Sitting of 4 December 2002

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

    Blood Transfusions (Cancer Patients)
    Mr. Dai Havard: What discussions he has had with (a) the Department of Health, (b) the National Assembly for Wales and (c) others about the greater use of alternatives to blood transfusions for cancer patients in Wales. [83067]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Don Touhig): My right hon. Friend and I have many meetings, both with my colleagues in other Government Departments, such as the Department of Health, and with colleagues in the National Assembly for Wales. The provision of health care in Wales is a topic that we regularly discuss.
    Mr. Havard: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. May I share some information with him? He will know that I have been campaigning about the use of blood alternatives for some time. The latest research from the renowned Health Economist Catalyst will show on Saturday that £600 million is now spent on transfusions within the hospital stay element alone. These are bed days that need not be used if there were alternatives. The economics are already proven. I welcome the possible referral of this issue to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, but that will take quite a time to take place. Perhaps my hon. Friend will agree with me that simple changes in Government policy and departmental policy could effect step changes as opposed to incremental changes.
    Mr. Touhig: I am aware of my hon. Friend's interest in this matter. Indeed, he referred to it during Second Reading of the Health (Wales) Bill, which took place about a week ago. I am aware that he favours the use of alternatives to blood transfusions for patients with cancer. However, it is important to point out that each individual case is a matter for the health professionals. They decide on the appropriate treatment for any patient. As I have said, I am aware of my hon. Friend's concerns. I shall ensure that they are brought to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health.

    Manufacturing Industry
    Sir Nicholas Winterton: If he will make a statement on the state of manufacturing industry in Wales. [83068]
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Peter Hain): Although manufacturing has had a tough time, the picture for Welsh industry as a whole is promising, including Ford's new investment at Bridgend involving an estimated 640 jobs.
    Sir Nicholas Winterton: I am grateful for the rational response that I have received from the Secretary of State. He will be aware that United Kingdom manufacturing output last June fell by the largest amount ever, which was 5.3 per cent., and that there was a similar fall in all parts of the UK. Are the Government aware that some of their measures of increased regulation and indirect taxation, despite what they are doing with corporation tax, are placing unbearable burdens upon industry? Will the right hon. Gentleman do his best to do something about it?
    Peter Hain: As the hon. Gentleman will know, as a keen enthusiast for manufacturing—that is something that I share with him—corporation tax for small companies has been cut hugely by the Government, which is much to our credit. He will also, as a follower of manufacturing in Wales, have read this morning's Western Mail—
    Sir Nicholas Winterton: Of course.
    Peter Hain: Otherwise, he would not be asking the question. He will have read that 50 small companies—fast-growth world-beating companies—have been identified as doing very well. They have created more than 800 new jobs over the past two years. This is a pattern of Wales doing well against a difficult international climate, with employment climbing with 33,000 extra jobs between July and September. Newport, Cardiff and Swansea have some of the fastest-growing companies in Britain, and Wales has one of the lowest levels of business failure in Britain. The Welsh Development Agency has created more than 2,000 new businesses over the past year. Despite the difficult international climate, Wales is doing much better than it has ever done before in these circumstances.
    Ian Lucas: Is my right hon. Friend aware that only yesterday in Wrexham, a major multinational company, Owens Corning, announced redundancies involving 230 highly skilled jobs? These jobs are moving to mainland Europe. Will my right hon. Friend join me in carrying out a detailed investigation to ascertain why the company has made this decision, and then make representations within the Cabinet on my behalf to ensure that this does not happen again?
    Peter Hain: I regret the company's decision and acknowledge the diligence with which my hon. Friend approaches the local economy, especially local manufacturers. I understand that no amount of financial assistance from the Government or the Welsh Assembly would have saved the plant. The company was

    891
    determined to shift it to eastern countries because of cheaper labour costs. The lesson for us is that we must constantly increase our value-added production, upskill and go for high quality jobs and investment. In that context, I visited Wrexham with my hon. Friend recently to ascertain the local picture, which includes a high quality, world-class company, CP Pharmaceuticals. It shows that Wrexham is going places under the Government.
    Adam Price: According to the latest Office for National Statistics figures, there was a net loss of 160,000 manufacturing jobs in the three months to September. That works out at a rate of 10,000 jobs a week. Four years ago, when the Secretary of State was Minister with responsibility for the industry, he wrote to the Chancellor to draw attention to the impact of the high pound on manufacturing. Given that the pound is higher now than it was then, will he write to his right hon. Friend again?
    Peter Hain: Unemployment in the hon. Gentleman's constituency has fallen by half under the Labour Government. That shows that Labour policies are working where nationalist policies would have failed. I draw his attention to Carmarthen county council's five-year master plan, which aims to create almost 5,000 jobs and safeguard another 2,000, thus revitalising the country's economy. Under the Government and the National Assembly for Wales, more business opportunities are being created day by day, new startups are taking place and Wales is doing better than many other parts of the world, including many advanced economies such as Canada and countries in Europe. That is a tribute to the success of the Government's policies—
    Adam Price: In manufacturing?
    Peter Hain: It is a tribute to their success, including in manufacturing. I tell the nationalists not to talk down Welsh manufacturing because many good Welsh manufacturers have weathered the difficult international climate and are doing well.
    Mrs. Betty Williams: Will my right hon. Friend hold early discussions with his ministerial colleagues about the difficulties that manufacturers experience in north Wales, including in my constituency, in obtaining public liability insurance at reasonable costs?
    Peter Hain: I take my hon. Friend's point. That is one of the reasons why we are working closely with her, other colleagues in Parliament and the National Assembly to tackle those problems and provide new opportunities.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: No hon. Member is talking down Welsh manufacturing, but the Government are letting it down. Is not the problem with the Government's policy on manufacturing the fact that
    892
    they do not have one? Business failure is much sharper in Wales than anywhere else in the United Kingdom. Job losses are occurring at an alarming rate.
    In 1997, there were 210,000 manufacturing jobs; today, there are 186,000. We learned yesterday of the sad closure of Owens Corning with the loss of 230 fibreglass manufacturing jobs. Why do the Government not appear to care about manufacturing?
    Peter Hain: That is a bit rich from a member of a party that hammered Welsh manufacturing, slashing jobs in mining, steel and heavy industry so that unemployment leapt to 168,000 at its peak under Mrs. Thatcher. We have already introduced policies under which jobs have increased and more and more companies have started up, including in manufacturing. Wales has gone for high-value-added, high-skill, high-tech jobs because that is our future.
    Mr. Evans: There are fewer manufacturing jobs in Wales today than in 1997. Surely manufacturers want a bonfire of useless regulations and a Government that understand their needs. They need a manufacturing champion in Cabinet who will be prepared to speak up for them.
    The Secretary of State is a great fan of our emerging eastern European neighbours, but travelling to those countries and seeing our manufacturing jobs that have been exported there cannot be acceptable. Will he hold urgent meetings with manufacturers to discuss the measures that can be introduced to tackle the manufacturing meltdown in Wales?
    Peter Hain: If the hon. Gentleman were a Welsh Member of Parliament, he would know that employment in Wales has increased by 33,000 in the past year, and that businesses are starting up all the time. He would know that the Welsh economy is doing better than ever in the context of an international recession. The hon. Gentleman should stop talking Wales down.
    Mr. Win Griffiths: Will my right hon. Friend hold discussions with the Welsh Development Agency and people in the automotive industry to support the huge new investment at Ford in Bridgend—it will make that plant the major engine manufacturer in the European Union—and build up a centre of excellence for the world automotive industry with a world-class company?
    Peter Hain: Yes, indeed, and I acknowledge my hon. Friend's role in helping to attract that extra investment. If Wales were doing as badly in manufacturing as the Conservatives and the nationalists maintain—following the same line, one might note—why would a world-beating company such as Ford choose to locate this extra investment in south Wales? It is doing so because Wales is doing well.

    National Emergencies
    Miss Anne McIntosh: What discussions he has had with ministerial and National Assembly colleagues about contingency planning for national emergencies. [83070]
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Peter Hain): I have regular meetings with ministerial and National Assembly colleagues in which we discuss a range of topics including contingency planning.
    Miss McIntosh: I am delighted that the Secretary of State has found his place. Will he join me in expressing concern about who has responsibility in the event of a national emergency in Wales? The National Audit Office has said that the health service across Britain would struggle to cope. This place is responsible for security, defence and foreign policy. The First Minister is responsible for the side effects. Who is ultimately responsible?
    Peter Hain: I should first acknowledge that the hon. Lady has the civil contingencies college in her constituency, which helps to train people to deal with national emergencies. The idea that the preparations for national emergencies—be they attacks by al-Qaeda or other threats—are not full and comprehensive is simply nonsense. At a time when we face the threat of attack, is the hon. Lady really suggesting that a time-consuming and costly wholesale reorganisation of Whitehall is the way forward, as the Conservatives have suggested? The truth is that the National Assembly and the Government are well prepared and ready to take on any threat, should it arise.
    Mr. Alan Williams: Will the Secretary of State bear in mind that the National Audit Office report that was just referred to revealed that, in England, there is incredible variability in the state of preparedness in the health service for a national emergency, particularly a terrorist attack? Will he draw the NAO report to the attention of our colleagues in Wales? Will he also ask them to ensure, given the restructuring that is going on in the health service in Wales, that we will still be able to maintain focused, coordinated preparations to protect the people of Wales?
    Peter Hain: I am grateful for my right hon. Friend's question. I assure him that we have a United Kingdom national reserve stock of pharmaceuticals and equipment ready for rapid deployment in the event of any such attack. In Wales, there is a rapid response team to manage, for example, cases of smallpox, in the event of a biological attack being waged. The National Assembly has undoubtedly made preparations, but my right hon. Friend's point will be well taken.

