen our influence over justice and home affairs matters, as well as bringing material benefit to those involved in fighting cross-border crime.
Let me explain in more detail what the Bill will achieve. The first part of the Bill will modernise our arrangements for providing mutual legal assistance and bring them in line with the new proceedings brought in by Schengen and by the mutual legal assistance convention agreed in May 2000. The convention was part of the EU's anti-terrorism road map, agreed after 11th September.
Mutual legal assistance (MLA) is the formal process by which countries request and provide assistance in obtaining evidence located in one country to assist in criminal proceedings in another. Effective and swift

973
MLA arrangements are essential if we and our EU partners are to run successful cross-border investigations and prosecutions. MLA is not new: we have undertaken it for many years. The new provisions will speed up and reduce scope for delay in respect of international co-operation. We will extend some of the modernising provisions to countries outside the EU.
The changes will allow UK prosecutors to send requests for evidence directly to courts in other EU countries, rather than going through the central authority system, allowing us to provide other countries with evidence by television link in MLA cases. That is an essential modernisation of existing arrangements to enable international co-operation to benefit from modern technology. We expect that that will be of most use in cases involving countries outside the EU, because greater distances make travel less attractive and TV evidence more attractive.
The Bill will also introduce mutual recognition of orders to freeze evidence, as provided for by the EU's draft framework decision on the execution of orders freezing evidence. That is a major step forward that will significantly speed up the process of securing valuable evidence. Mutual recognition takes MLA one step further by recognising directly, as between EU member states, a request made by a court, so enabling a direct response with the minimum of formality. The UK is a keen supporter of the principle of mutual recognition, which both speeds up co-operation and respects the diversity of legal systems. We therefore welcomed the conclusion at the 1999 Tampere Council—a special meeting of the European Council devoted to justice and home affairs—that mutual recognition should be a cornerstone of future development of judicial co-operation in the EU.
Criminals operating across international borders are often also involved in financial crime and money laundering. It is recognised that the ability to obtain comprehensive banking information from other EU countries would be of significant assistance to domestic law enforcement. The Bill will increase our ability t o respond to requests from other EU countries for information relating to bank accounts of criminal suspects. By implementing the protocol to the mutual legal assistance convention, the EU has created a reciprocal obligation between member states to respond to requests for financial information. The requests will reflect the new investigative tools introduced by the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.
Part 2 of the Bill deals with terrorism. Like criminals, terrorists do not respect national boundaries. We need effective measures with persuasive penalties that are imposed consistently across the EU. Following the events of 11th September last year, the EU agreed a framework decision that requires all member states to introduce extensive antiterrorism legislation. As the UK already has wide-ranging domestic anti-terrorist legislation, which was largely the inspiration for the Commission's proposal, we are already broadly compliant with the body of the framework decision. So implementing that measure does not require us to create any new offences or
974
penalties. It simply requires us to take extra-territorial jurisdiction over a wider range of terrorist offences than at present.
The Bill will therefore take extra-territorial jurisdiction over terrorist offences committed overseas against UK nationals, diplomatic staff and diplomatic premises. It will also take ETJ over terrorist offences committed overseas by UK nationals. We supported that measure during its negotiation in Brussels and we welcome this opportunity to implement promptly the changes needed to bring it into force.
Part 3 deals with driving disqualifications. It is not right that people who commit a driving offence for which they are disqualified while abroad should be able to escape being disqualified when they return home to their usual state of residence. The EU Driving Disqualification Convention is intended to promote the principle that drivers should abide by the rules of the road, no matter where they are driving. That will help to promote greater road safety across the EU. There are safeguards to ensure that the arrangements are not misused and do not lead to any unfair decisions. The process for notifying a disqualification will apply only once any appeal has been completed and there will be a right of appeal in the UK against recognition of foreign disqualifications that can be suspensive.
Part 3 also allows for recognition in Great Britain of driving disqualifications imposed in Northern Ireland, the Isle of Man, the Channel Islands and Gibraltar. The fact that none of those jurisdictions recognises driving disqualifications imposed in any of the others is an anomaly whose remedy is long overdue. A more uniform system across the UK is also essential for implementation of the wider EU measures.
The last part of the Bill wraps up a number of changes that we need to make before we can participate in the Schengen Convention. It provides a safeguard by giving the Information Commissioner new powers to inspect independently the UK national sections of the Schengen information system, the Europol information system and the Customs information system. Creating a statutory basis for the role of the Information Commissioner in that way is a new departure. We are doing it partly because it is required by the agreements setting up the systems, but more importantly we are doing it because we think that it is right to create an extra level of protection for the rights of the individual under the systems, where UK participation is a new departure.
Part 4 of the Bill also deals with Schengen cross-border surveillance. Fast and effective arrangements for agreeing cross-border surveillance operations are an essential part of effective international police investigations. Criminals do not stop at national borders, and, if our law enforcement agencies are to investigate them and gather the evidence that they need, they too must be able to carry on past our national boundaries in specific circumstances. Schengen provides a clear framework for agreeing to this sort of international operation. Joint and

975
multilateral surveillance exercises will allow UK officers to cross national boundaries with the same ease as criminals, improving prevention and detection.
UK police have welcomed the Schengen arrangements because they are reciprocal and because joining them will make it much easier for us to mount cross-border surveillance operations and pursue UK criminals who are active internationally. The basic legislation needed to permit cross-border surveillance, if operations are pre-arranged, was included in the Police Reform Act 2002, which the House considered in the last Session. This Bill will make changes necessary to cover urgent cases in which the surveillance cannot be pre-arranged and the foreign officers are expected to be able to continue in the UK until UK officers can take over.
The Bill will amend the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000—RIPA—to authorise surveillance by overseas officers, in tightly controlled circumstances, for up to five hours. The measure marks a new departure in international co-operation, but we believe that there are proper safeguards attached. Article 40 of the Schengen Convention makes it clear that officers acting under its terms must abide by the rules of the country in which they are operating. It is not in anyone's interest to contravene those rules; Schengen is firmly based on mutual cooperation and respect, which are central to its continuing success.
The final measure in the Bill addresses the growing problem of the counterfeiting of plastic cards. More and more, that type of offence occurs on an international scale, which is why the EU agreed a framework decision to ensure that all member states had effective legislation to deal with that sort of crime. Implementing the measure in the UK requires an amendment to the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981 to cover bankers' drafts, promissory notes and debit cards.
All the EU agreements that underlie what is in the Bill have already been scrutinised by the EU scrutiny committee of this House, as well as that in the Commons. We commend the excellent work that the committee does. No doubt, it will have much to say about our proposals for implementing these measures. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Filkin.)
3.23 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his presentation of the Government's proposals. Nobody can be in any doubt that those who engage in international crime and terrorism will never find friends in this House.
We welcome wholeheartedly Part 2 of the Bill, which will give us extra-territorial jurisdiction over terrorist offences committed by UK nationals anywhere in the world and over attacks on UK nationals and diplomatic premises wherever they occur. We must show that the fight against terrorism
976
is being taken seriously by authorising closer cooperation between police forces, customs authorities and intelligence services throughout the EU.
That does not mean that we should not scrutinise the Bill carefully; nor does it mean that we should not improve it—far from it. It is important to make the distinction between constructive co-operation and harmonisation, and we must ensure that measures in the Bill do not undermine our civil liberties. In that context, some elements of the Bill raise concerns. In particular, we will consider with extreme caution the provisions to allow customs officers and police officers from abroad to conduct surveillance in the UK without first having obtained the permission of the UK authorities.
The Bill implements so many elements of the Schengen acquis and related agreements that it looks as though the Government are leading us gently by the nose into Schengen by the back door. We shall consider that very carefully. How much has our scrutiny role in the UK Parliament already been undermined by the Government's signature to various protocols and agreements? Exactly what room for manoeuvre does Parliament have to improve the Bill? The full regulatory impact assessment lets the cat out of the bag. It tells us that the Government have already agreed,
"to urgently ratify the Protocol"—
their split infinitive, not mine. The assessment goes on to state:
"Ministers have already agreed to ratify the Protocol in the UK and are under an obligation to do so … Failure to ratify the Protocol in the UK would break an international agreement".
That protocol has regard to mutual assistance on criminal matters.
Have Ministers thereby effectively usurped Parliament's powers to reject the Bill, if it wishes to do so? Have they usurped our power to amend it? In Committee, we shall ask the Minister to put on the record what our EU partners will do to enact national legislation that we hope will impose exactly the same obligations and penalties upon their citizens. We shall also ask what timetable they have adopted to comply with the various protocols.
The backdrop to our consideration of the Bill must be the question of how far we have confidence in the judicial and police systems of other countries that will be party to the reciprocal agreements enshrined in the Bill. During the debate on the European arrest warrant earlier this year, the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, encapsulated the problem when he posed the question:
"Can we have sufficient confidence in the judicial process in other member states to justify giving up the traditional safeguards?".
I agree with the noble Lord, as I do on so many occasions, that it would be wrong to claim that our procedures are always the best in the world. As he said:
"Others may be our equals and in some cases perhaps better than ours, but not all. Italy is notorious for its delays. The system of criminal administration in Belgium is so bad that it has caused a national scandal".—[Official Report, 23/4/02; col. 226.]

977
In a Community in which judicial and policing systems are not the same, the question of trust is paramount.
So far, the Government have left too much to delegated legislation. In particular, too much is to be dealt with by negative resolution. That has been done in the mere hope that our colleagues in mainland Europe will abide by the Schengen handbook to the letter. The Minister has already raised an example. He talked about the countries that would participate in the arrangements set out in Part 1 of the Bill. He said that he hoped that the new procedures enshrined in the mutual assistance agreement would be extended to countries outside the European Union. In Clause 52, the Secretary of State is given a wide, open-ended power to extend the list of such countries as he chooses, subject only to negative resolution.
Which offences will be the relevant offences for the hot surveillance powers? Clause 83 gives the Secretary of State the power, by order, to list any crimes that he likes. We shall examine the intention of the Bill and consider whether we will end up with listing activities that are crimes in other EU countries or elsewhere but are not crimes here. That would not be acceptable. Why is there nothing in the Bill to prevent foreign customs officers and police from carrying guns while they carry out hot surveillance—hot watch—in this country? We shall want to remedy that omission.
Clause 83 should also state clearly that, when they carry out hot watch, foreign customs officers and police officers should not be allowed to enter private homes. They should not be able to challenge or arrest the person under surveillance. They should be required to contact the authorities immediately on crossing the border, and they should submit a formal request for assistance as soon as possible. That is not an unreasonable request from these Benches. It cannot he, because the Government say that those rules will be the first to be put in an order, which they will put before your Lordships after the Bill has received Royal Assent. As the Government already know that they want to do that and we agree that it is the right thing to do, we should have it in the Bill now.
Most of the Bill refers to the sharing of information, and I would be the first to accept that good intelligence must be the key to successful detection and subsequent prosecution. We therefore want to ensure that the UK and other EU countries and their agencies are able to enjoy as much access to relevant information as is compatible with civil liberties. So we shall look carefully but constructively at the sections which deal with banking information and access to the valuable and valued—
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, when did the Opposition become so concerned about civil liberties? I recall that when the Opposition of today were in government they showed not the slightest concern about these matters.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, every time I see an announcement by this Government, I am reminded that at the heart of the Conservative Party in
978
the 19th century—a heart that has never stopped beating—was a care for civil liberties. We shall continue putting them forward now.
As to the sharing of information, we appreciate that the Schengen information system is a valuable resource. However, we wish to have safeguards built into it to ensure that information we would expect to remain confidential is not released. The Government have very properly made that point themselves in the past. We shall simply try to ensure that the right safeguards are in the Bill.
It is always a matter of public concern when governments concede the right to police here, let alone in other countries, to access our personal data for different and, perhaps, ill-defined reasons—even more so when access is gained without the knowledge of the person under investigation. Can the Minister confirm, for example, that it will be clear on the face of the Bill that United Kingdom immigration information will not be accessible by other countries in the EU?
The Minister referred to the intriguing section on driving disqualification. As someone who has driven for many years across the countries of our European partners, my immediate reaction on seeing these clauses is to say, "Why not?". We do not want dangerous drivers anywhere on the roads throughout the European Union. Certainly if serious driving offences are the subject of these provisions, that is easily welcomed.
But there may be sensitivities about different regulations in different countries. We shall need to ensure that someone from this country will not face disqualification abroad for a driving offence which would not be subject to disqualification here—or, indeed, a disqualification issued for a non-driving fault. As we are aware, in this country the Government are considering introducing driving disqualification for non-payment of fines which have nothing to do with driving. So there could be some sensitivities in that area.
When we study the Bill in Committee, our main effort will be directed towards ensuring that there are proper safeguards throughout and that the issues which need to be addressed are on the face of the: Bill. We believe that at the moment too much is being left to the order-making power of the Secretary of State.
The Government must have already decided that the Bill is less than perfect in its current form because they have presented us with yet another objectionable catch-all clause. Under Clause 91, the "Supplementary and consequential provision" clause, the Secretary of State can do just about anything he likes to amend not only this Bill when it becomes an Act but other enactments, and he can do so by order subject only to the negative resolution. That is not good enough. I was concerned about this issue when I tabled an amendment to the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill and I remain concerned about it now.
I listened with interest to the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, when he stated that,
"The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee will shortly put to the House a report on experience with such clauses".—[Official Report, 21/11/02; col. 488.]