    Governmental Institutions
    David Burnside: What assessment he has made of the democratic accountability of
    894
    governmental institutions in Wales since the establishment of the National Assembly for Wales. [83071]
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Peter Hain): The National Assembly for Wales has helped to make the Government of Wales more accountable to the people of Wales.
    David Burnside: I am interested in the Secretary of State's comment that the Assembly has improved democratic accountability. Under this Government, the nation has gone through major constitutional change in three parts of the kingdom—Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—with three different kinds of institution devolved to those three parts. Will the right hon. Gentleman enter into talks with his predecessor, now in the Northern Ireland Office, and pass on to him the benefits of the form of devolution in Wales—administrative devolution—which might be more appropriate for Northern Ireland than the present system, which has no collective Cabinet responsibility and a weak Committee system?
    Peter Hain: No, I will not do that, because the different forms of devolution are tailored to the different needs of the different nations involved. The particular pattern of devolution that we have in Wales is Executive devolution, not legislative devolution. It has been working very well, and we are looking at ways of improving it all the time.
    Denzil Davies: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, because Wales is the land of quangos, we have a particular problem with the lack of accountability of government institutions? Would he also agree that those who falsely promised, before the referendum, that there would be a bonfire of quangos, had no intention of honouring that promise once the referendum was won?
    Peter Hain: I do not agree with my right hon. Friend. One advantage of the National Assembly, which I am sure he accepts, is that it can hold accountable all the different agencies that are answerable to it much more directly. Therefore, they can work more effectively for the people of Wales.
    Lembit Öpik: To what extent does that democratic accountability extend to involving leading Welsh language institutions such as the Nant Gwrtheyrn National Centre for Language and Culture in north Wales, which not only offers exceptional training in the language, but whose tutors and staff are well placed to provide guidance to Cardiff and Westminster Departments on Welsh-related matters?
    Peter Hain: I take the hon. Gentleman's contribution with great interest, as I understand that he is a Welsh learner. I congratulate him on that—llongyfarchiadau.

    895
    I very much support the Assembly's programme to extend support for the Welsh language, including an action plan announced only a week ago. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The House is far too noisy.
    Llew Smith: The Secretary of State was one of the leading figures in the campaign for a "Yes" vote in the referendum, but, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Denzil Davies) said, the commitment was not just to change the political complexion of the quangos, but to make a bonfire of them. If that was not a publicity stunt, will the Secretary of State explain why there are as many quangos as when the Welsh Assembly was set up? What discussions is he having with the First Minister, who seems equally at ease with a quango state as does the Secretary of State?
    Peter Hain: First, although I shall not go into detail, I repeat the point that I made to my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli: the Assembly provides for all its agencies to be much more accountable to government in Wales than was possible when government was administered from here. The truth is that we have much more responsive and accountable government in Wales, which was not the case under the previous Conservative Government when quangos, whose membership was usually rigged, flourished.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: I see that the Secretary of State is a Welsh learner and I wish him well in that. The fact is that the devolved system of government was voted for by a thin margin by the people of Wales, but if the Ivor Richard commission recommends further powers being transferred from Westminster to the Welsh Assembly, will the Secretary of State give the people another voice in another referendum?
    Peter Hain: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's comments on my Welsh learning ability—diolch yn fawr i chi. On the general question of increased powers, the Welsh Assembly is getting increased influence and powers as matters are devolved from here and fresh primary legislation is passed, such as that on the children's commissioner and the Health (Wales) Bill, which is going through the House. We shall await the outcome of the Richard commission and any debate on that before taking any decisions.

    Bluestone Project
    Mrs. Jackie Lawrence: What discussions he has had with the Economic Development Secretary of the National Assembly concerning investment in the Bluestone project in west Wales. [83072]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Don Touhig): My right hon. Friend and I have regular discussions with the National Assembly's Economic Development Secretary on a range of issues, including the excellent news of Pembrokeshire's
    896
    Bluestone project. I welcome the success of Team Wales, which is working together to deliver hundreds of jobs for he economy of west Wales.
    Mrs. Lawrence: When I tabled my question, I expected to have to come here today to lobby for such investment, so that news is very welcome, as 600 much-needed full-time year-round jobs will be created in an area that depends heavily on the tourism industry. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is an example of how local indigenous business can come up with the goods and provide stable jobs when it is given the same investment as was previously reserved for inward investors?
    Mr. Touhig: My hon. Friend is right. We are in an environment in which we are encouraging projects such as that in Narberth in her constituency. The £45 million of investment is most welcome and 600 year-round jobs will be provided. Indeed, the package, which involves £16.5 million, is the largest to be put together by Team Wales, which shows the commitment of the Government, our partners, the Labour-led National Assembly and the local authorities and others who are ensuring that the project is a success for west Wales.

    Tourism
    Michael Fabricant: What assessment he has made of the impact of the foot and mouth epidemic and September 11 on tourism into Wales from (a) England and (b) abroad. [83073]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Don Touhig): There is strong and positive evidence of recovery in the tourism industry in Wales in 2002 compared with 2001. I know that the hon. Gentleman is a regular visitor to Wales, and makes an important contribution to the growth of our tourism industry.
    Michael Fabricant: As the Minister knows, I am a keen climber of Cader Idris. When I go to climb Cader Idris, of course I stay at Dolffanog Fach with Sioned and Danny Oliver. But does the Minister realise that only 2 per cent. of overseas visitors to the United Kingdom go to Wales? What can he do, and what can the Welsh tourism industry do, to attract more overseas visitors—not just me from England!—to Wales?
    Mr. Touhig: The guest house at Dolffanog Fach must he the most famous in Britain. I think that was the third time the hon. Gentleman has referred to it since I have been a Wales Office Minister.
    In fact, only last night I discussed the subject of bringing people to Wales from abroad with Charles Skinner, an official from the American Embassy, in the Wales office. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the Wales tourist board has a record budget of £23 million for 2002–03. A further £15.3 million will be used through two objective 1 projects, for which the Assembly will provide match funding, as part of a campaign to make Wales better known and to draw in many more visitors.

    897
    I hope that the hon. Gentleman, and all other Members, will continue to visit Wales.
    Gareth Thomas: Given the huge potential of tourism to create jobs—10 per cent. of the Welsh work force are involved in it—does the Minister agree that the Wales tourist board should embark on a strong campaign to attract flagship tourism projects to other parts of the Wales, including north Wales and my constituency?
    Mr. Touhig: I have been very impressed by the Wales tourist board's work to promote Wales across the United Kingdom, and in Europe beyond. Tourism is a major contributor to the Welsh economy: about 100,000 people work in tourism in Wales, and it brings in about £2.6 billion in income. It is an important part of our infrastructure, and an important facility that Wales can offer the world. We must do all that we can to promote it.
    As I have said, I am greatly encouraged by the work of the Wales tourist board. I certainly think that my hon. Friend's part of north Wales has many attractions, and that many people would be delighted to visit it.
    Mr. Roger Williams: Earlier this year I led a delegation of tour operators from objective 2 areas, who explained to the Secretary of State's predecessor the difficulty they were experiencing in using a recovery fund because of European regulations. Since then we have heard nothing from the Wales Office. Can the Minister tell me what progress has been made?
    Mr. Touhig: I know of the hon. Gentleman's concern, and I know about the deputation that he brought to see my right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State.
    The rural recovery plan, which was launched in July 2001, is worth about £65 million. It contains a number of measures to combat the problems we found in rural Wales as a result of the foot and mouth outbreak. Within that spending limit, £21 million has been made available through local authorities to assist small businesses. It is an important contribution to helping small business and the tourism industry in rural Wales to recover.
    Figures indicate that tourism is growing in Wales post-11 September and post-foot and mouth. We must do all that we can to encourage that.[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Once again the House is far too noisy.

    Pensioners
    Julie Morgan: What discussions he has had with ministerial and National Assembly colleagues on help for pensioners in Wales. [83074]
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Peter Hain): We have regular discussions, and from October 2003
    898
    the new pension credit will benefit 250,000 pension households in Wales. Those on £150 a week will receive an extra £21.50, or £1,100 a year.
    Julie Morgan: What plans has my right hon. Friend to help sort out the pensions of the work force of Allied Steel and Wire in Cardiff? Does he know the extent of the shortfall in the pension fund, and what discussions is he having with the Department of Work and Pensions?
    Peter Hain: I know how much attention and support my hon. Friend has given the workers of ASW, along with her fellow Cardiff members. My hon. Friend the Minister is due to meet officials at the Department of Work and Pensions and the Department of Trade and Industry's redundancy payments service to take the discussions forward.
    Mr. Simon Thomas: Does the Secretary of State share my concern that more than 40 per cent. of pensioners in Wales are not accessing the minimum income guarantee or the income support that is available to them? What steps are he and his Government going to take to ensure that that money reaches every pensioner in Wales, and that none is worse off simply because they cannot bear to go through a bureaucratic nightmare?
    Peter Hain: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that not enough of the poorest pensioners are claiming their entitlement to the minimum pension guarantee, which would lift their income to £102 a week. That measure is part of the Government's strategy of tackling pensioner poverty, and we are trying to encourage all pensioners to take up those opportunities.

  The Prime Minister was asked—
  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Henry Bellingham: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 4 December.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, in addition to my duties in the House. I will have further such meetings later today.
    Mr. Bellingham: Does the Prime Minister agree with smallbusiness europe, a body funded by the Department of Trade and Industry, which has estimated that the agency workers directive recently passed by the European Parliament could cost 250,000 temporary jobs? The CBI says that if he had not signed up to the social chapter, we would not have to accept this job-destroying directive. Is the CBI right or wrong?
    The Prime Minister: It is precisely for the reasons outlined by the CBI that we have been trying to make sure that the directive is amended and changed. I very much hope that we will get a satisfactory outcome that