979
and that there will be time for debate. I welcome that. I hope that our debate on Clause 91, which we shall have during the Committee stage in January, will both inform and assist the Committee's wider debate.
We have agreed to the Government's request that the Bill should be taken off the Floor of the House in Grand Committee as the usual channels are cooperating as far as possible with the Government to help them to get through their heavy legislative programme this Session. But, when we have a Bill of such a serious and important nature in Grand Committee, where we cannot vote for improvements, it is more important than ever for the Government to listen and respond effectively to constructive amendments put forward by the Opposition Benches. If they fail to do so, we shall simply end up with a rerun of the Committee stage on Report, and that is in no one's interest.
We believe that it is in the interests of the public here and across the EU that we co-operate effectively in judicial and police matters in the fight against crime and terrorism. Criminals have no care about what is right. We do, and so we fight them with the restrictions imposed upon us by our commitment to democracy, freedom and human rights. We abandon those commitments at our peril.
3.36 p.m.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I thank the Minister for arranging a briefing last week. It was very much appreciated.
The Bill implements several outstanding European Union commitments in the areas of police and judicial systems. In the parliamentary Session 1997–98, the Select Committee on the European Communities reported on enhancing parliamentary scrutiny of the third pillar. It stated:
"The Maastricht Treaty heralded a new era in the co-operation between member states in the fields of justice and home affairs. It placed such co-operation on a formal treaty basis in substitution for the informal arrangements that had operated previously".
Since the publication of the Select Committee report, it has become clear that each member state has the right to initiate proposals under the third pillar. In certain cases, the Commission also has a right to initiate proposals.
I served as a member of the European Communities Committee (Sub-committee F). In 1998 the Home Office reported that, overall, the domestic legislation agenda had not been heavily determined by commitments given as a result of third pillar cooperation. This was because at that time much of the third pillar work reflected the existing position. Many third pillar improvements had been implemented without overall changes in domestic legislation. An example of this was the NCIS and ACPO, which provided a list of third pillar measures which were in the process of being implemented in the United Kingdom.
980
We were then one of only two member states which had ratified the Customs Information System Convention. At the time we took evidence in Subcommittee F, no third pillar measures in the civil judicial field had been implemented because no such measures had yet been adopted.
The Crime (International Co-operation) Bill implements several outstanding EU commitments in the area of police and judicial co-operation—that is, the Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters 2000 and its 2001 protocol, the mutual legal assistance provisions of the Schengen Convention and the evidence-freezing provisions of the framework decision on the execution in the EU of orders freezing property and evidence.
The United Kingdom Government state that,
"this Bill demonstrates our commitment to effective co-operation against serious crime in Europe and beyond".
Indeed, the provisions of the Bill transpose the key instruments in enhancing EU-wide co-operation between police forces and judicial authorities which aim to make the area of freedom, security and justice a reality.
I accept that in a world in which criminal activity and terrorism respect no frontiers, so too must law enforcement be cross-border. Indeed, the measures here and the instruments they are based upon should be welcome developments as, while not necessarily new concepts, they are designed to streamline and improve measures for "international" justice.
Mutual recognition is deemed to be the cornerstone of judicial co-operation and fundamental to the area of freedom, security and justice. Indeed, the question of why a criminal should be able to flee justice just because he or she has crossed the border is the basis for such co-operation. Such mutual recognition of freezing orders is introduced in Part 2 of the Bill.
However, having said that about the positive approach to justice on a European level, I have significant reservations about democratic scrutiny, lack of transparency and openness, safeguards for defendants and the guaranteeing of civil liberties. This is not a contradiction in terms, as I believe we can support measures for EU justice without compromising fundamental rights. After all, we are aiming to provide security, freedom and justice. I question not what is being introduced, but how it is being done.
The Bill reflects a more structured framework and a significant improvement on the ad hoc co-operation that existed between member states previously. In principle, we welcome the Bill, allowing Parliament the scrutiny of certain aspects of the third pillar. There are, of course, matters of concern, which I shall identify later. Suffice to say at this stage that co-operation at international level on crime and justice is important, and domestic parliaments should continue to have scrutiny over such matters. The legislative measures before us are new but they were integrated in the framework of the 1997 Treaty of Amsterdam.

981
There are three significant factors of which we should be aware. The first is that the United Kingdom has partial participation in the Schengen Convention. We have retained our border controls, thus we do not participate in the free movement of persons within the Schengen countries. I do not believe that today's debate has direct relevance to this matter, but I am sure that the Statement that is to follow will have a bearing on that.
The 1997 Treaty of Amsterdam expressly recognises the UK's right to maintain controls at the frontiers with other member states, while also preserving its common travel area with Ireland. However, the UK Government's position in relation to the compensatory measures in the Schengen system is becoming increasingly clear. It is about increased police co-operation, a common immigration, visa and asylum policy, and judicial co-operation. The Bill demonstrates some aspects of that.
The Government are in favour of participation in police c.c.-operation, as reflected in Part 1 of the Bill dealing with mutual assistance in criminal matters. It is in favour of participation in the Schengen information system. as reflected in Part 4 of the Bill. We supported the opinion of the Select Committee on European matters that it is strongly in the United Kingdom's interest to participate in the Schengen information system. We cannot influence future developments if we are not part of the Schengen system, but we must exercise caution. While lending our broad support to Part 4 of the Bill, we must not underestimate genuine civil liberties concerns relating to data protection and identity checks in the present Schengen arrangements.
On that point, I emphasise that as regards the implementation of EU justice measures into UK legislation, such as we are dealing with here, there is an unacceptably low level of democratic scrutiny. Our colleagues in the European Parliament are merely consulted on such measures, and the EU Justice and Home Affairs Council is made up of both justice and interior Ministers with often clashing political agendas. Transparency and openness are significant by their absence in the decisions of the Council of Ministers. There is no access for European parliamentarians or MPs, other than the relevant Secretaries of State, about what is done in secret. While both Houses of this Parliament debate legislation such as this Bill, there is perhaps a semblance of democratic oversight, but as the Government are obliged under EU law to transpose these measures within a certain framework, there is perhaps little that we can do about it.
Democratic oversight and judicial review of a new generation of European policy in the field of justice and home affairs is vital to ensure both the protection of the rights of EU citizens and the openness essential to maintaining public confidence in supranational competence. The solution is not to denounce measures for EU justice, but to insist on proper interventions and involvement at an earlier, more appropriate stage. One of the key components in EU justice and home affairs policy development must be the commitment to give equal regard to freedom and justice as to security.
982
EU justice measures are fast becoming a reality, not as is so often stated because of September 11th. but because of a commitment made upon agreement of the Amsterdam Treaty 1997 and the Tampere council in 1999. Indeed, much inconclusive discussion took place until the atrocities of September 11th brought into harsh reality the need to tackle international organised crime together. Thus decisions and agreements were achieved in unprecedented time.
In addition to these measures, we must have an accompanying, parallel system of safeguards. Governments must commit to upholding the principles of the European Convention on Human Rights and allow those rights to be enforced. We shall probe these matters at the Committee stage.
Police co-operation is based on mutual assistance between police authorities to prevent and detect criminal offences. There is evidence that it is already operational in character. There are detailed rules on cross-border surveillance and hot pursuit, enabling police officers from one Schengen state to cross the border into another to continue their operations. Will the Minister confirm that the present practice in Schengen states is that, in urgent cases, it can be done without prior authorisation? If so, what implication does that have in relation to policing in the United Kingdom?
It is on that point that we wish to reflect the concern expressed by Justice, whose prime concern with the Bill
"is the absence of sufficient procedural safeguards combined with a failure to address the rights of the defence. While it is important for countries to be able to co-operate to combat crime, it is equally important that defence rights are maintained in such circumstances in order to protect the rights of the individual in an increasingly international environment".
There are matters in Part 1 of the Bill that require clarification. Will the Minister confirm that overseas freezing orders should be restricted to a judicial authority and that that body alone should have the power to make such orders? I said earlier that we need much more information about the Schengen information system, the Europol information system and the Customs information system.
The present system provides that data entered in one of the national systems is automatically transmitted to other sections. This means that all Schengen states have access to a common pool of data via their own national system. The SIS is designed to exchange data in order to maintain public policy and security, including national security. Are we satisfied that there will he no compromise in matters of our own national security and that its disclosure on SIS will safeguard our own security?
I am aware that SIS must not include personal data revealing racial origin, political opinions or religious or other beliefs, as well as personal data concerning health or sexual life. We need to be satisfied that data protection rules cover most of those areas. Will the Minister confirm that that is so? Who is responsible for the accuracy of data and liability for damage caused by the transmission and use of inaccurate data? It would

983
be helpful to know if there is transparency and effective legal remedies with regard to SIS and data protection.
Let me cite the 1996 Court of Audit report on the Dutch SIS.
"Whilst acknowledging that SIS data is potentially of great value, it emphasises that the system depends on the integrity of those who use it. More than 7,000 people are authorised to access the system in the Netherlands; around 500 of those are also authorised to change the data. The potential risk of unauthorised access, unlawful disclosure and/or inaccurate information being entered into the database is therefore great".
We certainly welcome Clause 82 of the Bill, which extends the functions of the Information Commissioner under Part VI of the Data Protection Act 1998. It allows the Information Commissioner to inspect personal data recorded in the UK section of the three European information systems without a warrant. There is concern that the system has not kept pace with the modern method of data storage and exchange. It goes against the rule of natural justice that citizens face an almost impossible task in having access to information held about them. Will the commissioner have the right to allow individuals to have access to information held and will the commissioner be responsible for monitoring the entry of information on to computer systems?
Two years ago it was estimated that SIS had 49,000 terminals. How is it possible to guarantee total security? Will the Minister give an undertaking that security of these networks is being given a high priority? Framework decisions agreed by the Amsterdam treaty are binding on member states but the forms and methods are left to the national authorities.
Of course we accept that crime sees no boundaries. Money laundering, terrorism, drugs and trafficking in human beings have global dimensions. Any measures designed to tackle such criminal activities are welcome.
In addition to stressing the need for compliance with the principles of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, it is also essential to harmonise the existing discrepancies between the respective legal systems of the 15 member states, with a view, for example, to initiating a process of bringing all member states' legal systems into line with those offering the strongest safeguards in respect of the rights of the defence. This process of upward harmonisation will not only avoid creating disparities in the treatment accorded to nationals and residents of the European Union, but will also mark a step forward in the development of the EU's judicial culture.
The first point that I should like to make as regards the UK's participation in certain parts of the Schengen convention is this. While successive UK governments have been unwilling to commit to making EU-wide free movement a reality, they have been willing to sign up to the enhanced police and judicial co-operation measures—the so-called "compensatory measures" for enhancing "internal security" to compensate for the lifting of controls.
984
I cannot stress enough that any threats to the fundamental right to privacy must be legitimate, proportionate and necessary. In the event of any breach of those principles, recompense must be made available.
In conclusion, perhaps I may draw the Minister's attention to the report on the operation in 2001 by my noble friend Lord Carlile of Berriew. He said:
"Throughout my travels, reading and discussing in connection with the Terrorism Act 2000, I have been fully conscious of the delicate nature of the balance between political freedoms and the protection of the public from politically driven violence and disorder".
I trust that the Minister has that balance in mind in relation to Part 2 of the Bill.

Northern France: Illegal Immigration
3.51 p.m.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary on illegal immigration from northern France. The Statement is as follows:
"As the House knows, since the beginning of June, I have been in negotiations with the French Government to tackle illegal immigration from France, focusing on making substantial improvements in border controls, improving security at freight depots and the removal of the magnet of the Sangatte centre.
"This morning, I held further talks with the French interior minister, Nicolas Sarkozy. I am very pleased to tell the House that we have today agreed that the Sangatte centre will close by the end of December and will be handed back to its owners, Eurotunnel. This is four months earlier than originally anticipated.
"As this House knows, the centre has been a magnet for illegal trafficking of immigrants since October 1999. Over 67,000 people have passed through it since that time. Its closure is, therefore, an extremely welcome achievement, and a major contribution to stemming the tide of clandestine entry into the United Kingdom.
"I wish to place on record my appreciation to Mr Sarkozy for the positive way he has approached these negotiations over the last six months and the good faith he has shown throughout our talks. I am grateful, as I know those concerned will be, for the decisive action he has taken against illegal immigration in the Calais area, including the deployment of 1,000 gendarmes and the substantial enhancement to security measures. The French Government have taken away and re-housed 500 people so far.
"But just as importantly, I have agreed with the French Government a range of measures, to establish immigration controls and border security operations in northern France. This is effectively moving border security operations to France.

985
"The extension of these measures to other ports along the French coast, and in the future to Belgium, will ensure that instead of dealing with the symptoms, we are addressing the causes of our present difficulties. I can also tell the House that we have opened discussions with the Netherlands as well. This, as the House will recognise, is a transformation in our border security.
"It is far better to stop people entering the country illegally than to have to send them back, with all the time-wasting expense that this entails. These measures build on the progress already made.
"The security measures at Coquelles and Frethun have now been strengthened. The number of clandestines arriving from Frethun has fallen from nearly 400 in April to a handful in October. By Christmas, 100 per cent of the freight traffic travelling through Calais port every day will be searched.
"Co-operation between our security and law enforcement services has led to the arrest and disruption of six major trafficking gangs operating in northern France over recent weeks. Nearly 250 people have been arrested for people smuggling this year. Immigration officers have been operating in Calais since 20th August. This operation will develop rapidly following today's agreement into a full, joint immigration control as early as possible next year.
"These actions have been significant in sending a signal, and today's announcement will complete the message to those seeking to traffic human beings across Europe to the United Kingdom.
"To ensure that we play our part in getting Sangatte closed immediately and for good, I have agreed that up to 1,000 Iraqis can come to the United Kingdom, not as asylum seekers but on work visas. This is a one-off exercise. They will be temporarily housed for up to three months while we undertake job matching. I am grateful to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions for his co-operation.
"In this way, we will ensure that those who might have reached Britain clandestinely will now pay tax and national insurance and will not be subject to continuing support from the British taxpayer. We will also take a limited number of Afghans under family re-unification, determined by the UNHCR. The remainder of the Sangatte population, together with those the French have already dealt with, as well as anyone subsequently arriving in the area, will be handled by the French authorities.
"I can also tell the House that I intend to ensure that the UK's economic migration channels are available to those from countries that currently generate significant unfounded asylum claims. Legal economic migration strengthens our economy and underpins our coherent policy of managed migration. I believe that we should all unite against those who are currently arguing for a complete
986
block on all immigration to this country, and I challenge the Shadow Home Secretary to join me in this.
"This agreement with the French Government is a further piece in the jigsaw of radical reform to our asylum, immigration and nationality programme. Taken together with the new Act which was passed in the House of Lords and in the other place, this will give us the capacity to manage properly entry into this country.
"I do not today pretend that we have reached the end of the road. We have only just passed the new legislation; we have only just reached agreement with the French. We cannot therefore be expected yet to have achieved the results which will only come from the implementation of these policies. This is a substantial step forward which no one predicted just six months ago.
"However, I want to finish with this warning. We can put legislation in place, we can reach agreement with our French counterparts, we can debate these issues in this House; but they will come to nothing without a substantial change in the administration of the system.
"I am making it clear today to the Immigration and Nationality Directorate that we expect a step change in the operation, efficiency and competence with which the system is handled. I shall hold to account senior managers in my department for an entirely different approach and a step change in the results achieved".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.58 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, l am grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement.
We welcome the news that Sangatte is closing The Minister will know that I am not being churlish but am simply observing a fact when I say that noble Lords would have been happier had they heard the news first in this House rather than earlier on the one o'clock news.
Sangatte is indeed a symptom, not a cause, of the growing asylum disaster in this country. Its closure, though welcome, will have little effect on the overall problem. What we need is a new treaty with France—like the one in force until 1997—to ensure that anyone who crosses the Channel is sent back within 24 hours, thereby deterring people from using northern France as a staging post for entry to the United Kingdom in the first place. Today's announcement will, we fear, make little difference to the overall tide of migration into Britain.
The figures issued by the Government last week reveal the real state that we are now facing. In the last quarter, from July to September this year, over 29,000 men, women and children arrived at our shores to seek asylum—the highest quarterly level on record. The real question is why that number is so high.
We know that the processing of claims under this Government is in chaos. There are 16,000 initial decisions still outstanding for resolution after a year.

987
That does not help the real asylum seekers who have a genuine basis for their claim during their time of waiting. The Government have even failed to remove most of those who have sought asylum who should not even be here. They have simply abandoned their targets on that.
The Sangatte agreement today has to be welcomed, but against a background of real concerns about the Government's policies. On what legal basis have they now decided to sidestep the Dublin agreement and take up to 1,000 Iraqis from Sangatte? After all, they are already in a safe country where they should make their asylum application. Are they all people currently resident in Sangatte, or do they include some who have passed through the centre since the summer and been given registration badges? By accepting them now, are we not signalling to the world that we will give way under pressure in the future and allow others to come here as their country of choice?
The Minister has carefully said that the Iraqi Kurds who will come here will do so on work visas, so they are not being accepted as needing asylum. Others who are claiming asylum and work visas might then be justified in seeing these people as jumping the queue. The Minister says that the Iraqi Kurds will be here for three months while they look for jobs. What happens at the end of that period, whether or not they find employment? We certainly hope that they find employment if they come here. At what stage will their families be allowed to join them?
We are told that about 1,000 people will be allowed to come here, but who decides how many and which ones will be successful? It is a very difficult decision. Will it be our officials?
The Government also say that they have agreed to take a proportion of Afghans who have family in the United Kingdom. On what basis will that grant be made? Is it on the basis of asylum? When the UNHCR makes that decision, does it decide how many? Having decided the number, does it decide which individuals will come? Again, that is a very difficult decision.
Finally, the Minister challenges my right honourable friend in another place, Oliver Letwin, to say whether we believe that there should be a complete block on all migration to this country. He knows as well as anybody that we have never said that there should be a complete block. The Home Secretary talked in another place about opposition in this House to the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill. Like many of your Lordships, I worked through 14 days on that Bill. Our opposition throughout was never to the objectives behind the Bill, only to the Government's ineffective attempt to solve the problems. I am glad that the Government listened to some of our objections to improve the system, but not enough to make the system work as well as we hoped it would.
Today we have one good headline on the one o'clock news, but one good headline today will not solve the real problems facing people who need to seek asylum in this country, nor will it solve the problems
988
of people already in this country. My challenge to the Government is to look beyond the headlines in future and solve the problems.
4.3 p.m.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I add my thanks to the Minister for repeating the Statement in your Lordships' House. It cries out for a Europe-wide policy on asylum matters. We opted out of Schengen, yet here we are making bilateral arrangements with France. As I read the Statement—correctly, I hope—this is likely to happen with Belgium as well at some stage.
The problem will not go away simply because the human parcel has been passed to another country. Last week's figures proved that there has been an 11 per cent increase in the number of people seeking asylum in this country. The Minister mentioned that 1,000 Iraqis would be given work permits to come to this country. There again lies the confusion, which we repeatedly explained during the passage of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill, between economic migrants and those genuinely seeking asylum to this country. Nobody could deny that the Iraqis whom we take into this country are the victims of terrible persecution in their own land, as was evidenced by Jack Straw's statement this morning on the report that has been published about torture in Iraq.
What is the exact number of people registered at the camp near Calais who do not want to get back to their country of origin? When the matter is carved up between Britain and France, what happens to those who are left behind? Is it correct that, despite the closure of the camp next April, there are still 1,800 people in and around Sangatte? There is newspaper speculation today that France is also pressing our government to take some of the group of 5,000 others who have passed through Sangatte since the summer. Are those individuals included in the talks? What is the Government's view on that?
What would be the role of the British immigration officers whom the Minister mentioned, who are to operate on French soil at ferry ports? Would those refused be granted leave to appeal from abroad? What safeguards are there to ensure that the decision does not work to the detriment of victims of torture and persecution? What role is envisaged for the UN High Commissioner for Refugees? Would he be involved in relation to those people who may not necessarily form part of the present allocation, yet who are victims of torture and persecution?
4.6 p.m.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, the starting point, which I hope both Opposition Front Benches recognise, is that this is an achievement. Despite the good intentions behind it, Sangatte was a significant draw and a significant help to the traffickers who were extorting money from people who, for a variety or reasons, wished to get to this country. That is the context in which one has to see what we are announcing today.

989
This was not a situation of our making or our choosing, but it was causing considerable problems to British society and to British people as a consequence of there being such an effective staging post for large numbers of clandestine entrants, able to make repeated attempts to penetrate into the United Kingdom.
The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, asked a range of questions. We debated why the number of claims is so high many times during the passage of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill. I shall not repeat all the reasons, but we believe they include the prosperity of our economy, the English language, the decency and legal protections that this society offers to people who are seeking refuge and the presence of other nationals, who can provide support to people if they get into this country. Clearly, some people are fleeing persecution, while others are, understandably, seeking work.
The noble Baroness referred to the number of outstanding claims. The very significant issue is that the speed of processing those who have applied for asylum this year has been rising rapidly. We have spoken about that on a number of occasions. The latest figure that I have seen is that 75 per cent of those who had applied this year or were applying currently were being dealt with within two months.
The noble Baroness also asked why we had not renegotiated a bilateral readmission agreement with France. I believe she was referring to the so-called gentleman's agreement that has been much spoken about, signed in 1995. The first clause of that gentleman's agreement said that it would be superseded by the Dublin convention when it was implemented. The former government signed that. Furthermore, the agreement did not achieve results on the scale needed. In 1996–97, only 516 asylum seekers were returned to France under it.
In short, we think it is better to prevent illegal entry of people reaching the United Kingdom in the first place, hence the importance of closing Sangatte and strengthening security at the French end of the Channel Tunnel and in Calais, effectively moving border security operations to France. I am sure that the noble Baroness supports the common sense of that approach in principle, rather than allowing people in and then trying to move them back.
The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, also asked who will decide who comes in and who does not. Essentially, this was an agreement with the French on how to manage and end the current situation. It was therefore in the nature of a discussion and agreement between two sovereign powers on how to resolve the situation in their mutual interest and in the interest also of those in Sangatte while seeking to deter others from vainly attempting to get in by those means. Accordingly, the French felt, and we agreed, that it would be useful for the UNHCR to carry out a range of interviews to seek to document all the Sangatte residents and to identify their origin.
As part of the agreement, we are to take the Iraqis seeking to enter this country. We agreed—on a basis which we think sensible, rather than going through a
990
charade of asylum seeking—that they should be accepted in this country on a visa that allows them to work here.
The UNHCR also identified Afghans who were vulnerable because they needed to be reunified with their families in the United Kingdom or had other particular vulnerabilities. The UNHCR therefore thought, and we agreed, that, as part of the settlement of the problem, we should take them into the United Kingdom. We felt that it would be right and sensible to do that.
The deal does not sidestep the Dublin convention. The convention does not apply in this case because the people in Sangatte have not claimed asylum in France. If they had, the problem would not have arisen. This is a special agreement to resolve a special set of circumstances.
I acknowledge the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, that there should not be a complete block on migration. I am glad that she made the point; I did not expect to hear her say otherwise. I think that all sides of the House recognise that managed migration has a sensible part to play in our economy and our society. However, the crucial word, on which I hope that we agree, is "managed".
The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, said that the matter highlights the need for a Europe-wide asylum policy. In many ways, he is right, and in many ways, that is precisely what we are quite vigorously working on in the Justice and Home Affairs Council. I shall not detain the House with what we are doing in regard to reception, the framework agreement, the qualification agreement and the renegotiation of Dublin H. However, there have been a string of measures which we hope will soon be agreed in the Council We may, with good fortune, agree many of them by the end of this year, but I shall not hold my breath.
We would, however, be foolish to think that agreement on those issues was the end of the matter. As one might imagine, Europe-wide agreements which form the basis of intergovernmental treaty agreements and in which every state has a veto tend to take a long time to negotiate. Although they are not quite pitched at the level of the lowest common denominator, they require the consent of all. Consequently, they do not always move as radically far forward as one might wish. Although there is more work to do, I am glad to inform the House that the United Kingdom is playing a very strong and vigorous role in developing the elements of a Europe-wide asylum policy.
Nothing in what we have agreed with France slows down progress on a closer working relationship at EU-level. We have, if anything, deepened our relationship with both France and Belgium. We feel that France has behaved very honourably in very efficiently addressing the issue with us. The links between my right honourable friend the Home Secretary and Nicolas Sarkozy are strong and good, which is in Britain's interest as well as the interests of Europe more widely. The same type of relationship is developing with Antoine Duquesne, Belgium's home affairs and interior minister, who is similarly keen to