    899
    will preserve the flexibility of our labour market, but which will also make sure that some agency workers—in some cases, they are badly exploited—are given the protection that they need. I believe that signing the social chapter was essential in order to keep this country's influence in social affairs.
    Mr. John Smith: In the light of the tragic accident in my constituency yesterday, which resulted in the death of 12-year-old Stuart Cunningham-Jones and serious injury to several youngsters, will my right hon. Friend consider setting up a review into the legislation governing the safe transportation of our children to and from school on public service buses?
    The Prime Minister: I share my hon. Friend's horror at yesterday's accident, and my deepest sympathies go to the family of Stuart Cunningham-Jones and to everyone else affected by this tragedy. As my hon. Friend may know, a full-scale inquiry by the police and the Vehicle Inspectorate is under way. I think that we should await the outcome of that report before we take further steps, but I will keep him closely informed.
    Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: Does the Prime Minister agree with his Chancellor that top-up fees would prevent young people from low-income families from going to university, and are therefore a ridiculous idea?
    The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, in January the Government will publish their conclusions on the student finance review. However, one thing that is absolutely clear is that the status quo is not an option, because universities need more money. Let me give him the facts. They need more money because funding for higher education per student was cut by 36 per cent. under the previous Government. Student-staff ratios have doubled and there is an £8 billion backlog of repairs and investment, so we have to change the existing system.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: The Prime Minister has said what is clear, but what is not clear is whether he agrees with his right hon. Friend the Chancellor. What is the point of a review, as he describes it, if the Chancellor has already made up his mind? The Chancellor may not have told the Prime Minister, but at a breakfast with The Guardian—[Interruption.] Yes, at a breakfast with The Guardian he said—no doubt over muesli—that he favoured a graduate tax. Does the Prime Minister agree with him about that as well?
    The Prime Minister: The position of the Government will be set out in January. If the right hon. Gentleman is driven to trying to replay second-hand reports of what might have happened at a breakfast held by The Guardian, that indicates the depths to which he has sunk. The fact is that the status quo is not an option. We need to get more money into our university education system, and it can come from the taxpayer, the parent or the student. If it comes from the taxpayer, that means that the majority of people—who pay their taxes but who have not been to university—will have to pay. If it comes from parents, the danger is that the possibility that parents might be forced to pay large amounts of
    900
    money up front could indeed deter people from university education. The final alternative is the student, yet we do not want students to get further into debt. It is a difficult problem. We are resolving it. We will publish the conclusions in January.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: But the Chancellor is going around saying things that are completely different from what the Prime Minister has just said. The result is that students up and down the country do not know whether Labour wants them to pay higher fees or higher taxes. If the Prime Minister wants a genuine review, as he has described it, surely he needs to overrule his Chancellor? Will he get to the Dispatch Box and tell us: when the Chancellor said that he was in favour of graduate taxes, was he right or wrong? Yes or no?
    The Prime Minister: As a review is due to be published in January, it would be absurd for me to give its results now. I assure the right hon. Gentleman, however, that everyone is agreed that we need more money for universities. That should be done in the fairest way possible that does not deter people from lower-income families from going to university. This is an issue that any Government in power would have to tackle.
    If the Leader of the Opposition wants an example of muddle and confusion, let me tell the House what he said his solution was. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] Yes, three days ago, the right hon. Gentleman said:
    "we have a crisis of funding for higher education".
    His answer to the problem was:
    "there are lots of ways you need to look at it, possibly endowing them with money from further sell offs, in this case, we are talking about Channel 4".
    The Leader of the Opposition's idea is that we are going to fund the whole of university education by selling off Channel 4 TV. [Interruption.] If I am wrong, he can come to the Dispatch Box and say so.
    There will be a review. We will publish it in January, and I shall tell the Leader of the Opposition what it will do. It will increase access to university. It will not mean that parents will have to pay thousands of pounds up front in fees. It will allow people the chance to go to university, which hon. Members on the Government side of the House favour, and the right hon. Gentleman does not.
    Colin Burgon: Arising from talks that I have had with firefighters in my constituency, I should like to put three points to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Just one point.
    Colin Burgon: Thank you for putting me right, Mr. Speaker.
    In the firefighters' dispute, does the Prime Minister agree that just as there can be no victors, there should be no vanquished, and that we should all be working towards a settlement of the dispute that is fair to all involved and gives us peace in the fire service for the next 25 years?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with that. We do not want people to feel humiliated. The firefighters of this

    901
    country, as I have often said, do a fine job of work. I have said it before and I shall say it again: we never sought this dispute. However, I know that my hon. Friend will agree that any settlement has to be fair right across the public service. That is why we have said that firefighters can have the pay award under the existing formula, which is as generous as—if not more generous than—the awards given to teachers, nurses, police officers, members of the armed forces and others. However, if they want more, that has to be paid for by changes in working practices. The one thing that has emerged over the past couple of weeks is that our claim that these practices need change is valid. I hope that people get around the table and negotiate on that basis.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: The Prime Minister has again confirmed that the status quo for university education funding is not an option. Will he confirm that he is saying that top-up fees remain under active consideration by the Government?
    The Prime Minister: Whenever a review is held, it is important to wait for its outcome. My point is that universities need more money because college lecturers are not paid enough, and there is a massive backlog of repairs. There was a 36 per cent. cut in funding per student under the Conservative Government. We have managed only to keep the situation stable, even though we have put more money into universities. We need to get more money into the university sector, but we shall do so in a way that improves access to our universities rather than deters it.
    Mr. Kennedy: People notice, however, that when given the opportunity, the Prime Minister still refuses to rule out top-up fees. Given that the Chancellor, the Home Secretary, the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Secretary of State for International Development are against them, why does he not look to the Scottish experience, which has kept access to education free at the point of need, reintroduced grants for poorer students and is a much better way forward than the top-up fee?
    The Prime Minister: I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman. He omits to say that under the Scottish system, all students have to pay something. There are two separate issues. First, are we to have a flat fee for all universities or will there be a variable fee, with different universities charging different fees? Secondly, if we have a variable fee and agree that all universities should not be treated the same, where do the additional sums of money necessary for universities come from? I am afraid that it can come from only three sources—the taxpayer, the parent or the student. What is important is to put together those elements in the fairest possible way. The one thing that I did not notice the right hon. Gentleman say is whether he agrees with me, and with what the Leader of the Opposition said a few days ago, which is that universities desperately need more money. If they do need more money, before the consultation process is over in early January, let us hear from him about his proposals as well.
    Ms Meg Munn: Last week the Chancellor announced changes to the landfill tax from
    902
    next April. Many community projects, such as Heeley city farm in my constituency, have benefited from the scheme. Can the Prime Minister confirm that under the reformed scheme, such community projects will continue to benefit?
    The Prime Minister: I understand that the changes will be introduced in the financial year 2005–06. We are consulting on the effect of those changes, but I have listened carefully to my hon. Friend and I am sure that we will take what she says into account.
    Miss Ann Widdecombe: Does the Prime Minister agree that it is a basic duty of the Government to supply places for all those whom, for the protection of the public, the courts believe should be in custody? If so, why, despite inheriting the biggest prison-building programme this century and a reduction in overcrowding, do we have the worst overcrowding in our prisons for 10 years?
    The Prime Minister: First, we are increasing the amount of money that we are spending on prisons and expanding prison places. With the greatest respect to the right hon. Lady, there is an inconsistency in what she says. The very reason why there are more people in prison is precisely that it is the duty of Government to find places in prison for those whom the courts sentence. It is important to realise that we are increasing the supply of places, but I do not think that we can limit arbitrarily the number of people whom the courts send to prison. We are trying to make sure that there are more prison places precisely so that the courts can obey the principle that the right hon. Lady has outlined.
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: Why did my right hon. Friend not say to the last Tory questioner that we are doing our best to keep the prison population down? We have kept two butlers out of jail in the last three months. What is wrong with a system of justice that allows these people to prepare cases while the police go along with those people at the palace, with the result that the taxpayer finishes up with a loss of 2 million quid? We could use that money for the firefighters.
    The Prime Minister: I had a bad feeling that you were going to call him, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Skinner: You will not find the answer in that book.
    The Prime Minister: Certainly not. If my hon. Friend does not mind, I will reply diplomatically: the Crown Prosecution Service is learning the lessons of both cases—and I hope that it will learn them quickly.
    Mr. Julian Brazier: Last week I asked the Prime Minister about the Chief of the Defence Staff's concerns about training. The right hon. Gentleman replied with the claim:
    "He did not say that".—[Official Report, 25 November 2002; Vol. 395, c. 40.]

    903
    Given that the Downing street website quotes Admiral Boyce as using almost the very words I put to the Prime Minister last week, can the right hon. Gentleman tell us who we should believe?
    The Prime Minister: My apologies, but I have not checked in with the Downing street website today. I thought that the hon. Gentleman's point was that the Chief of the Defence Staff had said that as a result of the firefighters' dispute, we could not undertake operations in Iraq. I was pointing out that the Chief of the Defence Staff did not say that: he said that we would have the full operational requirement that we needed. I do not have before me the exact words that I said last week, or exactly what is on the Downing street website, or exactly what the Chief of the Defence Staff said—but I think that I am more right than the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Barry Sheerman: May I take my right hon. Friend back to the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Ms Munn)? Is he not aware that the landfill tax credit scheme is the best and most innovative environmental tax yet introduced by the House, and that it will be not in 2005–06 but next April that we shall lose between 3,000 and 5,000 jobs in environmental innovation, and £500 million of matched funding will also be lost to environmental innovation? Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that he will look seriously at the matter, and will invite a delegation to visit him to talk about it?
    The Prime Minister: I shall certainly treat what my hon. Friend says very seriously indeed. I know that landfill tax credit schemes near my constituency have been of enormous benefit. I am informed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs that we are going to protect the projects that are valuable, so perhaps I can correspond with my hon. Friend about the matter—and if he is dissatisfied, yes of course I will see him and his colleagues.
    Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: Can the Prime Minister tell us how many major road schemes have been started since May 1997?
    The Prime Minister: I am sorry, I do not know the figure offhand, but I think I am right in saying that there will be 10 of them in this financial year and the next.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: What the Prime Minister should know is that the Government have started fewer schemes for improving major roads than in any five-year period since the second world war. They have cancelled bypasses and relief schemes that would have eased congestion, so could he perhaps now tell us how many major road schemes were actually completed last year?
    The Prime Minister: As I say, I do not know the answer offhand, although I shall send the right hon. Gentleman the answer. What I do know, however, is that I think I am right in saying that there are 10 such road schemes this year and next year. It is correct, of course, that for our first two years of government we froze spending. We inherited a very difficult budget
    904
    deficit and we thought it right to do that, but we are actually putting a substantial amount of money into road schemes now.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: It is always promises with the Prime Minister, but not a single major road scheme was completed last year—not one. The result is gridlock Britain. Average journey times under the Labour Government are up by one fifth. The M6 and M25 are virtually car parks, and average traffic speeds in central London are down to 3 mph. After five years of Labour Government, is it not true to say that British motorists pay the highest taxes in Europe for the most congested roads?
    The Prime Minister: It certainly is right to say that there are severe problems on our roads, which require major investment. That is why there are transport plans for an extra £60 billion worth of investment in our roads. I agree entirely that we need more roads investment—that is why we are putting in the extra money—but I am afraid I have to point out that it was only a few days ago that the right hon. Gentleman and the shadow Chancellor told us that they were against all that extra investment, so however difficult the situation is with us, it would surely be even more difficult if we took his advice and cut back the very investment that we are putting in.
    Mr. Robert Marshall-Andrews: Does the Prime Minister believe that a reduction in human wickedness can be achieved by a reduction in civil liberty?
    The Prime Minister: No, I do not believe that. What I do believe—and I assume that this is what my hon. and learned Friend was getting at—is that a criminal justice system that fails to convict the guilty and does not have the confidence of the public is not a criminal justice system that we should support. I believe passionately that reform to our criminal justice system is long overdue, and I hope that both sides of the House will support the proposals put forward by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, which are the result of a long study and work carried out, as my hon. and learned Friend knows, by Lord Justice Auld, who is very experienced in the criminal justice field.
    I believe that those reforms to our criminal justice system are long overdue. If we are to reduce the stock of human evil, as my hon. and learned Friend put it, of course it is important that we must protect civil liberties—but we must also protect the civil liberty of people to go around free from fear.
    Mr. John Taylor: Since the Government's airport consultation process was overturned by the High Court, what comfort has the Prime Minister for the Solihull residents who are now experiencing blight without compensation?
    The Prime Minister: A lot of what people have said about the consultation process is that it has been too quick, but obviously we have to make sure that we give people the chance to put their views, and, necessarily, when we engage in a review of air transport policy there