991
participate with us in supporting effective controls on illegal migration to the United Kingdom. I pay tribute to the contributions he has made.
As this is an exceptional situation, Iraq's victims of persecution are, exceptionally, being allowed entry under a visa arrangement. We shall try to ensure that they have accommodation and that best efforts are made to find them work, which, we believe, is their wish. Consequently, they will be given a four-year residency as part of the agreement. As the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, is aware, at the end of that time they will be entitled to apply for settlement.
Others may well remain around Calais; at one stage, 4,500 people, I think, were registered as part of this process. I believe we have acted properly in taking 1,000 to 1,200 or so of those people. We think it right to do that although none of them had entered the United Kingdom or lodged a residence, work or asylum application here. Nevertheless, in the spirit of collective agreement, it seemed right to us that we should play our part. If other people emerge, the French authorities will process their asylum applications should they choose to make one. People have been entitled throughout this period to make an asylum application in northern France; it is just that many have not sought to do so.
I trust that that answers many if not all of the questions. As these issues develop, I shall be happy to keep in touch with Opposition Front-Benchers if it would be of assistance.
4.16 p.m.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that the time has come when we have to face up to some very unpalatable facts? Is it not correct that the UN Convention on Refugees has been so widely interpreted by the courts that, time and again, the clear intention of Parliament has been frustrated? Cannot the Home Secretary be excused for fuming—as he was reported to be doing the other day—at decisions such as that about the Ahmadi family? Although they had no right to be in this country and no right to claim asylum here, their deportation was ruled unlawful because they were suffering from stress. Is it not all too plain that the courts will continue to make it impossible for the Home Secretary to control immigration so long as the refugee convention stands in its present form? Somehow or other we have to grapple with that problem and initiate debate on the ways in which remedies can be made more rational to suit present circumstances.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I appreciate the noble Lord's generally supportive words about the challenge facing not only this Government but any government in the current situation. I shall not engage in the debate to assign all blame to the courts and the lawyers. That is the downside of a positive. Although we probably have greater judicial activism and better protection in our courts than many European states, that does not come without problems. We would be foolish not to recognise that there occasionally are problems.
992
I also do not think that the objectives of the 1951 convention are the villain of the piece. During our consideration of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill, I never heard any noble Lord say that we should not offer asylum to those who genuinely need it. As I think most sides of the House will recognise, the problem is that, for understandable reasons, a very large proportion of those claiming asylum are truly economic migrants. It is not easy to tell one from the other. Consequently, with the support of the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, we passed that legislation.
That point raises another issue which I have previously mentioned. At some stage, this House may be able to debate and reflect on the elements of a better system. I think that such a debate would be worthwhile. I am talking not about throwing away the 1951 convention, but about how to build on those processes and fundamental principles while recognising the current reality of massive international movements of population and extensive criminal trafficking. We could discuss a better way of being fair and standing firm on the 1951 convention. It is currently very difficult to do that. It is very difficult to distinguish asylum seekers from the thousands who may not be.
Therefore, although I am with the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, on the point, I do not think that the 1951 convention itself is redundant. It simply needs to be developed.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, the Minister referred to the process of applications for asylum by Iraqis as a charade, by which he means that at the end of the day, after they have been through the appeal system, they are always allowed to remain here in view of the circumstances in their country of origin. What implications does that have for the people who are applying for asylum in this country and who are awaiting hearings before the adjudicator or the tribunal? Should they not also be given leave to remain without going through, as he has described it, the charade of the process?
Secondly, may I ask him what are the implications of having the border controls in northern France and, ultimately, in Belgium and Holland? Does it mean that, if somebody applies for asylum in the United Kingdom at one of these places and they are refused, the appeal process will also take place in those countries and that the adjudicators and tribunals will have to sit in northern France, Belgium and Holland?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, when I used the word charade what I meant was that I believe that the vast majority of the 1,000 or so Iraqis who will effectively be given a visa allowing them to work in this country had obtained what they wished. One could therefore see little purpose in their seeking also to apply for asylum, having got what they effectively wanted—the right to work in the United Kingdom and to be given the visa status which protected them in doing so.
The noble Lord then pointed out that this may be rough justice in terms of other people who are in the system. Other people are in the system. We will not,

993
from this Dispatch Box, say for a second that the thousands of other people currently in the system—who have applied for asylum and, if they so wish, have applied also for appeals against a negative decision, either at the first instance, second instance, or even the third instance—should be granted work permits. There is no reason whatever why we should do so, which is why we will not do so. The 1,000 Iraqis are being given a right of entry as part of a necessary piece of political management to close the Sangatte centre and to staunch the enormous flow of people entering across the Channel, illicitly and illegally.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, perhaps I may first of all congratulate my noble friend on what I think is a very satisfactory outcome to the best part of two years of serious problems at Sangatte. I declare an interest as Chairman of the Rail Freight Group.
Sangatte, as he said, is to some extent an illustration of a very serious problem for the people of Calais, but it has also been a major contribution to stopping rail freight and the Eurotunnel services for a time. Since the new fence has been erected and is working, the numbers have decreased very dramatically and services have greatly improved. That is one reason why it is now possible for the two governments to agree to close the Sangatte centre early.
My noble friend is aware that the problem is now migrating to other Channel ports. Therefore, 'will he also look at the problem of migration nearer the source, namely Italy? Many of us have been aware for some time that organised crime has certainly had a part to play in the flows of some of these people. Just this morning I heard that Her Majesty's Customs had organised a conference a week or two ago in Milan to warn shippers about the problems of drug smuggling, paedophiles, sex and people smuggling. I would ask my noble friend whether his department, the Immigration Service, could join with customs, and perhaps with the transport Ministers, to look at the problem of people climbing into trains in Italy—which is again clearly a case of organised crime—to close a further loophole in what otherwise is the opportunity to restart a very good service quite quickly.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Berkeley for his recognition of the achievement. I think that it is a truly significant achievement by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. Such agreements are not easily made. They require vision, leadership and an ability to strike a personal relationship with another interior Minister to make such things come about—particularly when they cause pain for both sides in the short term, even though they will deliver significant benefits to both sides.
I take his point that we would be naïve to think that this problem would be ended by our making it significantly harder for illegal clandestines to get through the north coast ports. If they are earning substantial amounts of money from such trafficking, people will look for other routes—and they will be doing so now, even though I believe that we have made very significant progress both with the French and
994
with the Belgians. We are talking to the French. about the issue of further upstream work. We are conscious that people are boarding freight trains in Italy. The French police are very much engaged in this problem and have had talks with the Italians.
We will continue that sort of international cooperation, both with the French and with other European member states. This finds its reflection at a policy level in the Justice and Home Affairs Committee, but finds its true practical expression in some very good work, which has to continue, both through customs, immigration and police officials in each of the relevant member states.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, the noble Lord has mentioned the people in the Sangatte centre who have not claimed asylum in France. When the centre is closed, will the French Government be providing the United Kingdom Government with a list of people who have claimed asylum, so that anyone else can be properly screened when they arrive?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, the question posed by the noble Baroness is a good one and I will pursue it with the department. It certainly should be possible to make that much more foolproof than has been the case in the past, because EURODAC comes on line in the early part of next year. EURODAC, for those who do not thrill to some of these technicalities, is a computerised system which allows fingerprints to be digitised and therefore compared.
It would be highly desirable that the French entered anyone who claimed asylum in that way onto EURODAC as soon as possible, which would allow us the potential, when that comes on stream, to compare their fingerprints. It would avoid what I am afraid we do know happens, namely multiple asylum claims by some people in several countries at once.
Lord Monson: My Lords, can the Minister confirm or deny reports that would-be illegal immigrants are now moving to Cherbourg and other French and Belgian Channel ports, in order to try to smuggle themselves into this country?
Secondly, although the idea of temporary work permits is probably the least bad option in the circumstances—and to that extent I agree with the Government—could he confirm that those granted such permits will not automatically be given the right subsequently of permanent settlement in this country, still less full British citizenship? This would send out a signal that we are a soft touch, compared to the rest of Europe.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, in reply to the first question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, about illegal immigrants, one of the benefits of the increased technological surveillance that is being installed on the continental side of the Channel ports is that it will not only identify people who would have come in and claimed asylum, but will also identify people who are clandestines—who do not wish to claim asylum but who want to enter and work incognito in the illicit

995
labour market in Britain. For obvious reasons, we have no precise understanding of how many clandestines who come in do not then claim asylum. We obviously know those who do.
I touched on the issue of work permits earlier. If a person is effectively given a visa which allows them to work for four years and if everything else goes well, then at the end of that period they are entitled to apply for permanent residence. There is clearly still a discretion by the Home Secretary in that respect, but they are entitled to make an application if they so wish.
Earl Russell: My Lords, when the Minister describes these Iraqis admitted on work permits, does it follow that, if they obey the actively seeking work rules as applied by the Department for Work and Pensions, and nevertheless fail to obtain work, they will be entitled to benefits in the ordinary way?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, that is a clear question to which the answer is clear; namely, that will be the case. However, we hope that that would apply to few of these people for two reasons: first, because we believe that most of them want to work here and there is still a reasonably buoyant labour market; and, secondly, clearly we do not wish taxpayers' money to be unnecessarily disbursed if that can be avoided.

Crime (International Co-operation) Bill [H.L.]
4.30 p.m.
Second Reading debate resumed.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick: My Lords, at first sight the Bill seems to be something of a ragbag but it contains some important provisions of which I shall mention only three.
Part 1, Chapter 2 covers the obtaining of evidence abroad. In the old days that was done by means of letters of request in which, many years ago, I became almost by inadvertence something of an expert. But it was always an inconvenient way of obtaining evidence abroad and was often protracted. Clause 7 seems to me to be a great improvement. Our courts will be able to apply direct to the foreign court which will take the evidence in question. It will no longer be necessary to go through the Foreign Office for that purpose as was necessary hitherto. That must be a good thing.
Clauses 13 to 15 contain the reciprocal measures to those in Clauses 7 to 9, but for some reason inward requests for evidence seem still to have to go through the Secretary of State. I am not sure why that should be. I am not sure that I altogether understand the explanation that has been provided in the Explanatory Notes. Perhaps when the Minister replies to the debate he will enlighten us a little further on that point.
I hope that the Minister will deal with another query. Presumably our courts will continue to be able to request evidence of telephone intercepts obtained
996
abroad for the purposes of trials which take place in England. Such evidence was obtained not long ago and held to be admissible by the House in the recent decision of R v P. But, that being so, will the measure work the other way? Can foreign courts request evidence of telephone intercepts which have been obtained here for the purposes of their trials abroad and, if not, why not? Such evidence is not, of course, admissible in English courts for reasons which I have long found hard to understand and which I continue to deplore. But there is nothing in Section 17 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 which would prevent such evidence being used in a foreign court. I hope that the Minister will enlighten us on that point. It seems to me that it might be a point of some importance if we are to obtain convictions in foreign countries to the extent that we should. Meanwhile, I certainly support Part 1, Chapter 2.
I turn to the question of foreign surveillance operations under Clause 83. For some it may seem objectionable that foreign police officers should be able to conduct intrusive surveillance operations in the United Kingdom unaccompanied by a United Kingdom police officer or Customs officer. I well understand that, but there are two factors to remember: first, that the arrangement is reciprocal and we shall be able to do the same abroad; and, secondly, perhaps even more importantly, that Clause 83 is far from being open-ended. It allows surveillance in the United Kingdom only where the surveillance operation has already started abroad and then only for a short period of five hours while the foreign police officer is, in the language, in hot pursuit of the target. I agree with the Minister that those are proper safeguards. When one has regard to the appalling problems of international drug smuggling which are getting worse all the time, it seems to me that Clause 83 is a small price to pay if we are at least to hold our own against international criminals, let alone defeat them. Therefore, I support Clause 83.
Finally, I turn to the anti-terrorist provisions in Clauses 53 and 54. These clauses implement Article 9 of the Framework Decision of 13th June of this year so the Government have acted with commendable speed. What is to my mind far less commendable is the way in which these new provisions have been incorporated into existing legislation. The purpose of the new sections is to confer jurisdiction on our courts in the case of terrorist offences committed by or against British subjects overseas. The Framework Decision refers repeatedly to what it calls "terrorist offences". The problem is that the Terrorism Act 2000 contains no definition of "terrorist offences". That can now be seen to be a grave defect. Instead we now have the two long lists of offences set out in new Sections 63B and 63C and lists that are nearly but not quite the same tacked on to a provision about terrorist finance. I do not find that drafting satisfactory.
Chapter 6 of my report sets out the reasons why I thought that it would be desirable to have a definition of "terrorist offences" that could be included in the Terrorism Act. Soon after the Terrorism Bill was published I spent an hour with the then Home