    905
    will be a period of uncertainty. I am afraid that that is the inevitable consequence of having to look at every option.
    Mrs. Jackie Lawrence: May I remind the Prime Minister, just in case he has forgotten, that Wales had led the way yet again by introducing free bus transport for pensioners—an example that is shortly to be followed in England? Will he consider extending that concession to disabled people and students in full-time education, both for their own benefit and to decrease car use, but without penalising our pensioners?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right in saying that the policy of the Welsh Assembly includes free bus passes. Our policy is for concessionary half fares. Of course there is also discretion for local authorities, and the new Connexions service will offer certain young people discounts on travel to allow them to get to school or college. However, in the end, all those things come at a significant cost, and it is important to balance out the costs and make sure that the money is used most effectively.
    Dr. Andrew Murrison: In 1997 the Prime Minister appointed the first ever Minister for Public Health. Since then, excess winter deaths among our elderly, TB, HIV, sexually transmitted diseases, the teenage abortion rate and the health gap between the rich and the poor have all increased. Clearly, the Prime Minister's stewardship of public health has been a disaster. When is it going to improve?
    The Prime Minister: I do not accept the figures that the hon. Gentleman gives, incidentally. With smoking and in other areas, the Government have made considerable advances. In relation to public health, surely the most important thing is not only the gap between rich and poor, but the overall amount of money that we are putting into the national health service. We are treating more people—[Interruption.] We are getting more nurses and doctors into the health service. In the hon. Gentleman's constituency and others, we are building more hospitals. All those things matter to the people of this country, and each and every penny to pay for them is opposed by him and his party.
    Mr. Tom Levitt: We all recognise that secure recognised borders for Israel and Palestine are an essential part of a long-term middle east solution, and the Prime Minister referred to that with some passion in his speech to the Labour party conference. Can he tell us how he is helping to take that agenda forward?
    The Prime Minister: I hope very much that we get progress in the middle east on the necessary key issues: security reform, political reform for the Palestinians and final status negotiations. Obviously, the situation is complicated by the advent of the Israeli elections. None the less, I believe that there is a real will and sense in the
    906
    international community that the issue of the middle east peace process has to be dealt with urgently. That was my position, and it remains my position.
    Mr. Philip Hammond: The 1997 Labour manifesto said that the drugs tsar would be
    "a symbol of"
    Labour's
    "commitment to tackle the modern menace of drugs".
    Can the Prime Minister tell the House what has happened to him and his targets?
    The Prime Minister: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that as a result of the extra finance that we are putting into drugs spending, the budget will increase from more than £1 billion to £1.5 billion. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about the tsar?"] One of the things that Keith Hellawell said, and one of the main targets that we had, was to increase the treatment of people for drugs, and that treatment has gone up by somewhere in the region of 10 per cent. under this Government—and, as I say, all that investment is opposed by the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Peter Kilfoyle: Does the Prime Minister accept the assessment of the intelligence service that whatever else Saddam Hussein is guilty of, he is almost certainly innocent of the charge of associating with al-Qaeda?
    The Prime Minister: What I have said is that we have no evidence directly linking the Iraqi regime to the attack on 11 September. That is true. I would also say, however, that I believe that the issues of weapons of mass destruction and international terrorism are linked indirectly. I believe, however, that unless we tackle that issue they will at some point be directly linked. The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction in the world today is a test for the United Nations and the world community. We have laid down a clear demand to the Iraqi regime. If we were to give up on that demand at this moment, that would have a serious impact on the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. As I said, that issue is linked indirectly to international terrorism at the moment, but I believe that it could be linked directly to international terrorism.
    Mr. Peter Luff: Yesterday—not a day too soon—the Home Secretary announced an expansion of drug services in the criminal justice system. Does the Prime Minister really think that that will help drug addicts in prisons who need help now, such as my constituent, Ben Launchbury, about whom I wrote to him on Monday? Is it right that Ben, who was sentenced to four and a half years for drug-related crime in February, should still be denied access to treatment for his heroin addiction 10 months later, apparently because he was moved from Gloucester prison to Manchester prison to deal with overcrowding? The Prison Service now says that it cannot afford to move a single prisoner to Channings Wood prison in Newton Abbott.
    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman said, he wrote to me about this case, and I shall certainly look

    907
    into it for him. If the facts are as he described, however, it is not acceptable. That is precisely why we need extended rehabilitation programmes for prisoners on drugs. We also need to make sure that that treatment is available in the community. The point that I was trying to make earlier is that we are extending these programmes significantly—drug treatment in prison and drug treatment out of prison—but there is a huge unmet need. It will take time, through the new National Treatment Agency, to provide treatment for all who need it, and it is very expensive treatment. I agree, however, that there is no point in having these people in prison on drugs and not giving them rehabilitation.
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: On page 7 of yesterday's document on human rights in Iraq appears the statement that, for failing to qualify for a World cup football match, the Iraqi team were caned on the soles of their feet. As FIFA investigated this matter and on 4 November 1997 made a statement that there was no truth in it whatever, do the Government have better information on a footballing matter than FIFA?
    The Prime Minister: No, I would not say that we had better information than FIFA. But leaving aside that incident—[Interruption.] There may be a disagreement between FIFA and the Government or the Iraqi authorities there. I ask my hon. Friend to focus on the human rights abuses in Iraq that are beyond doubt. A couple of days ago I met 10 Iraqi women, all of whom have suffered seeing their families disappear and their relatives tortured, and who are subject to death threats even now. The Iraqi football team may be one matter, but these human rights abuses are self-evident. No one
    908
    who has talked to people who have lived through the regime of Saddam Hussein can dispute that it is an appalling, brutal and terrible regime.
    Bob Russell: When the Prime Minister was still a lad, before his tuition-free days at university—[Laughter.]—was the Prime Minister then aware that the policies of real Labour Governments, and of one-nation Conservative Governments, had effectively ended homelessness in this country? In his current privileged position, is he aware that, after a quarter of a century of right-wing Governments, both Conservative and new Labour, we now have a housing crisis again? When will his Government do something to provide decent housing for homeless people, particularly for the underclass that has developed under new Labour?
    The Prime Minister: The problem with my university education was that it was indeed often tuition free. Again, homelessness requires substantial investment, and we are putting that investment in. There are still problems, particularly with the number of families needing accommodation in the south. However, there is no point in the hon. Gentleman saying that we are pursuing the same policies as the last Conservative Government. He knows that is not correct. We are putting a massive additional sum both into our public services generally and into housing in particular. It is probably never enough—and, frankly, it never is enough for the Liberal Democrats. In the end, it all has to be paid for, and I do not think that it is fair to say that we have done nothing. The hon. Gentleman will know, for example, that we have cut the number of rough sleepers by two-thirds.

BILL PRESENTED
  PLANNING AND COMPULSORY PURCHASE
  Mr. Secretary Prescott, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Blunkett, Secretary Margaret Beckett, Mr. Secretary Darling, Mr. Secretary Milburn, Ms Secretary Hewitt, Mr. Secretary Clarke, Secretary Peter Hain, Ms Barbara Roche and Mr. Tony McNulty, presented a Bill to make provision relating to spatial development and town and country planning; compulsory acquisition for development; and loss payments in respect of certain interests in property compulsorily acquired. And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow; and to be printed. Explanatory notes to be printed. [Bill 12].

Points of Order
3.31 pm
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. When you agreed on behalf of the House to the modernisation procedures, you were kind enough to say that you would protect the rights of individual Back Benchers, so that if written statements were made by Ministers you would expect them to be non-contentious in the way that they were presented. You may like to know that today, the Secretary of State for Transport has made a statement about the London underground. There are considerable economic and political reasons for that statement to be debated in the Chamber, as it includes the suggestion that the underground system will not now be handed over to Transport for London as quickly as possible. May I ask you to examine the way in which the matter has been handled, because, whatever the reasons for the decision, Members of Parliament have a right to question the Secretary of State about this contentious matter?
Mr. Speaker: My priority is that Ministers should inform the House. They have a choice and they can use their judgment. They may make oral or written statements. In this case, a written statement has been made, and there has been no infringement of the rules of the House.
Miss Ann Widdecombe: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am aware that you do not have any responsibility for the content of ministerial questions, but could I ask you to direct a slight frown of disapproval towards the Home Secretary? I tabled, with due notice, 15 questions on prison overcrowding and received an answer to precisely one.
Mr. Speaker: I think that the right hon. Lady meant to refer to ministerial answers, not to questions. I have said before that perseverance is important in the House. She should keep annoying the Home Secretary until she gets the answer that she wants.
Simon Hughes: Further to the point of order of the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), Mr. Speaker. Will you consider a slightly wider issue that relates to today's business as well as the matter that the right hon. Lady raised? At the end of the last Session of Parliament, I tabled in due time a number of questions to the Home Office that were material to the matters coming up in the Bill that we are about to debate. Most of them received answers saying, "I will answer this as soon as possible", or "shortly", or "I will write to the hon. Gentleman."
I retabled the questions at the beginning of this Session. We have now had about a month of this Session, and yesterday I received a whole sheaf of answers saying, "I will write to the hon. Gentleman shortly." The questions are all material to the issues that we shall consider in today's debate.
In addition to that, we had one week's delay in the publication of the explanatory notes to the flagship Bill of this Parliament, and we received today a written

911
statement from the Home Secretary—the item appears on the Order Paper—entitled "Responses to consultation exercise contained in the Criminal Justice White Paper". Many of us have pressed for answers and the statement tells us that answers to the consultation exercise will be published in the Library shortly.
Can you help us, Mr. Speaker? Can we do our job of scrutinising the Government if they do not give us key material until after we have debated the legislation to which it relates? That is unacceptable.
Mr. Speaker: I say to the hon. Gentleman—this may also help the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe)—that the Public Administration Committee is prepared to look at any complaints from hon. Members. The hon. Gentleman may wish to take that course of action.
Mr. Ronnie Campbell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I received a reply from a Health Minister yesterday in response to a constituent's query raised in April, seven months after the original complaint was made. Can you help Back Benchers to get Ministers and Departments to give an early reply, because it makes us look like fools?
Mr. Speaker: Seven months is an undue length of time. If the hon. Gentleman sends me the correspondence, I will look into the matter.

Orders of the Day

  Criminal Justice Bill
  [Relevant document: The Second Report from the Home Affairs Committee, Session 2002–03, on the Criminal Justice Bill (HC 83).]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  3.35 pm
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Before I begin my speech on this important measure, I want to pick up on the points of order raised by Opposition Members on questions that have not been answered. I instructed my Department that the consultation responses should be put in the Library today and I hope they are there this afternoon. However, I apologise unreservedly if Members who have laid questions that are relevant to the debate have not received substantive answers. That is not acceptable and should not have happened, and I will investigate it.
  Although I will address specific clauses so that hon. Members can reflect on those aspects that are most relevant to them and then intervene if they want to, I first want to place on the record my thanks, and I am sure those of the House, to John Halliday and Lord Justice Auld for the way in which they conducted their inquiries, which informed the White Paper of 17 July and the legislation. I thank the Law Commission for its work over a number of years which has also informed the Bill's content, along with Ministers from all three Departments that are concerned with criminal justice. I am pleased that they are represented in the Chamber today.
  I also want to thank those who contributed to the consultation on the White Paper. That was extremely helpful. In doing the same for the White Paper on sex offenders and sex offences, which we discussed a couple of weeks ago, we hope to engage Members more readily than appears to have been the case when we answered questions on the White Paper of 17 July.
  We have endeavoured to pull together a range of issues that are relevant to the reform and modernisation of the criminal justice system. We started in the first Parliament of this Government by introducing legislative measures that have laid the foundations for what we propose in the Bill. The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 has made a significant contribution, as I highlighted in our debate on the Queen's Speech. It is now absolutely clear that we need end-to-end reform of the criminal justice service and that that should fit with the other measures taken alongside it.
  The Police Reform Act 2002 has already started to make a difference to the ability of the police to deliver their significant contribution to improving the criminal justice service as a whole. The initiative on street crime has not only made a difference by reducing robbery and snatch theft; it has also helped us to determine in what circumstances Departments and agencies fail to work adequately and, more importantly, to work together. We were able to see when they were not co-ordinated acceptably at a local level, and any major inefficiencies. All those agencies have people who work hard at a

  913
  local level. With the assistance of Ministers across Departments, we have seen a major difference. Importantly, we have also been able to bring that information and those insights to bear on the Bill.
  I want to make this offer, which I know the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Hilary Benn), and his colleagues serving on the Bill will want to proceed with: we are prepared to listen to those who have a major contribution to make to the Bill's improvement in Committee, in both this House and the House of Lords. We do not pretend to be the fount of all wisdom; we know that this is a complex and difficult area, and we know that proportionality is required. Although I have been and will continue to be extremely robust with vested interests, I recognise that there are voices of common sense who will guide us and help us to get this right.
  If the Crown Prosecution Service, the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Home Office are to be able to take forward broad-based reform that will stand the test of time and have the support of all those of good will from different political parties, it behoves us to continue listening an d to recognise that we must underpin the measures in the Bill with preventive action, which is crucial if we are to avoid people entering the criminal justice system in the first place.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Blunkett: I hope that my offer is extremely popular. I am just working out which of the voices I should give way to. I thought that I heard the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee, and I will give way to him.
  Mr. Chris Mullin: I am grateful to the Home Secretary for giving way to one of the reasonable voices in the House. In the spirit of what he has just said, may I put it to him that our Committee and most of those who gave evidence to us think that this would be a far better Bill if it did not contain the provision for disclosure of previous convictions? I do not ask him now to give an undertaking on that point, but I hope that he will think very carefully about it before persisting.
  Mr. Blunkett: There are many safeguards built into that provision which we will come to as we proceed through the Bill, and I will be happy to give way to my hon. Friend again at that point. The Select Committee made suggestions on a range of issues which were very helpful to us, and I will be happy to consider them, as I have done with previous Bills. I shall give way to some of my hon. Friends, but I shall give way first to the lead spokesman for the Liberal Democrats.
  Simon Hughes: I am grateful to the Home Secretary for the tone and content of his remarks so far. I want to ask him about one of the provisions on which there is potentially a dispute as to the principle but on which I hope we can achieve agreement.
  We are all united in our desire to increase support and protection for victims and witnesses—I do not think that there is a dissenting voice in the House. However,
  914
  does the Home Secretary accept that it is not a direct balancing operation to increase support and protection for witnesses and victims and to take away the rights of defendants? It is just as important that defendants, when they are in court, have protection as it is that victims and witnesses have protection when they are engaged in the criminal justice process.
  Mr. Blunkett: I entirely accept that. I have made the point in the House and elsewhere that this is not a zero sum game in which, if we enhance the rights of one set of people, we automatically diminish the rights of others. If we can approach the Bill in that spirit, we will achieve a degree of unity. I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen).
  Mr. Graham Allen: I thank the Home Secretary for his generous offer to improve the Bill in Committee. Will he comment on the fact that the Bill may be with us for 20-odd years but we could not find six weeks in which to perform even more thorough pre-legislative scrutiny? If we had done that online, it would have involved police officers, probation officers, court officials, victims and witnesses, who would have made a great contribution.
  I know that my right hon. Friend is constrained by the fact that the carry-over provision does not come into effect immediately, but will he undertake to ensure that any future Bills of this nature, which are very amenable to public participation, will go through full pre-legislative scrutiny, including online consultation to involve the public, who are so concerned about crime?
  Mr. Blunkett: In principle, the argument that where we can have pre-legislative scrutiny, we should, is unanswerable. I hope that the White Paper gave people an idea of our intentions and enabled them to respond. I know that many people have been debating these issues for a long time, but my hon. Friend's point is well taken. I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson), and then I must make progress.
  Mr. Hilton Dawson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Bill could be improved if we took the opportunity to draw a much clearer distinction between children and adults and set the defining age at 18 rather than 14, 16 or 17? Would that not help us to make a clearer and good response to last week's judicial review, which held that the Children Act 1989 should apply to under-18s in custody?
  Mr. Blunkett: We are all concerned to achieve substantial improvement in the juvenile estate. As the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central has said publicly, we shall introduce measures, not least in relation to the judgment given earlier this week. We are mindful about getting that right. It is important that we intervene at an earlier stage rather than rely on the correctional services to deal with youngsters. We have done important work in establishing the Youth Justice Board, and improvements in correctional services in recent years, if overdue, are extremely welcome.

  915
  Departments and agencies, both locally and nationally, are working together on, for instance, Splash schemes and their related support services in Connexions, which made an enormous difference over the summer to the level of criminality. In street crime areas with preventive diversionary programmes, there was just over a 20 per cent. drop in recorded crime, compared with a 5 per cent. drop in similar areas without such programmes. There is a lot to learn from intervening at that stage, providing alternative activities and reducing opportunities for crime. I want to put that on record because criminal justice reforms tend to deal with the horse once it has bolted past the stable door. We need to make better progress on prevention in the first place—that is true of rehabilitation as well.
  We have done quite a lot with youth justice. Not only have we developed the Youth Justice Board, but we have fulfilled our pledge to halve the time it takes for young people to pass from arrest and to sentence. Initially we got that down to 71 days, but we have now got it down to 63 days—a tremendous improvement on the previous time. There has been a 14.6 per cent. reduction in reconviction rates for that age group in the new reformed system of youth justice. We have introduced intensive treatment and supervision orders and have done work on tagging and home detention curfews. We need to bear all those things in mind when considering what is possible and how we may achieve improvements.
  This afternoon, I appeal to people with a long-standing professional involvement and interest to play their part in making the Bill better and ensuring that the reforms are carried through. In the Queen's Speech debate, I said that the Law Society had been positive. When I addressed its annual conference, I was heartened by the way in which its members were committed to assisting us with reform. I again appeal to people inside the system to work with us, not against us, to ensure that we bring this programme into the 21st century, as it is important for the protection of the public and the credibility and standing of the criminal justice service as a whole. We should acknowledge that, together, we treasure our traditions. Some we will remember with nostalgia; others we will bring carefully from medieval England into the 21st century; all of them we will treat with care. I accept what has been said in the House on a number of occasions—we should change what exists with care.
  Not everyone agrees on the central objective of the criminal justice service. I believe that, above all, it is a search for truth. We are trying to get to the truth on behalf of victims and the wider community. Unless that objective is at the heart of the system, we shall never protect victims in future and will never have a culture in our communities that accepts that order and stability, as well as people's security in their homes and neighbourhoods, is the paramount job of any civilised Government.
  Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Serious cases of miscarriage of justice have done much to damage the criminal justice system. During consideration of the Bill, I ask the Home Secretary to examine the operation that was set up by the Derbyshire constabulary—it was
  916
  called Operation Noble—in the reinvestigation of the Wendy Sewell murder, following the release of Stephen Downing about 27 years after being convicted, the conviction having been found unsafe by the Court of Appeal. Will the right hon. Gentleman take it from me that Operation Noble has been far sighted and has enabled the chief constable to reinvestigate a serious crime, involving all those who were concerned in the case? Operation Noble should be examined by other police forces throughout the country.
  Mr. Blunkett: We would all be pleased to learn lessons from that operation and to reflect on improvements. It is not often that I pay tribute to a measure was enacted under Baroness Thatcher's notorious reign.
  Mr. McLoughlin: Go on.
  Mr. Blunkett: I will go on. I shall dip a toe in hot water. By 1984, it had been recognised by everyone that there were major problems. The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and the development of the PACE code since have been important and welcomed by everyone. We need to build upon that in a sensitive way. We are not sweeping that aside in introducing the Bill. We need to be able to enhance and modernise a learning experience over the past 18 years. I welcome the way in which the Derbyshire police have approached the Downing case.
  I was about to reflect on a point about protecting the public and getting the measure of what we are about in the Bill. There are those who have almost come to the conclusion that Parliament is a threat in terms of the way in which the judiciary works or in terms of the innocent fearing conviction. I do not believe that a democratically elected Parliament is a threat. I think that the threat lies with people committing crimes on our streets and in our homes. I believe that being able to hold us to account for what we do and to demand change from us—the public are able to expect us to deal with these issues, including sentencing policy—are pluses in persuading people that democracy is worth sustaining, that Parliament is worth listening to and supporting, and that it is worth participating in our elections. If people believe that nothing can be changed, that nothing can be improved and that we must be hands off because we are frightened of dealing with these issues, and if they consequently turn away from our democracy and our Parliament, we shall all be the losers.
  Mr. Bob Blizzard: I shall give my right hon. Friend an example from my constituency of a 19-year-old who is a persistent young offender. He had five previous convictions involving 11 offences. In May, he was fined £100 for burglary. In September, he was arrested for driving while disqualified and having no insurance. He was bailed and then arrested for the same sort of offence two days later. When he returned to court, he was given 100 hours of community punishment. Does not this sort of sentencing anger the victim, demoralise the police and undermine whatever confidence the public have in the criminal justice system? Will my right hon. Friend give me an assurance that the Bill will get to grips with that sort of sentencing?
  Mr. Blunkett: Yes. The extension of intensive supervision, the tagging measures, the provisions on bail