997
Secretary trying to persuade him of my view on that matter but I did not succeed. The Terrorism Act instead specifies comparatively minor matters such as weapons training, fundraising, the wearing of uniforms and so on as terrorist offences. But nowhere does it state that murders such as those that were committed on September 11th or in Bali or in Mombassa are terrorist offences within the meaning of the Act. That seems to me to be very strange indeed. Nowhere is the word "murder" even mentioned in the Terrorism Act. Now it is to be mentioned for the first time. I am glad of that. I confess that I have an almost overwhelming desire to say to the Minister, "I told you so", but I shall try not to do so in too offensive a way.
If we are to have murder included among terrorist offences, surely it should not be tucked away, as it is, in new Sections 63A to E. It should be set out in resounding terms at the very outset, probably in new Section 2 immediately following the definitions of terrorist offences in new Section 1. The measure would then no doubt refer to a new schedule which could be brought up to date as new terrorist offences are proposed, as no doubt they will be as the years go by. That format is what I suggested in Chapter 6 and Appendix E of my report.
I beg the Minister to think again about the drafting of the new clauses. That would be quite easy to do and if it were proper to offer to do so, I should be very willing to offer my help. We have already missed a golden opportunity to include in the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act a comprehensive definition of what we mean by "terrorist offences". I hope that we will not miss that opportunity for a second time.
4.40 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble and learned Lord, who raised some very pertinent points, particularly about the definition of "terrorism". I wait with some interest my noble friend's response to the rather important aspect that we are considering.
Like the noble and learned Lord, I share the view that it is desirable, not only from the point of view of the law but also from the point of view of restricting terrorist activities, that we should be much more emphatic than we are in dealing with this matter. The noble Baroness sought to say—I in no way impugn her motives—that civil liberties should not be eroded. As my intervention suggested and notwithstanding her response, there is some doubt about the practices of our predecessors in that regard. We should do well to consider the bona fides of the previous government with regard to the establishment of civil liberties. I agree with her that the issue of civil liberties is very precious and that a balance has to be struck between civil liberties and the effective enforcement of the law. When there are doubts, I should err on the side of civil liberties.
It is wrong for us to entertain the view that somehow or other we have a monopoly in this country so far as that aspect of civil liberties is concerned. There are plenty of countries within the EU that are
998
deeply concerned about civil liberties. We should be concerned about the erosion of civil liberties; I entirely agree with the noble Baroness.
Another important point is that there should be near certainty of apprehension so far as miscreants are concerned. On the whole, they are very inventive and we should be concerned about that. That point was effectively dealt with by my noble friend the Minister and that is underlined by Parts 1 and 2 and reinforced by Parts 3 and 4. It does not avail us at all to hope that all miscreants will be arrested. I believe that we have no alternative but to strengthen the current law. In an age of international crime, the response also has to be international. The EU is a very good starting point.
The House owes special plaudits to the scrutiny committee of both Houses which considered this legislation. That committee made it possible to enact amendments to the law.
Police and judicial co-operation, as well as other relevant provisions of the Schengen agreement, are absolutely essential if the system is to work. That makes the Treaty of Amsterdam so important. However, we should be prepared to act with speed if holes in the law are discovered and flouted by the unscrupulous. I have my doubts about the speed of the changes that may be required from time to time. I should like to hear what my noble friend has to say about that. We currently have to wait for some two years before any changes in an enactment can be provided. That is not adequate when we consider the way in which international terrorists and others behave.
It should also be emphasised that national authorities should choose how and by which methods the enforcement of European Union law should be utilised. I am currently not totally convinced that they do that. I wait to hear from my noble friend on that issue.
All of this illustrates in a practical way the importance of the European dimension. We hope that this will be only a beginning and that an ever-wider reaction will be fashioned. Mutual assistance in criminal matters is of the utmost significance. For example, it is supported by the evidence-freezing provisions of the framework decision on the execution in the European Union of orders freezing property and evidence. In that regard, the way in 'which the relevant authorities deal with locating bank accounts and give necessary information concerning criminal investigations, which can be provided by banking information, are of the utmost importance. The missing links in the current law are filled in by this proposed legislation so far as we can see.
The improvement of judicial co-operation is also absolutely vital in the fight against international crime. Judges are trained differently and behave differently in continental countries from our own and we do not take sufficient cognisance of that fact. I have never been a judge, unlike my noble and learned friend, but he recognises that that is in reality only a superficial difference.

999
We are dealing with all kinds of sophisticated criminals for whom frontiers are essentially irrelevant. Prosecuting authorities have to be at least one step ahead as I have already said. It may well be necessary to extend these provisions in the light of experience. At the moment, whether the threat comes from Al'Qaeda, or from any other source, many innocent people the world over feel threatened. I have no wish to be alarmist, as that plays into the hands of the terrorists, but we have to be prepared. In part this Bill answers that particular problem. We can never be wholly satisfied. We also have to be prepared to say that we were wrong, or that we have to alter the provisions of the law or that the law is inadequate.
In my view the Schengen convention and the Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters 2000 are essential provisions for combating international crime, as revealed by my noble friend. The provisions that this House is now considering include hearing witnesses abroad through television links. Although that is partially covered at the moment, the Secretary of State is able to extend that to other types of criminal proceedings. What is of equal importance is that for the first time the courts can hear witnesses who may be abroad or here via television links. The same can be done by telephone.
This Bill is very wide. It covers all those issue that I have addressed and many others: banking transactions; accounts, in particular banking accounts; the transfer of prisoners to enable investigations to be assisted; terrorism, which is to be tackled much more effectively than at the moment; driving offences that are subject to disqualification orders and which are to be dealt with more vigorously on an international basis; and many other issues.
In my view it is right that prosecuting authorities should be more prepared than ever, on an international stage, to respond to the stratagems of criminals. This Bill goes a long way towards achieving that.
4.54 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, and to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, as each of them has enabled me to shorten my speech. They have both mentioned terrorism. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will not mind my referring to his comment that there is no definition of terrorism in our statute law. I suggest that terrorism covers a wide range of criminal offences that do not need to be redefined. If I understand the matter properly, terrorism is simply the motive behind the commission of criminal offences. There is such a wide variety of terrible motives that I believe it will be difficult to achieve a definition. I may be wrong, but we shall consider the matter in later proceedings on the Bill.
It seems to me that this Bill is obviously necessary, although it is unavoidably complicated. It is necessary for two main reasons: first, for dealing firmly with terrorism, as has been mentioned, and secondly, since the end of the Second World War, there has been a vast
1000
increase in the easy movement of people, lawfully and unlawfully, around the world. In relation to people who live on islands, as we do, that increased ease of travel is mainly due to air travel. Across the mainlands of Europe and Asia travel has increased enormously due to easy movement by road and rail. Also the effect of border controls has diminished and border control has become much more difficult.
The changes in the world, as mentioned by some noble Lords, are phenomenal and have occurred rapidly. Although I was born only 94 years ago, I have witnessed remarkable changes. Perhaps I may give an illustration. In 1913, when I was five years old, and had already come to love the seaside, my father drove my mother and me from north Kent to north Cornwall for a seaside holiday. There were few other cars on the road and once one got away from the towns and suburbs the roads were very rough. In that dry summer they threw up a lot of dust and when my father saw a cloud of dust ahead, my mother would say to him, "Hold back". At any event, he had promised my mother not to exceed 40 miles per hour! I am only blurting out the truth! That journey from north Kent to north Cornwall took us three days, but now we can fly around the world in three days thanks to the splendid passenger aircraft at our disposal. The movement of people has increased phenomenally.
My recollection is quite good. A week after the First World War started I was six years old and reasonably observant. I scarcely ever saw a foreigner or a coloured person in Kent, where I was brought up, nor in London. When my mother took me to London. there were hardly any taxis so we had to take cabs.
However, we have seen a vast change in the population, especially in the past 50 years. In January 1958, when all who were British subjects in what was formerly the British Empire and became the Commonwealth had a right to come and live here permanently, I became Under-Secretary at the Home Office with Mr R A Butler as the Home Secretary. He made me responsible for immigration control and for licensing asylum seekers, of whom there were very few. They caused no trouble. There were about 15 or 20 per year. But Commonwealth immigrants became so numerous that we had to diminish their right to come and stay here indefinitely.
In 1959, 21,000 immigrants came from the Commonwealth. In 1961, 136,000 came. So in 1962 we had to have the Commonwealth Immigrants Act, which deprived them of their right to live here but enabled many to come here for employment.
It is interesting to note in passing that—I hope this will amuse the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, for whom we have a high regard—when we piloted that Bill, I was of course in another place, the Labour opposition opposed it strenuously and threatened to repeal it when they came to power. But when they did come to power they did not repeal it, I am glad to say—they strengthened it.
Therefore, I feel that the motives of the present government are right in trying to deal with the matters that this complicated Bill attempts to deal with. It is

1001
necessarily complicated, detailed and technical. But its provisions are of great importance. We shall have to pay close attention to them in the later stages of the Bill, especially in the six days in the Grand Committee. I think that the Government are quite justified in sending the Bill to a Grand Committee.
I return to the subject of terrorism. To my mind, the most urgent and important part of the Bill is Part 2, which, in Clauses 53 and 54, deals with terrorism and extends the definitions of terrorism and the offences created by it mentioned last year in the previous legislation. Clauses 53 and 54 will make the method of dealing with terrorism more effective.
Although the Government broadly deserve support on this Bill, I agree with those noble Lords and the noble and learned Lord who pointed out detailed matters which we must attempt to improve. My noble friend Lady Anelay was particularly justified in referring to the inadequacy of the order-making power. That must be dealt with; it is too loose. But we must also amend the Bill to ensure that, if police or other people from another country come here chasing criminals, they must inform our authorities, especially our police. That surely would not be difficult. Modern telephones, radio and so on will make it quite easy for foreign countries, for whom these people are acting, to give even advance notice if necessary. That must be done and the Bill should be amended, as my noble friend Lady Anelay of St Johns said.
Perhaps I may presume to say in conclusion that the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, has earned our confidence on several occasions. I wish him success in the piloting of this complicated, difficult and necessary Bill.
5.4 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I have never been able to decide whether it is my eyes or my brain that causes me to read things with a slightly perverse view. When I picked up the Bill from the Printed Paper Office, I looked at the title page and thought" "Oh, heavens". I did not realise that the Government were in the business of promoting international crime.
That may be perverse, but it is a perfectly valid interpretation of the heading on the title page of the Bill. I do not think that the British Parliament should progress a Bill that has an ambiguous title on its face. I ask the Minister most sincerely to consider that. If it were a criminal investigation (international cooperation) Bill or even a crime prevention (international co-operation) Bill, that would be perfectly satisfactory. But, as written, this short title is in my view improper. I do not know what the procedure is for altering the short title of a Bill. There may riot even be one. I am glad to assure the noble Lord that I am in fact reassured by the long title of the Bill, which is perfectly plain. But the long title of the Bill is not on the face page, and it is the face page that I am concerned about.
In the aftermath of the Mombassa disaster, preceded of course as it was by Bali, it is all too easy to think that we must go completely overboard in dealing with international crime. "Overboard" is a matter of
1002
definition, but it is necessary to remember and to remind ourselves that the battle against international terrorism is the same as the battle that we have against crime. While criminal procedures, the law and justice are a part of that process, we need also to think that it is part of a political process. One cannot win the battle against terrorism without winning hearts and minds. The same applies with regard to criminals. Somehow we have to persuade people that there is more to gain for society generally from ordered, rational and developing communities. It is an aspect of both those problems to which we often do not pay sufficient attention. It is easy to lose sight of when we are considering a specific Bill that deals wish the investigation and, hopefully, apprehension of criminals.
I have no difficulty with the definition of terrorism. I have always thought that the definition of terrorism was "any criminal act committed with a view to coercion". I wondered whether one should restrict that definition to political or religious coercion but, on the whole, I concluded that one should not. It is my view—and this is where the distinctions become blurred—that the actions of some small groups of young people which give rise to anti-social behaviour orders are a form of terrorism. In a sense, that is a diversion from the Bill, but it is an important part of the background.
If the purpose of the Bill were simply to apply the relevant parts of the Schengen agreement to British law, it would be very straightforward and much easier to deal with. But the Bill goes wider than that. It deals also with the Commonwealth and, indeed, in appropriate cases where appropriate treaties exist, with the rest of the world. In the definitions in Clause 52, the Minister is to be given powers to add countries. I assume that that power is restricted so that in fact it means countries that gain access to the Schengen agreement by joining the European Union. If it means anything wider than that, to give a Minister power to include countries in such a procedure is too radical for us to accept. I hope that, when he replies, the Minister can give me the assurance that I seek.
The other aspect of the Bill that interests me is the mutual provision of information. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, made the point that that is a two-way process; I must say that it is highly desirable. But I am not sure from reading the Bill at what point that mutual transfer of information may take place. My concern is whether it is when a criminal has been identified and charged with a crime and the international authorities are looking for corroborating evidence. Is it when a crime has been committed and we know what the crime is but do not have the remotest idea who has committed it, and so we are looking for evidence that may lead to the identification of a criminal? Or—this has caused concern with respect to the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000—will foreign groups working in the field of criminal justice be able to come on a fishing trip?
I have no difficulty with what I read in the Bill about banking, exchange of criminals, and so on. But the European Union is now considering increasing the

1003
data retained by telephone companies, Internet providers and, especially, mobile telephone providers. Where today we have records only for billing purposes, in future we will have records of which Internet sites have been called up. Mobile phone companies can also be required to keep a record of where people are whenever their mobile phones are switched on. I would be quite satisfied for many countries to have that information but, even within the European Union, I should be concerned if some countries had access to it.
So the question of when the Bill kicks in is important. If it is when we are dealing with an identified criminal, there is no question but that that is appropriate. It may also be appropriate in the case of an identified crime, but that is more doubtful. Fishing trips should be completely ruled out. That point is not sufficiently clearly defined in the Bill.
I support the Bill's general principles. Obviously, we shall have to see it through Grand Committee, which will be an interesting procedure—although I have observed it before. It has always seemed to me that when a Bill is committed to a Grand Committee, the Committee should have the right to ask for a day on the Floor of the House if parts of the Bill are shown to be controversial so that we do not have only Report and Third Reading to deal with controversial parts of a Bill. Unfortunately, I could not make that point when the Procedure Committee's report was dealt with by the House in July as I was then flat on my back in hospital. I wonder whether that is possible. Again, perhaps the Minister can tell me about that when he replies.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords—
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I think that I am next. The Speakers' List appears to have been thoroughly messed up. I do not at all understand what is happening, but I think that I am to speak next.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, if the noble Lord wishes to speak next, I shall not stand in his way.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: No, my Lords, there is no hurry.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, in that case, perhaps I may start for a second time.
First, I want to say something so commonplace that if it were all that I was to say, I should not be justified in rising. It is that, according to our traditions, the Second Reading of a Bill is an important set-piece political occasion. To use an analogy from the First World War, it is the heavy artillery barrage that precedes the infantry going over the top, during which the various interests involved prepare to engage each other in trench warfare over the Bill's various clauses. In due course, those clauses are likely to become part of the law of the land.
1004
At first blush, the Bill looks no different from many others. But is that so? As the Minister pointed out in his opening remarks and as is made clear in the summary section of the Explanatory Notes, the Bill implements political deals that have already been closed in either the European Union or an intergovernmental forum. So we are in truth discussing not legislation, as we traditionally know it, but the transposition of deals done elsewhere into United Kingdom law.
I do not want anyone to get me wrong; I do not complain about that. In an increasingly interdependent world, described so vividly by my noble friend Lord Renton, decisions must now be taken in such fora. The wilder reaches of Euroscepticism, which suggest that the United Kingdom Parliament should specifically mandate our Government in such circumstances and then have some form of veto over what is to be agreed, are a fantasy. That kind of approach is a recipe for doing nothing, which will inevitably lead to criminal anarchy.
A couple of weeks ago, I was involved in the selection of my successors as Conservative candidates for the European Parliament for the North West of England. During that somewhat unedifying experience, I was struck by one particular hopeful, who had an essentially Eurosceptic disposition. However, when asked about his views on a European arrest warrant, he responded firmly in favour of the principle. He had been a policeman in the Mersey Docks, so he knew at first hand how crime and criminals do not respect national borders. He realised that the only response to the threats that they pose was to deal with them on a multilateral, transnational basis.
The real question for Parliament—and especially for the House of Lords since the publication of the report of the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham—is: how should we deal with the politics of that? I am certain that the Minister will confirm that the Government cannot tolerate any deviation from what has already been agreed elsewhere. I suppose that it may be said that in this House, constrained as we are by the Parliament Acts and the Salisbury Convention, that is nothing especially new. However, I am sure that the Minister can also confirm that exactly the same criteria apply to the other place. That is something more radical.
I recall with pleasure my spell on Sub-Committee F of the Committee on the European Union, when we discussed some of those things. I remember one particularly robust exchange with one of the Ministers of the day about her having gone beyond the scrutiny reserve. By no stretch of the imagination could it be said that the agreements are given the line-by-line scrutiny that a Bill is given in Committee or on Report. Given that there is one meeting a week, which includes the calling of witnesses, that is hardly surprising. It could hardly be otherwise.
The current position is that Parliament gives relatively cursory scrutiny to proposals before they become law. It is only in the case of matters that are not

1005
transposed by secondary legislation that any detailed attention is given thereafter. Anyway, when that happens—as in circumstances such as this—there is remarkably little that can be done. In one sense, it is rather like a world that Lewis Carroll would recognise.
As the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, said, it is often the case that the only detailed public scrutiny of such things is in the European Parliament. Depending on the legal framework within which the matter is set, that work may be consultative and not legislative. I shall make my position clear: I am not one of those who advocate the general application of the Community method to all European Union business. However, if, as in this case, the governments of Europe and elsewhere are to commit themselves internationally to legislating in detail, we must ask whether there is proper scrutiny of what is going on. I ask the Minister and, through him, the Government whether, committed as they are to parliamentary government and the democratic exercise of political power, they consider that the scrutiny of such areas of their responsibility meets the general standards of openness, transparency and accountability appropriate to the wider exercise of public business in general.
I turn away from the de facto accountability deficit that such legislation throws up and focus my final remarks on transposition. As we all know, transposition can be done in various ways. In any event. it is both an art and a science. In addition, it is the fig leaf behind which all kinds of additional gold-plating are carried out, to the invariable detriment of the wider public. I would like the Minister to tell the House whether the Bill faithfully and exclusively transposes the international agreements and European legislation from which it is derived. Is there, in fact, a certain amount of rococo embellishment added, in the public interest and on our behalf, by the man from Whitehall, who knows best?
For me and, I dare say, for other noble Lords, the difficulty is not that it is not possible to do it for oneself; it is that, especially for part-time politicians—I cannot claim to be one at present—it is incredibly difficult and time-consuming to compare the original source texts with the Bill that we are considering. I ask the Minister to ensure that an analysis is deposited in the Library of each House, showing how the source texts are being transposed into UK law in the legislation. It should also indicate the embellishments, if any, that may be added in order to improve it on our behalf.
In 2002, the world in which we live may not be a Brave New World, but it is certainly very different from what it was even a few years ago. The problems that such legislation poses relate not merely to the suitability or otherwise of the effects of its provisions. As I said, they may already have become de facto immutable. They also lie in identifying the limits of what Parliament can and cannot do with the UK legislation that it is discussing. Until we are clear about both t hose aspects, we cannot give the detailed clauses the attention that they deserve.
5.24 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I suppose that I am one of the Eurosceptics to whom the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, just referred. One of the reasons why I am sceptical about the whole business of the European Union is that we are told one thing one day and something else another day.
I well remember taking part extensively in the debates on the Amsterdam Treaty, when we discussed the Schengen agreement. Then, of course. we were told that the British Government had opted out and that there was no reason why we should opt into the agreement, because we were an island and, therefore, completely different. Now, here we are, going into it step by step, although we were told that we would not go into it. No wonder I am sceptical.
We were also assured that corpus juris was only an insane idea in the brain of Eurofanatics. Yet, step by step and bit by bit, we adopt some of the matters put forward by those so-called Eurofanatics. No wonder I am sceptical. Mind you, I have always been sceptical about the whole arrangement. It is not good and has not been good for this country. I have declared my interest.
Apart from the foreign surveillance operations, which I shall come to, the Bill will, as I read it, make details of the bank account of every citizen of the United Kingdom available to and subject to surveillance by existing EU member states and, after 2004—the way things are going—the 10 extra members. Is it not a fact that, if details of a hank account are requested by a participating state, they can be provided to a foreign state without getting permission from or even informing the account holder? Is that what it is all about? We know that that can be done in the domestic situation, but I am not sure that people in this country understand that those details will be made available to 24—perhaps, more—other countries. That is an alarming matter and an invasion of individual privacy. I am not sure that people in this country will like it much.
I come now to search warrants for crimes committed outside the United Kingdom. I am not sure whether such warrants can be used, if the alleged offence is not a criminal offence in the United Kingdom. That is not clear to me, even though it may be clear to others, and I hope that the Minister will make it clear in his winding-up speech.
Nobody could quarrel with the application of driving disqualifications in other countries. However, we must ensure that United Kingdom citizens driving abroad and foreign citizens driving in the United Kingdom are made fully aware that disqualification applies in all the participating countries, wherever that disqualification is imposed. I do not know how that will work. It is difficult to enforce driving disqualifications in this country. There are. I believe, hundreds of thousands of people driving around disqualified, and nothing can be done about it. I do not know what we will do when it applies to 350 million people—perhaps, 500 million—in Europe. I shall be interested to know what new enforcement arrangements there will be.