  917
  that are crucial to credibility, will all make a substantial difference. It is regrettable that every hon. Member could give a similar example.
  Acquitting the innocent is critical; convicting the guilty is vital. I shall not use many soundbites in my speech, but ensuring that the scales of justice pass the trading standards test in the 21st century is important.
  Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: Will the Home Secretary give way?
  Mr. Blunkett: I am sorry to provoke more interventions, but I shall give way.
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way with his usual courtesy. He spoke eloquently about the powers of the House to make changes. His proposals include removing the double jeopardy rule and providing for the retrial of serious offences. I oppose that change, but I agree that it should be a matter for the House. Why, then, have the Government signed up to the European Union charter of fundamental rights? Article 50 explicitly forbids retrial and protects the double jeopardy rule. Why do Ministers on the Convention on the Future of Europe argue for the charter to be made legally binding? That would undermine the House's discretion and its ability to make the changes that the Home Secretary advocates.
  Mr. Blunkett: I do not believe that the charter prevents that. I would be against signing into European statute or our laws anything that interferes with our rights. That is why I oppose a European public prosecutor and will argue vehemently against the extension of powers in the European Union that infringe our right to introduce measures such as those that we are debating.
  Some Members of the other place claim to be on my side but say the most extraordinary things. For example, they claim that the Bill was developed from a focus group. I am happy to plead guilty, because one focus group did influence me. It incorporates 82,000 men, women and children; I regret that not all of them were eligible to vote in the last general election, but they constitute the population of Sheffield, Brightside.
  Those who hold surgeries, are accountable to their electorate and receive representations day in, day out in correspondence to their constituency offices, have a different view from those who have never held a surgery, are accountable to no one and, in some cases, picture matters from a great distance. They may be travelling the world when events pervade our consciousness. I ask those who attack us day in, day out, on television, radio and in the press, as calmly and reasonably as I can, to return to the world in which we live and that our constituents inhabit.
  Mr. Andrew Miller: Would my right hon. Friend include in his focus group my 83-year-old constituent who has been terrorised? Her windows have been shot at with air gun pellets, but the system has given her no support. Is not she a member of the sort of focus group to which we should listen?
  Mr. Blunkett: Yes. I hope that our debate on antisocial behaviour will be as sensible as this afternoon's discussion.
  918
  Modernising and improving are a necessity and a promise, not a threat. I want to go through the aspects of the measure about which we agree and disagree. All three major parties as well as the minor parties agree on the bulk of the provisions. We will focus on some aspects that have received public attention, but I want to make it clear that the provisions that engender the greatest heat are not necessarily those that encapsulate the biggest changes.
  Some aspects of the Bill are controversial. Hon. Members will refer to that now, in Committee and in the House of Lords. However, many other provisions will be instrumental in massively improving the system, its timing, its sensitivity and its ability to respond to the needs of victims and witnesses.
  Parts 1 and 2 set out the reforms and modernisation of the codes established by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984—the PACE codes—and of bail, in the context of the issue I mentioned earlier, and provide the opportunity to look at additional powers in the future. These measures are all intended to ensure that the police can do their job more effectively and, I hope, more fairly. Part 3 is about conditional cautions and about rehabilitation, diversion and proper enforcement measures, and the work of the Crown Prosecution Service. Part 4 deals with the relationship between the police and the CPS in relation to charging policy, and we are pleased that the experiments have been successful in developing a new role for the CPS in this area. I hope that it will work effectively in the future.
  Part 5 deals with disclosure. We are simply seeking to avoid any scope for abuse of the system, to ensure that information requirements for the defence are placed on a par with those of the prosecution, and to deal with the way in which witnesses can be protected, including ensuring that the development of knowledge about the list of expert witnesses on which the defence will draw will be available to the prosecution. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), the Chair of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, has been very generous in not intervening on me yet, but I would like to refer to his input in this matter. The Committee made the suggestion that we might develop a code that could incorporate measures to offer protection if there were any suggestion of a defence witness being leant on in the intervening period. I am happy to give the assurance that we will be prepared, in Committee, to provide for a code.
  The way in which we are moving this afternoon, and will move in Committee, and the way in which the Home Affairs Committee dealt with the code's immediate look—it did not have a lot of time, but it has done its job very effectively—demonstrate the way in which we might proceed in the future.
  Mr. Mullin: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that assurance. I think that it will resolve a problem. To make this measure effective, however, it will be necessary to ensure that defence witnesses whom the prosecution wish to contact should be interviewed only in the presence of a defence solicitor, and, preferably, that the interview should be recorded; otherwise, the measure will undoubtedly be abused.
  Mr. Blunkett: I am agreeing now that the code should cover those areas.
  Mr. Mullin: Thank you.
  Mr. Blunkett: I think that that will help us.
  Mr. Andrew Turner: Does the Home Secretary accept that my focus group—or, certainly, some of the constituents in it—are concerned about the other side of the coin, which is that the technical failure to disclose a single piece of evidence might invalidate a trial? Will he assure the House that there is no intention that that situation should arise unless a serious miscarriage of justice has followed?
  Mr. Blunkett: I think that trial judges would want to use common sense in those circumstances, and we would encourage them to do so. I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman agrees that we should be concerned with justice and seeking the truth, rather than with technical knockouts. I have said that before and I believe it very sincerely.
  Part 6 is about streamlining the process, cutting down on wasted time, and speeding up the way in which we operate the system. It is also about encouraging early pleas, to avoid the prevarication, the waste of enormous resources and the delays that not only inconvenience us and cost us dearly—£80 million, as has been mentioned in the House on a number of occasions—but are detrimental to persuading witnesses to come forward and to stay in the system. I hope that we can all get this right. Part 7—
  Mr. Tony Banks: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Blunkett: Yes.
  Mr. Banks: I am sorry. I would have waited until my right hon. Friend had made his point on part 7. Obviously, schedule 22 is linked to that.
  Is my right hon. Friend fully satisfied that the proposed removal of the right of Members to refuse jury service does not conflict with the rights and privileges of the House? It has long been held that our duties in this place supersede the obligations of attendance in any other court. I must refer him to Holford's case of 1826 and the subsequent report of the Committee of Privileges. The Bill refers to rights that are very much attendant on the privileges of this place, so I hope that he has consulted on the matter. If not, perhaps he will consider doing so.
  Mr. Blunkett: I would not dismiss out of hand the point that my hon. Friend raises, but although it would be an interesting experience for the Home Secretary, it would not do us any harm to be exposed to the vagaries of what is going on in various services that we use, which is the case regularly in other areas of our lives. We—certainly those of us who get a recess—might be able to serve on a jury.
  Mr. Banks: Ah! In the recess.
  Mr. Blunkett: Well, we may be able to defer to a point at which it becomes possible for us to perform such a
  920
  service rather than refuse altogether. We need to examine the point with an eye to not avoiding what we ask of others. Of course, I suggest in the Bill that certain trials go on for so long—we will come to the relevant clauses under part 11 in a few moments—that they bedevil people's lives generally. We would be as sympathetic to ourselves as we would be to them.
  I want to make a point on part 7. There has been a debate, not necessarily among Members of the House, but certainly elsewhere—again, I look across Central Lobby—as though we were introducing the previous mode of trial Bills and as though the 20,000 jury trials that were allegedly affected by those Bills will be affected by this Bill. Of course, we are giving people not only the right to opt for jury trial, as they do now, but the right to opt for a judge-only trial, which they do not have at the moment. We are giving people more rights, not taking them away.
  As for very difficult, prolonged and complex trials—serious frauds and complicated commercial cases—we estimate that there will probably be a maximum of about 100 a year. There will be more when people themselves have opted to go to trial. Roskill in 1986 and Sir Robin Auld made suggestions on serious fraud and what it means. It is worth reflecting for a second on what happened in the Maxwell trial: there were 131 working days in the first, and the second and third trials, which were scheduled, never took place. That followed 60 days of pre-trial work, which took up the jury's time.
  David Winnick: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Blunkett: I will in two seconds. Let me take the point further. The trial judges were both concerned about the impact of that. In fact, the second trial judge made it absolutely clear that he believed that there was a major problem in terms of the jury in the first trial being able to assess the full weight of the evidence in that trial, because they were not able to hear the second and third trial evidence. They were unable to do so because, as the first trial judge said, they could not face the likelihood of those three lots of evidence being put together in one trial. It was unthinkable, he said, that it was possible for that to be done. That is why he separated matters into three different elements, two of which were never heard for the reasons that I have enunciated. Therefore, that is why the second trial judge recommended that such trials should in future be heard by a judge rather than by a jury.
  David Winnick: Like most members of the Home Affairs Select Committee, I entirely accept that there is a strong argument for most serious fraud cases, of the kind referred to by my right hon. Friend, to be heard without a jury. There is, however, a worry—touched on by my right hon. Friend—that the Government want, or he as Home Secretary somehow wants, to weaken the jury system. I will not use the word "undermine". Does my right hon. Friend accept that the jury system has served the country very well—and long may it continue?
  Mr. Blunkett: Yes, I do accept that—which is precisely why I, along with the Lord Chancellor and the Attorney-General, decided not to pursue the proposals in the two mode of trial Bills.