1007
I turn to the foreign surveillance operations in Clause 83. It is totally unacceptable to allow police and customs officials from other countries to operate unaccompanied and unsupervised in the United Kingdom for any period of time; whether it is five hours, one hour, five days or for ever. That is entirely wrong. The five hour period is simply the beginning; it is the thin end of the wedge. There is no doubt in my mind, because I am a sceptic, that the intention is to extend progressively the period as a prelude to the establishment of a European federal bureau of investigation.
That was foreshadowed at the Seville summit. Indeed, Herr Schroder only recently said that there should be a European police force, and as I said, it has been envisaged by the European Council. The French and the Germans are putting forward this proposition to the Convention on the Future of Europe. It is a live issue. No wonder I and so many others are sceptical. The Government must be aware of those developments. What is their opinion of the establishment of a federal bureau of investigation under the control of Europol?
I shall focus on the Bill's proposals. When these foreign police and officials operate in the United Kingdom, they will apparently not be liable for damage they may cause or for legal action to which they may be subject. They will be indemnified under Clauses 84 and 85 by the Government, and the bill will be picked up by the British taxpayer. But what is the position concerning criminal acts? Are those people to be immune from arrest? Even royalty has no such immunity, as we have seen recently.
It seems that these foreign policemen and officials will not be subject to the police complaints procedure, which is the final protection of the British citizen against the British police. Will they be allowed to carry arms? That would be outrageous, because British police are not allowed to carry firearms except under special circumstances and strict control. How can it then be right to allow foreign police and officials to carry arms?
Suppose they are carrying arms when they get on the ferry—what are they to do with them; throw them overboard? Or where will they deposit them? We need to know the answers to those questions. Will those people be wearing uniforms bearing means of identification? Our own police have to do so. Will these foreign officials and police be identifiable by uniform—jackboots or whatever they might wear? Or, if in civilian clothes, how will they be identified?
How will the local police know when foreign police and officials are operating in their area? Surely we are not going to allow foreign police to enter a police area and operate on police work without the knowledge of the chief constable or his senior officers? There is nothing in the Bill about that. We want to know the answers to those questions.
How will the foreign police arrive and, more importantly, when will they depart? We want to know that after five hours they are out. A law is to be passed,
1008
but how will the five-hour limit be enforced? What happens if it is exceeded? Will they then be breaking the law and arrested, or what will happen to them?
Many more questions will arise during the Bill's passage, which brings me to ask, as the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay did, what is the status of parliamentary scrutiny? I understand that an intergovernmental agreement has already been reached. What happens if Parliament rejects the Bill or amends its provisions? Can the matter then go to the European Court of Justice, or will there be political or other consequences? If so, what are those consequences? I shall be listening carefully to the answers to those questions.
Finally, I am not at all sure that this Bill should be sent to the relative obscurity of Grand Committee. Individual rights of our citizens are at stake. This Bill should be discussed on the Floor of the House. I am sorry that it has been agreed that it should go to Grand Committee. I was thinking of dividing the House, but perhaps that would be taking matters a little far. Therefore I shall not do so, but I hope that we will have a good, clear and sufficient discussion in Grand Committee. It may be necessary to table further amendments on the Floor of the House when we can vote on them to improve the Bill, although it is difficult to see how.
5.38 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, for having interrupted the beginning of his speech. At the same time, I hope that it will be accepted by the officials of the House that it would be a good idea to see that when the order of speakers is changed, every speaker taking part is served with a changed order list. I was out of the Chamber for only about five minutes during the debate when making a couple of quick telephone calls. It would not have been difficult to let me know that there had been a change of order.
I thank the Minister for explaining the Bill, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, for his extremely good speech and the points he raised. That is only to be expected as he is probably the authority on the subject, not excluding the Ministers. I agree with almost everything the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, said. I must say on behalf of the Green Party that when we look at the Bill, which on the whole we support, we shall look at it carefully in detail.
However, as a number of noble Lords have said, some parts of the Bill are not acceptable. We are very concerned about making it a criminal offence to commit an act abroad or outside the jurisdiction even if it is not illegal in the country in which it takes place. We believe that that is contrary to traditional British jurisprudence.
Our main objection to the Bill stems from the wide definition of "terrorism"—or, rather, the non-definition of "terrorism"—and, in particular, the failure to make a distinction between damage to property and harm to people. Thus we object to the inclusion of criminal damage offences, which could

1009
be used against those caught up in demonstrations of the kind seen in Genoa where attempts were made to pull down security fences. That may have been a criminal act, but it was not in any sense a terrorist act.
The Bill fails to recognise that there are corrupt or illegal regimes against which armed resistance is justified. For example, most of the Iraqi opposition groups in this country could technically be prosecuted under this legislation. Already there have been misconceived prosecutions of people coming to this country who are accused of financing terrorism when all they have been doing is managing funds for opposition political or community organisations. It is thought in some quarters that it is because the governments they oppose are important customers of the British arms industry that they have been prosecuted.
Equally, Members of your Lordships' House who buy or are given leaflets while on a human rights fact-finding mission abroad could be liable to prosecution if those leaflets were produced by one of the more vigorous opposition groups.
There are many issues in the Bill, particularly in the second half of it, which need detailed examination. I agree that it is most inappropriate that the Bill should go to Grand Committee. I hope that we shall examine it in detail and amend it.
5.42 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, the Minister will be well aware that although there has been general agreement in principle for the Bill—and in particular for his wish to combat crime on a truly international basis—some serious misgivings have been expressed by a number of noble Lords about the detail of what is proposed.
Perhaps I may start by following up the speech of my noble friend Lord Inglewood. He asked the Minister whether it would be possible to provide an analysis to put alongside the Schengen proposals together with the proposals which follow Framework Decisions and other Conventions—so that noble Lords will be able to judge for themselves the extent to which the House is being asked to follow the detail of those provisions or whether, as is the suspicion of a number of noble Lords, we are being asked to go further than has been requested in other jurisdictions.
My noble friend Lady Anelay of St Johns outlined considerable misgivings about the extent to which it will be possible for this House—or, indeed, the other place—to amend to any degree the provisions of the Bill. In reaching a conclusion as to what action is necessary, it would be of great assistance if the Minister could arrange for such an analysis to be available in the Library.
Would it be possible also to have a direct comparison with the source texts? It would be of assistance to the House if an analysis could also be made of the timetable during which other countries have either already implemented these provisions or are in the process of implementing them.
1010
Thirdly, if the Minister is as good humoured at the conclusion of the debate as he undoubtedly was at the start, he might also look with favour on a suggestion, which arises out of a number of contributions, that we should also have an analysis of the conclusions reached by the Select Committee on the European Union and its sub-committees in this House and the European Scrutiny Committee in the other place in regard to corpus juris, the European arrest warrant etc., and the extent to which these matters are directly related to the provisions of the Bill and what account the Government have taken of them.
I ask for those three provisions in the belief that they will be of great assistance in enabling noble Lords to follow this legislation. The Bill has not been published in full in draft form. I know that the Minister and several of his colleagues in government have identified draft legislation as the most appropriate way forward, but as that was not pursued in this case it would be helpful—particularly as the Bill is to go to Grand Committee—if those kind of analyses could be provided. They probably already have been provided to the Minister and it perhaps would be only a matter of his ticking the box to allow them to be distributed on a much wider basis. If they have not been presented to the Minister already, they should have been.
The Minister opened the debate by identifying a number of obstacles to the effective pursuit of criminals across boundaries. This found a resonance with noble Lords and he was right to identify those obstacles. But, as my noble friend Lady Anelay of St Johns pointed out, some elements in the Bill raise concerns. In particular my noble friend identified the provisions to allow Customs officers and police officers from abroad to conduct surveillance in the UK without first having obtained the permission of UK authorities. A number of noble Lords have identified these provisions as causing concern and it may well be that the Minister should be pressed to give further details of the safeguards it is proposed to introduce.
My noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith highlighted the danger of fishing expeditions. That must he a cause for concern, in particular as Customs officers as Will as police officers will be able to conduct surveillance operations without the UK authorities giving their permission. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, spent nearly three minutes identifying his interest as a Eurosceptic, but that in no way undermines the strength of his point, in agreements with many other noble Lords, that we do not like the idea of unlimited surveillance by officers from outside the United Kingdom. These officers will not be liable for whatever damage they may do during the course of these operations, may perhaps be allowed to carry firearms and may not be in uniform, so what protection is there for UK citizens against some degree of foreign surveillance in those circumstances? I believe that the whole idea of there being unrestricted, open. order-making powers leaves a lot to be desired. My noble friend Lady Anelay of St Johns identified a number of areas that cause her and many of us considerable concern.

1011
The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, also identified a range of issues on which the Minister should concentrate in seeking to reassure us. I refer, in particular, to the absence of sufficient safeguards with regard to data protection and identity checks. Those are just two examples set out by the noble Lord on which we seek reassurance.
It was a great privilege for us all to hear the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick. He has the reputation of being one of this country's foremost authorities on many of the issues in the Bill. The noble and learned Lord reassured us about Clause 83. No doubt we shall take time to consider his reassurance, just as I hope he will also consider whether there are sufficient safeguards around Clause 83.
I was particularly struck by his wish to see a detailed definition of "terrorist offences". My noble friend Lord Renton did a little to reassure us by saying that perhaps it was the motive behind the criminal act that was the element that sets terrorism apart. Even though that may be the case, we are entitled to see a more adequate definition of terrorism, other than by analogy through the additional clauses, which raise issues such as murder and other serious offences.
There is unanimity in seeking to press the Minister for some definition. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, suggested that he might draft a schedule. I do not know whether that was a rash offer, but it was one about which I believe I speak for the whole House when I say that we welcome and accept it. We look forward to seeing that draft. It is important to have unanimity and clarity on what constitutes terrorism.
When the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, suddenly realised that he was not in the other place and did not have to make party political points, or question the bona fides of the Opposition Benches, he echoed the serious concern about civil liberties. That concern is shared on all sides of the Chamber. After criticising my noble friend Lady Anelay, he said that he agreed entirely with her. If that is criticism, I understand that she is willing to accept it.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I entirely agreed with her, but I did not entirely agree with her predecessors in the Conservative Government.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, we have to deal with Ministers as they are today, not as we might wish them to be—on whichever side of the argument we fall.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, who has a distinguished record on civil liberties, that frontiers are irrelevant in international crime. At the same time, human rights must be increasingly safeguarded when frontiers are no longer relevant. The noble Lord said that the Bill was only a beginning. That is right in some ways, and I am sure that there is much more to come down this road. The road down which my noble friend Lord Renton travelled in 1913 was a very different one indeed, as was the demeanour
1012
of his mother when she was concerned about the speed of a vehicle travelling at 40 mph. She uttered the sort of words that I should love my wife to use, which were in no way oppressive. She merely said, "hold back". That is an example to all those back-seat drivers who usually resort to greater criticism than that. My noble friend Lord Renton gave us a good reminder that travel has changed for ever. With air travel and the ability to travel such long distances, we need to improve the method of combating crime.
My noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith said that the title of the Bill should be changed. I can reveal that the Road Traffic (Public Service Vehicles) (Amendment) Bill was changed at my instigation and became the Minibus Act. It is perfectly possible for the name of a Bill to be changed, and I can well see my noble friend's point.
The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, also wants a narrowing of the definition of terrorism, although I did not agree that we should go as far down the road as he suggested in differentiating between injury to property and injury to the person. On the other speeches that we heard, I remind the Minister that there is a degree of unanimity that the road that we are being asked to go down is, in principle, the right one. Equally, the Minister owes it to the House to introduce the safeguards that are so surely necessary if we are to convince the population about this measure involving international co-operation, which will include not only the 15 but perhaps 25 nations of the EU, or even wider more than that. To convince people that this is the right way forward, we need to respect human rights and to be more sensitive to the need to introduce safeguards.
5.57 p.m.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I thank noble Lords for the many contributions in this Second Reading debate. In many ways, such debates provide a flavour of the things that lighten our legislative burdens. I am thinking of the pleasure that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, gave us, regarding the increasing speed of international travel. Such debates also act as a gypsy's warning to Ministers. Part of the process is to give fair warning of the issues to which we shall return in more detail. That is how it should be. As the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, said, we must scrutinise legislation properly and we must not undermine liberty. I shall return to the point about liberty and civil liberties later.
A number of references were made to the fact that Parliament is being asked via primary legislation to implement a framework agreement made between European Union member states. I shall not go into the fine detail as to what extent we are at liberty to go wider or narrower, although I shall refer later to when we can add other things. I shall give a fuller explanation of the extent to which one can have some flexing on a framework agreement, but the House is right that the basic principle is that one is expected to fulfil the measures as agreed, while having flexibility in the mechanism by which one achieves the end. That is an essential characteristic of such measures.