  921
  I will not take offence this afternoon, or Melanie Phillips and Anne McEvoy will have another go at me in the papers later this week. I would be really upset and it would really throw me. I would be timorous at the Dispatch Box. But it takes the biscuit that those who argued vehemently against those Bills cannot distinguish between this Bill and legislation that is no longer being presented to the House. I know that my hon. Friend is not one of those people; I just wanted to make the point, and I feel better for it.
  Mr. Tom Levitt: Some of us, not least those who were on the Home Office team at the time, supported the mode of trial Bills. One reason for that was a wish to prevent abuse of the system whereby cases for which jury trial was not appropriate were referred to juries in an attempt to get someone off with a shorter sentence. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that although such measures are not being pursued in this Bill, it will be able to deal with some of the opportunities for abuse of the system by lawyers? Will he stress that the system exists to provide justice for victims, not justice for lawyers?
  Mr. Blunkett: Amen to that. Indeed, that is the thrust of what I am trying to do.
  I hope I have picked out the best parts of what was in other respects an excellent Bill from my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw). The aspects that gained it support—enunciated just now by my hon. Friend—are precisely the aspects that I am supporting today. We are, for instance, extending the role of magistrates, ensuring that people can opt for jury trial and introducing measures to stop people from interfering technically with the process of seeking after truth.
  Mr. Robert Marshall-Andrews rose—
  Mr. Peter Lilley rose
  Mr. Blunkett: I will give way two more times.
  Mr. Marshall-Andrews: As the Home Secretary knows, juries convict in 85 per cent. of serious fraud cases, or at any rate there are convictions in 85 per cent. of such cases. That is considerably above the norm. Does the Home Secretary accept what is the view of the vast majority of judges and lawyers in serious fraud trials—that juries have no problem whatever in dealing with the matters put before them?
  Mr. Blunkett: It is not a question of whether we can immediately lever up the level of conviction—although there are issues in regard to what cases are currently brought forward, under the current system, and how they are brought forward. That also involves the reforms that we seek to make, including reforms of the Serious Fraud Office. No, it is a question of what juries must face. I gave an example of that. If my hon. and learned Friend and others think that the Maxwell trial is not a good example, I am sure they will say so during the Bill's passage; but I believe that where there is a problem, we should try to address it. We must take into account complexity, the length of time involved in jury service, and the enormous burden placed on individuals
  922
  who would not wish to serve on a jury in such circumstances. We must take account of those factors if we are aiming for justice.
  Mr. Lilley: The two Bills that the Home Secretary rightly discarded were justified by arguing that it was wrong in principle for the defendant to have the right to choose jury trial. Now he is saying that it is right in principle for the defendant to have the right to be tried not by jury, but by a judge. If that amounted to a change in his principles, I would be happy, but is it not a common feature that he and the Government favour only those measures that result in fewer jury trials?
  Mr. Blunkett: I shall turn the point around. If the right hon. Gentleman's argument concerns choice and I am providing greater choice, I can hardly be accused of doing something heinous. Either he is arguing for choice or he is not, and if he is, he can rejoice. I am obviously a convert to choice, so I had better plead guilty to that now to save the House a lot of time, and to save a lot of money in fees for lawyers representing my interests.
  Part 8 of the Bill is straightforward. It is concerned with the use of technology, and it brings us into the 21st century. Part 9 deals with prosecution appeals, and will enable, before and during trials, an appeal against a stop. Part 10 deals with double jeopardy. I know that controversy surrounds this issue, on which my party made a manifesto commitment, and that it will be argued closely. We believe that, given our approach and the safeguards that we have built in through the Crown Prosecution Service and the Appeal Court, it will be possible to find a way to implement this measure without denying rights.
  I am painfully aware that people are worried that publicity will make matters difficult for juries; however, we must trust them. They have to assess the evidence and the facts. These points are true of all trials. A lot of publicity surrounds high-profile trials in the first place, never mind those in which new DNA evidence and forensic evidence has come to light, and in which modern techniques make it possible to return to failed evidence. I believe that, if we are careful and the safeguards are right, we can trust the jury to get it right, and that we can trust the Appeal Court not to allow through the gateway presentations of evidence that do not stand up to scrutiny.
  Helen Jones: All Members accept that double jeopardy must be handled very carefully and that appropriate safeguards must be put in place, but does my right hon. Friend recognise that concern nevertheless exists in the community that people are allowed to go free, even though new evidence points to their having committed a very serious offence? If there is to be confidence in the criminal justice system, there must be an assurance that, in such cases, the evidence will be weighed very carefully and that, if necessary, such people will face another trial.
  Mr. Blunkett: Yes, and I cannot but agree, because that is the thrust of this part of the Bill. My hon. Friend

  923
  enables me to demonstrate that there are lawyers whom I like very much, and who are really good friends of mine.
  Mr. John Bercow: Give her a job.
  Mr. Blunkett: I shall make representations on my hon. Friend's behalf.
  Annabelle Ewing rose—
  Mr. Blunkett: We have started something now.
  Annabelle Ewing: I thank the Home Secretary for giving way. He referred to the proposed reporting restrictions on retrials south of the border. Significant concerns have been expressed in Scotland—including by the fourth estate—as to whether press-gagging orders made in England will be imposed on Scottish courts. If that is the purport of the Bill, does the Home Secretary accept that the best place to consider such significant changes to Scots law would be in the Scots Parliament, not in Westminster?
  Mr. Blunkett: I think that the Government should, with the Executive of the Scottish Parliament, seriously consider how to proceed. I should be happy to do that. I put my hands up and say, as I always do, that if I had a straight answer, I would give it.
  Simon Hughes: The Home Secretary properly understands the difficulties that could arise with a retrial if press coverage of the first trial remains in the minds of a future jury. He knows too that there are wider concerns about the press coverage of trials the first time around, which begins from the moment a person is arrested. We can all think of such cases, without needing any reminder. Does the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues across Government have in hand any review of the way in which the press can at present get away with condemning people, in effect, from immediately after their arrest right through to the end of the trial? Is that an item on the agenda? It is a big concern across the country.
  Mr. Blunkett: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. The Attorney-General has warned the press about the matter, and he repeated the warning only recently. There have been causes célèbres in which press coverage has made it very difficult to pursue a trial properly. I am sure that that has been inadvertent, but it is also inept. I have in mind an example of that. We need to be mindful of the problem.
  The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) raised a substantive point at the beginning of his question. The difficulty that he described arises when a trial moves from one court to another. Judges must bear in mind the influences affecting the case.
  There is a myth about judges' lives, but I shall be careful about how I phrase what I want to say. There are people who sometimes suggest, mischievously, that judges live in a cocoon, a different world. I am not one
  924
  of them, as I believe that judges could be influenced, if they were not careful, by what they read and heard. They steel themselves against that possibility and are able to accept the facts as they are presented. They make a judgment on the basis of the facts, and advise juries to do the same. They would advise retrial juries in the same manner, and we trust juries—we have all just agreed that we do—to judge according to the facts.
  Mr. Marshall-Andrews: Will the Home Secretary give way again?
  Mr. Blunkett: I will give way one more time to my hon. and learned Friend, as a generous gesture to someone who took the trouble to table an amendment against giving the Bill a Second Reading.
  Mr. Marshall-Andrews: I am very grateful to the Home Secretary. May I say straight away that I do not want to attempt to inveigle myself into the category of lawyer that he mentioned a little while ago? I know that I certainly will not so inveigle myself.
  Will the Home Secretary accept that many people are worried about the double jeopardy proposals? Their concern arises not from some liberal adherence to the rights of defendants, but from the fact that double jeopardy is the primary rule that discourages rotten policing. If a witness simply fails to come forward—and there has been a topical example of that recently—will that be sufficient grounds for an application to reopen a prosecution?
  Mr. Blunkett: The Attorney-General and the Appeal Court will assess whether there is clear and compelling new evidence in a case. That double-locked gateway will mean that the situation outlined by my hon. and learned Friend will not arise, However, I will make representations on his behalf as well in the future, although they might not be quite the same as the representations on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones).
  Mr. John Burnett: The Law Commission's report into double jeopardy made it clear that cases should be retried only when evidence did not become available until after the original acquittal. Does the Home Secretary agree?
  Mr. Blunkett: Evidence that is clear, compelling and, in particular, new falls into that category. I am concerned with the word "new". No new evidence would have been available at the original trial.
  Miss Ann Widdecombe: Will the Home Secretary give way?
  Mr. Blunkett: I will, as I love the right hon. Lady and I want her to sharpen her teeth for future work on the Select Committee on Home Affairs.
  Miss Widdecombe: I am very grateful to the Home Secretary for giving way. I invite him to draw a distinction between "new" and the phrase "could not possibly have been available". If, for example, the new evidence is a scientific advance such as DNA, which

  925
  simply could not have been applied before its discovery, that new evidence could not possibly have been available at the trial. However, if new evidence is brought that was not available but, with more diligent policing could have been, there is a distinction between the two. I am sympathetic to these aims, and I think that the right hon. Gentleman is being invited to make that distinction.
  Mr. Blunkett: I knew that it was a good idea to give way because I do not disagree with the right hon. Lady. I do not believe that we would want failure of the investigation to be used and I do not believe that the Court of Appeal would allow it to be used. I did not respond by acknowledging that a witness failing to come forward would not, in any circumstances, be likely to be agreed by the Attorney-General and the Court of Appeal for this reason: even with the internet, mobile phones and satellite television, someone could return from abroad who could not be interviewed at the time as opposed to not being interviewed because of failure. That is why I was not definitive on the example that was given. It is important that we allow the Attorney-General and the Court of Appeal to do their job, within the parameters of this afternoon's debate and the assurance that I hope I have given, that failure of investigation—incompetence, in other words—should not be the test. I shall turn now to part 11 because I am sure that we will come back to these issues in Committee, on Report and beyond.
  Chapter 1 of part 11 is about relevant evidence and bad character. Chapter 2 is about reported evidence, material in writing, previous statements being available and witnesses being able to use their statements rather than simply testing their good memory, parrot-fashion. Chapter 3 refers to miscellaneous matters.
  We believe that if we are careful and proportionate, we will get this right. We believe that in recommending that we should ensure that when a husband is accused of battery or rape and the defence is that he has been sweetness and light to his wife, the evidence available, including arrest or conviction, should be relevant. That is an extension of and consistence in applying what the Law Commission recommended and, to a moderate degree, what is already practised but is spasmodic and inconsistent in its application.
  Part 12 is about sentencing and part 13 covers miscellaneous activity.
  Mr. Gordon Prentice: I am not a lawyer, but am I the only person who is astonished at the sentences that are handed down to people who pervert the criminal justice system by deliberately lying to courts? The maximum sentence for perjury is seven years. Does anything in the Bill offer advice to the courts as to the appropriateness of sentences that allow people who have perjured themselves to go to an open prison with days off to go to the pub and make social visits miles and miles away from their prison? It is a serious point.
  Mr. Blunkett: I am pleased to have given my hon. Friend the opportunity to make his point but I shall not be drawn into discussing it this afternoon, partly
  926
  because it is not directly relevant to the Bill and partly because recently more heat than light has been shed on the issue.
  Mr. Michael Jack: In paragraph 653, on page 133 of the explanatory notes kindly provided with the Bill, reference is made to the extra pressure on and costs for the Prison Service both of the measures to which the Home Secretary has already referred and those to which I think that he is about to refer. Can he reassure me that resources will be available to deal with those pressures? Secondly, will he address the question raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) during Prime Minister's questions, when she rightly referred to the overall pressure on prison places? Thirdly, will the right hon. Gentleman assure me that resources will be devoted to dealing with the problem of recidivism? Every provision in the Bill will be as nought if we do not stop people going back into prison because they have reoffended.
  Mr. Blunkett: We agree wholeheartedly about positive action in relation to rehabilitation and the avoidance of reoffending. Yesterday, we were dealing with a revised report and recommendations on the relationship between drug addiction and the criminal justice system. That is part of the preventive process, as are the signals that the measure will send out on the sentencing of recidivists.
  The right hon. Gentleman asked about resources. Yes, measures are being taken in respect of the probation service. There has been enormous investment—a 50 per cent. increase—as well as the new spending since 1998. The national probation service was established and commenced a year ago last April. In our first Parliament, there was a 20 per cent. increase in prison places and 2,300 extra places were agreed in the Budget last April. Extra money has been agreed for an additional 750 places next year, so there will be more than 3,000 extra places. As part of next year's spending increase, we have just agreed that there will be £275 million for the Prison Service for improvements and extra places. There will be £70 million for the probation service.
  Of course, we face a challenge. In the long term, some measures will increase pressure on both services. The custody minus proposals, which are close to my heart because I invented them, will, I hope, provide a clear signal to people not to reoffend because if they do, they will immediately go to prison. People will also have an opportunity to redeem themselves because under the proposals they will not be sent to prison immediately for a first offence or for an offence that should be dealt with in the community.
  We should all agree about that because, as I have said before, we should send people to prison only as a last resort. The proposals will help to put the sense back into sentences.
  Mr. Bercow: Will the Home Secretary give way?
  Mr. Blunkett: In a moment.
  I want to deal with a misunderstanding. The words "mixed message" have replaced "spin" and "command and centralisation" as the latest mantra and are