1013
Wily are we doing it? Essentially, the House decided that that was how it should be. We had previous discussions as to whether framework agreements should be undertaken by secondary legislation and the House was clear that it wanted such matters dealt with as primary legislation. I therefore feel slightly aggrieved that we are being taken to task for doing something that the House said it wanted done in this way. I understand the reasoning, as it gives more opportunity for testing and scrutiny, about which there is nothing wrong in principle.
I turn to the meat, or at least to some of it. The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, has made it clear both earlier and today that the focus will not be about attacking the principles of many of the measures but whether there are necessary safeguards so that the ends, which have often been agreed in the debate, are balanced by proportionate protections against abuse or misguided application. Again, that seems to be a fair challenge, to which we shall happily respond in detailed debate in Committee.
I confirm that there is no intention to go into the immigration provision of Schengen. I can confirm that the UK will not be supplying to other member states or indeed receiving from them any immigration information as part of the SIS procedure.
As to how much room for manoeuvre there is on the Bill, framework agreements are binding as to the effect to be achieved. We believe that we have struck the right balance in the Bill. But, again, we shall listen—as I hope we do—to comments. We do not believe that we have usurped Parliament's powers to amend. As to what other member states are doing, they are under the same obligations as the UK and we expect them to take the same steps to meet their obligations. For the interest and information of the House, I shall do some checking to see whether they are ahead of us or behind us.
Overseas freedom orders will be issued only by judicial authorities. This is right; although authorities which are recognised as having judicial powers will also be able to issue orders.
I turn to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia. I thank him for the welcome that he gave to the Bill and to the scrutiny opportunities that arise as a consequence. He remarked on whether the UK Parliament had an adequate level of scrutiny as regards framework agreements. Scrutiny of a framework agreement operates at two levels: through the European Parliament and through the scrutiny provisions of this House and another place at each stage of an agreement through negotiation. That is an important and often challenging part of scrutiny. In effect, it means that to some extent the scrutiny takes place beforehand, while the legislation or the negotiations are under way, rather than solely on the Bill itself when it is before Parliament. Now is not the time to discuss the matter, but at some point in the future it will be good to have discussions in this House about the future of Europe; significant debates will be engaged in, as a member state, as to what that
1014
might imply for the evolution of the European Union, including how legislation is made and how scrutiny is applied to that legislation.
The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, was concerned about data protection as regards the SIS. We believe that the provisions are fully satisfactory. The Schengen Convention sets very tight controls on the use to which the data can be put. It also limits the type of information that can be entered.
In the UK, the processing of data within the national section of the SIS will be under the independent supervision of the Information Commissioner. Clause 82 will give the Infonnation Commissioner new powers to inspect personal data held on the SIS without needing the permission of the data controller. Exactly how the commissioner's inspection will work will be subject to further discussion and agreement between all those involved, but this power will ensure that the rights of the individual in respect of the SIS, and also of the European information system and the future customs information system, are properly protected. That is in addition to the protection already provided by the Data Protection Act. It will make it easier for the commissioner to ensure that these systems are compliant with the Data Protection Act. The Information Commissioner has a responsibility to ensure the accuracy of data. That is the fourth data protection principle. This responsibility would extend to the SIS and to the other systems mentioned.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd—as we should expect—made a thoughtful and interesting contribution at start of our processes. He asked about MLA. We are keeping the central route for incoming MLA requests open because we consider it to be more efficient. It is very difficult for overseas courts, which are usually territorial, to know where they should direct their requests—because our judicial system is not based on a territorial distinct jurisdiction, as the noble and learned Lord knows better than I do.
The Bill makes no change to existing provisions on the admissibility of telephone intercept evidence. I shall reply separately to the noble and learned Lord's queries on terrorism and send copies to noble Lords on the Front Benches opposite.
Yes, foreign surveillance is reciprocal. The noble and learned Lord is right. It is limited. It must be authorised in the country of origin. Officers must make contact with UK officers on crossing the border. Both of those tests have to be met for any surveillance to be lawful. I shall return to the point about the speed of application at a later date.
I turn to the definition of "terrorism". We heard interesting contributions from several noble Lords. The Terrorism Act 2000 defines terrorism as both a serious criminal act and one that is designed to influence government or to intimidate the public, and made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause. In essence, it carries the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Renton: it relates not merely to a criminal act but to the intent behind such an act. In other words, the context defines

1015
whether murder, as it were, moves from being simple murder to being terrorist murder. As the House knows, under UK law in general there are no specific terrorist offences. Suspected terrorists are prosecuted under criminal legislation.
On the point about listing murder as a terrorist offence, it is not terrorist specific. We are taking extraterritorial jurisdiction for murder and new Section 63B(2) lists the offences that are acts of terrorism or for purposes of terrorism as defined by Section 1 of the Terrorist Act 2000.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will give way for a moment. What is needed is not a new definition of terrorism. We have a perfectly adequate definition in Section 1 of the Act. What is needed is a list of terrorist offences, which we do not presently have. They are dotted around here and there in the existing Terrorism Act. It would be of the greatest convenience to have them all brought together—including murder, manslaughter and all the rest, where the necessary terrorist element is involved.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for his intervention, given who has made it. I shall reflect on his point against a test of utility—as to whether it would add anything that would be beneficial to the Government in relation to these issues. No doubt I shall respond to the noble Lord on that point.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, is right. Many of these issues are about a balance between civil liberties and law enforcement. However, I invite the House to reflect that civil liberties do not align themselves merely around the defence of the innocent who might be charged with an offence. They are relevant to the defence of "quiet enjoyment" by a person—in other words, being able to live without harassment, fear or apprehension of crime in one's community, in one's society. That seems to me to be just as important as civil liberty. That is why legislators make measures of this type—to try to ensure that a person can have that form of civil liberty too; namely, his or her own quiet enjoyment. We shall no doubt return to these points on many other occasions.
Turning to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, about foreign officers informing, we anticipate that the vast majority of joint surveillance operations across international boundaries will be arranged in advance. The Bill provides for exceptional circumstances where this may not be possible. However, as I indicated, to take advantage of this facility, the convention requires that foreign officers must contact the UK police as soon as the border is crossed.
On the title of the Bill, I am pleased to say that, until the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, guided me otherwise, I did not know what the answer was for changing the title—and I am not sure that I would have told him even if I had known; but we now hear that this is possible. In short, the title is devised by parliamentary counsel, considering the overall scope of the Bill; and the Long
1016
Title, as the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, acknowledges, fully amplifies the short title, so there is no risk of misunderstanding, which I think goes to the heart of his query.
On the question about "fishing trips" in terms of data protection, the Bill will not allow fishing trips of the kind mentioned by the noble Lord. You can access the SIS only when you find, stop and arrest a person whom you think might be of interest and therefore want to check on a specific individual in specific circumstances.
The order-making power in Clause 52 is needed to cover new states joining the European Union should this occur, as we expect it to, and also countries such as Norway and Iceland which are part of Schengen but are not in the European Union.
The speech by the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, was extremely interesting. It probably touches on my earlier point about a discussion at some stage on the future of Europe and how some of these issues are dealt with. The noble Lord is right that it should not be a mandate for doing nothing by having everything signed and sealed by a legislature before one can move. On the other hand, it is important that there is effective scrutiny at crucial points.
I will not go into more detail now, because time is tight, but I mark those points and the question of whether the process of transposition fails to implement faithfully the framework agreement. We have placed in the Library a note that effectively compares the framework agreement and the clauses of the Bill. I will double-check with officials whether that goes to the completeness of what was raised today in discussion. I am unapologetic that the Bill will include things that were not in the framework agreement. If we have a useful Bill before the House, we should use it as a vehicle for carrying out things that we need to do. There is no difficulty in our making clear to the House and to the Opposition Front Benches where that applies.
I will have a later opportunity to engage with the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, about his views on Europe, and it will be a pleasure to do so. He commented that we were in danger of changing our position. I am reminded of what John Maynard Keynes said:
"When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?"
The noble Lord made the central point that we do not participate fully in Schengen. As noble Lords will have gathered from our debate, we are clear that it is important for us to maintain border controls. We will exercise the freedom that the Treaty of Amsterdam gave us to participate fully in other parts of Schengen when it seems to us to suit the interests of United Kingdom citizens. We will use that test for almost all European legislation, asking whether it benefits British citizens rather than being some unclear process of Euro-harmonisation. The measures must deliver benefits to British citizens. We will apply that test in negotiations and legislation.

1017
Bank account requests can be made only in response to specific lists of criminal offences. Requests will not be disclosed as for domestic cases, and overseas requests will be subject to judicial discretion. Search warrants will be subject to PACE 1984, and the crime has to be an arrestable offence in the United Kingdom.
The five-hour limitation is not a thin end of the wedge. I made clear that it is highly circumscribed and we do not expect that it will be frequently used. I invite the House to think about the alternative. If we did not allow it, as perhaps only one Member implied should happen, that would imply clearly that we prefer criminals or suspected criminals to enter this country, rather than police who are pursuing them to try to apprehend them. That is an Alice-in-Wonderland world, which is why there is a five-hour limitation to try to ensure that pursuit mechanisms are tied up domestically and to increase the likelihood of apprehending suspected criminals or terrorists.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for giving way. When I used the term "thin end of the wedge", I was referring to the propositions by French and Germans to establish a European federal bureau of investigation. I asked what the Government's view of that position was.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his correction and I accept it. We are against the EU FBI idea or proposal, as I am sure he will be relieved to understand.
Complaint procedures to the tribunal under RIPA 2000 will be available. Uniform will not be worn for obvious reasons: it is impossible to track someone effectively under cover while in uniform.
The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, asked about innocent protesters. All the offences listed under Section 53B(2) must satisfy the definition of terrorism under Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000. In response to the concern about extra-territorial jurisdictions for countries where an act is not a criminal offences, it is aimed solely at terrorism. We already have ETJ for terrorist bombing and terrorist finances to satisfy commitments under UN Conventions. These clauses take ETJ where offences are committed abroad by or against UK nationals for a terrorist purpose. The Government feel that is right in principle.
The sequence of markers by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, about where we will be returning in Committee was helpful. We know what we must come back to. As I signalled, we will seek to satisfy as far as is reasonably practicable some of the points about origin and application. It is not a draft Bill, for reasons noble Lords would understand. The draft agreements have
1018
been right through the EU scrutiny process of this House and another place. It is therefore hard to see how the form of draft that we recognise for other legislation could apply. I take the noble Lord's point that we will be looking to widen the application if membership of the European Union increases to 25 as we expect it to in two or three years' time. We must reflect on that.
In conclusion, I do not pretend that I have answered every question. It has been a thought-provoking debate. It raised issues for me to reflect on in terms of principle, high policy and what we will need to do to satisfy the House on the detail of this important legislation. Having said that, I am warmly grateful for the very good reception the Bill has had in principle from all parts of the House. I thank noble Lords for that.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I have listened very carefully to his summing up. He has not answered two important points. He talks about the scrutiny process through which this Bill and other European legislation have gone. Is he in effect saying that the United Kingdom Parliament is not free to alter substantially the framework decision? To what extent is the United Kingdom free to vote on it, to change it or, if it wants, to get rid of it?
Secondly, the Minister acquiesced in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart., who envisages Europol eventually carrying out some of the powers under this Bill. Why has Europol been given immunity for its actions in Statutory Instrument No. 2973 as long ago as 17th December 1997? That cannot possibly have anything to do with the events of 11th September. To sum up, to what extent is the United Kingdom free to change the Bill, and does Europol have immunity?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I am clear that it is convention that someone who speaks during a debate, but who is not in his place when the Minister responds, does not have a right of response. I am less clear on the position of a Member who is not present during the debate and arrives when the Minister is summing up.
I addressed the first point and signalled quite clearly that I shall clarify it later. However, I spoke about the scope of the limitation in some detail in my summing up. No doubt, I will go the further mile on that. I shall not respond to the second question on the basis of principle and practice. Given my usual style, I will no doubt write to the noble Lord.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Grand Committee.
House adjourned at twenty minutes past six o'clock.

  Midland New Site Airport Proposal: RAF Operations
  Midland New Site Airport Proposal: RAF Operations
  MND: US Gulf Veterans Study
  MND: US Gulf Veterans Study
  Royal Artillery
  Royal Artillery
  ISAF
  ISAF
  Armed Forces: Smallpox
  Armed Forces: Smallpox
  Electronic Networks: Strategy Unit Report
  Electronic Networks: Strategy Unit Report
  Market Town Initiative: Alnwick
  Market Town Initiative: Alnwick
  Horticulture Research International
  Horticulture Research International
  Disabled Children
  Disabled Children
  Adoption
  Adoption
  NHS: Delayed Discharge and Emergency Re-admission
  NHS: Delayed Discharge and Emergency Re-admission
  National Committees: Manufacturer Representatives
  National Committees: Manufacturer Representatives
  Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder: Consultants and School Nurses
  Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder: Consultants and School Nurses
  Acrylamide
  Acrylamide
  Care Trusts
  Care Trusts
  NHS: General and Acute In-patient Activity
  NHS: General and Acute In-patient Activity
  Private Care Homes
  Private Care Homes
  Hearing Aid Services
  Hearing Aid Services
  Diabetes
  Diabetes
  NHS: Early Retirement Provision
  NHS: Early Retirement Provision
  Osteoporotic Surgery
  Osteoporotic Surgery
  Human Reproduction: Sex Selection Consultation
  Human Reproduction: Sex Selection Consultation
  Abortion Act 1967, Section 1(1)(d)
  Abortion Act 1967, Section 1(1)(d)
  Healthcare Workers: Smallpox
  Healthcare Workers: Smallpox
  NHS Pay
  NHS Pay
  Education Sector: IT Provision
  Education Sector: IT Provision
  Department for Education and Skills: Outside Consultancies
  Department for Education and Skills: Outside Consultancies
  Tourism Industry: Insurance
  Tourism Industry: Insurance
  Thomas Coram Foundation
  Thomas Coram Foundation
  Belfast Agreement: Cross-Border Bodies
  Belfast Agreement: Cross-Border Bodies
  Northern Ireland: Post-Primary Education
  Northern Ireland: Post-Primary Education