  927
  supposed to be opposite to centralised diktat—the predetermined spin on the pager. Recently, I have met judges who cannot understand the difference between a clear message that violent, dangerous sex offenders will be sent down for longer, supervised more intensively for longer, and that for the most heinous offences life will mean life, and the fact that for first time, lesser offences we shall try to redeem the situation immediately by giving people intensive supervision in community sentences, as well as making reparation to victims.
  David Winnick rose—
  Mr. Blunkett: I shall give way first to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) and then to my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Bercow: Given that schedule 20 provides for an increase in penalties for drug-related offences, will the Home Secretary confirm whether he stands by his statement to the House in July of this year that cannabis will be reclassified from a class B drug to a class C drug by July of next year? In the process of confirming that, what would he say to Roger Howard, the chief executive of DrugScope, who says that, far from saving police time and producing a more logical drugs policy, the law that the right hon. Gentleman proposes will, in fact, make things more severe and confused than they were previously?
  Mr. Blunkett: No, I do not accept that aspect of what DrugScope has said because the residual powers of arrest remain to avoid public order disturbance, to avoid young people being enticed into drug taking and to avoid people trying to evade being picked up as dealers by pretending that they are merely users.
  Guidance will be provided through the chief constables to make the position absolutely clear at the beginning of next year, in good time for the new measure to take effect, in the same way as we would expect to do with other class C illegal drugs if they were being used in a way that made nonsense of the law and a monkey of the police. Some people are prepared to do that, and we do not want to stand by and let them do it.
  David Winnick: Public anxiety is arising from the decision of the courts that they, not the Home Secretary, can decide whether someone who has been sentenced to life imprisonment should be released. I am sure that he thoroughly agrees that there are those who have been convicted who should never be released under any circumstances, so is there any way in which he can assure the public—not all these cases are high profile by any means—that those who should not be released under any circumstances will not be?
  Mr. Blunkett: Yes, I agree. That is why there is the new role for Parliament in lesser offences through the establishment of the sentencing guidelines council. I hope that the influence of Parliament will be expressed through the Select Committee on Home Affairs. We are talking about the Lord Chancellor, in consultation with the Home Secretary, determining the exact avenue.
  928
  I am recommending that the Select Committee on Home Affairs should have a role for the first time in response to the Anderson judgment to set up a framework, determined by Parliament, in which principles will be laid down. Judges will use discretion within that framework and those principles, which will ensure that life means life when we say it does and that the most heinous crimes are dealt with properly.
  As the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) will know from her time in the Home Office—I think that we agree on this—it is not always the high-profile cases where tariffs are set. I rarely speak about these matters, but let me say very clearly that I have dealt with cases where my staff have wept when reading on to cassette for me what has been done to children and other human beings by the scum of the earth who should never leave prison. If we get that right, the public might have greater faith in us—they rely on us—and in the judicial system to protect them and to use what all the rest of us would call decent common sense. That is not vindictiveness; we are laying down for the first time ever the particular objectives of sentencing.
  We talk about punishment, protection, reducing crime, reparations and, of course, rehabilitation, so we are laying down new guidance on why we are doing things. Through the sentencing guidelines council and Parliament's new influence we are laying down the new the ways in which we are trying to make sense of sentencing. In the framework and principles, we are laying down how to deal with cases and principles, as with the Anderson judgement. Of course, we have a new range of sentences: the intermittent sentence, which will help at the lower end, and the indeterminate sentence, which will help at the upper end, with intensive supervision and with the requirement that people should not be released at the upper end unless it is safe to do so.
  Mr. Oliver Letwin: I am not clear. Is the Home Secretary signalling that the Government's legislative solution to the problem posed by the Anderson judgment will be entered as amendments to the Bill, or will it be in separate legislation?
  Mr. Blunkett: The right hon. Gentleman rightly pulls me up. I should have said—I was responding to my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick) at the time—that we will bring forward amendments to the Bill and seek to give the official Opposition as much notice as possible of the detail. I have asked for that to be done as quickly as possible. Clearly, I will inform the Committee of that, and I will be happy to hear views in response. Clearly, on this occasion, we are all dealing as quickly as we can—it is not a failure of desire—with the consequences of that judgment. I have clearance to make sure that we can do that in this Bill. People will want that, not least because we want those who would otherwise seek to have their tariff readjusted to know that that will not happen outside the parameters of the new legislation. Their appeal will not be heard therefore until the legislation, in whatever form the House agrees it, has been passed. It will be judged within the new framework and the new guidance. I hope that that helps the House to understand the process by which we intend to proceed.

  929
  I think that I have spoken for too long.
  Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: I am encouraged by what the Home Secretary said about prison being the last resort and the need for further use of constructive community penalties. Does he share the view of Professor Rod Morgan that there is a danger that the lower courts are using community penalties far too often when a fine would suffice?
  Mr. Blunkett: Yes, I do agree with that. The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), has taken decisive steps, and I very much welcome what she has done. We really need to make sure that we collect the fines when they are levied. When we say that there is a punishment, people must know that it happens. That is true of a number of issues dealt with in the Bill. The House will be unanimous in its views on the punishment fitting the crime, punishment being applied and commitment to enforcement. The court system, the Crown Prosecution Service, the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Home Office are committed to making enforcement work. Nothing is more likely to undermine confidence in the service as a whole and to send the wrong signal, particularly to young people creating mayhem on our streets and our estates, than the belief that there is no enforcement behind the law that we claim exists to put our streets in order, to ensure stability and security and to give confidence to our citizenry. We are all in favour of that. What we seek to do in the Bill—it is a partial step, as legislation alone will not make it work—is to provide the tools to those inside the service and throughout the court system, including the police, to ensure that people can at last have confidence that when we say it, we mean it, and, when we mean it, someone will do something about it.
  4.44 pm
  Mr. Oliver Letwin: We are at the beginning of what I suspect will be a long series of debates in this House and in the other place. The Home Secretary has laid out his position in some detail and at length—I do not criticise that; he was generous in giving way for many questions, which was worth while. It is therefore right that I should be relatively brief.
  I want to set out our views about the generality of the Bill and to talk about the extent to which legislation is used and, by contrast, the extent to which it may be valuable to concentrate on administration. I also want to tackle the controversial elements that the Home Secretary mentioned: trial by jury, double jeopardy and the character of the defendant. Finally, I shall say a few words about what I understand to be the role of the Opposition—indeed, the oppositions—in this matter.
  I have frequently debated issues relating to the generality of the Bill with the Home Secretary and Lord Falconer during statements to the House or in public. We support the general principle of reform of the criminal justice system. When I went to wash my hands before the debate, I was privileged to find an item in the gentlemen's cloakroom in the Lobby.
  Mr. Bercow: Give us the details.
  Mr. Letwin: I shall give my hon. Friend the details. I found a small rag, posing as something to wash one's
  930
  hands on. A pink slip placed on it said that it was "in need of repair". I thought that that was an apt analogy for the criminal justice system, and we agree with the Home Secretary that repairs are required.[Interruption.] I shall return the object in question after the debate. I need hardly fear that, if I were arrested, any fine against me would be enforced.
  Measures such as the creation of the Sentencing Guidelines Council and the making of that council answerable in some form to the House and to Parliament are admirable. They are among many such admirable measures in the Bill. I have repeatedly said that the time is long overdue for the progressive codification of sentencing, of the procedures for the giving of evidence and of the procedures for the holding of trials. There is no doubt that the criminal justice system does not command the confidence of the ordinary public, victims, witnesses or, indeed, the professionals that it should command. All that argues for legislation, much of which is helpfully introduced in the Bill.
  As I have frequently remarked in the past, this is not the first Criminal Justice Bill to come before the House in recent times. There is no reason to suppose that, alas, it will be the last. Legislation is not easy; it is arduous. However, it is easier than something else, and that something else is the improvement of the administrative systems that make the legislation live in practice.
  There has just been some discussion of the enforcement—or rather the almost complete lack of enforcement—in some jurisdictions of fines. However, I draw the House's attention to a separate and parallel topic. Some years ago, the House passed the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, and one of its effects was to require a custody sergeant to be present in the custody suite. When a police constable brought into the station someone who had been arrested, the Act also required the custody sergeant to interview both the constable and the person arrested.
  I am sure that the Home Secretary and his colleagues in the Home Office will have had the same experience that I have had in the past year. I have repeatedly been around the police stations of this country and talked to police constables and asked them how they spend their time—very often, their nights—when they are on duty. I am repeatedly told that they spend two, three or four hours queuing outside the custody suite of their own police station because there is a logjam with only one sergeant in the suite. I am told that they sometimes have to take the prisoner in a car—and with a colleague, if that is necessary for safety purposes—to a station further afield to book him in. I do not have, and I understand from unofficial contacts that the Home Secretary does not have, accurate statistics on what proportion of police time is occupied in that fruitless endeavour.
  The example is non-partisan. The Police and Criminal Evidence Act was not the fault, so to speak, of the Home Secretary or his predecessor. On the whole, it is an admirable Act. Indeed, it happens to be a Conservative Act. However, it is a fact that it is allied to a failure of administration—not just in one police force or police station, but across the police stations of England and Wales—that is significantly diminishing the ability of an already overstretched police force to apprehend criminals.

  931
  I have frequently said that the bulk of the problem of our population's failure of confidence, which is very real, in the criminal justice system arises not from the failure of the criminal justice system to convict, but from the failure to apprehend criminals in the first place. Judging by statistics in the British crime survey, which for various reasons understates crime such as retail crime and crime against the young, the likelihood of not being apprehended, let alone convicted, exceeds 80 per cent. When a criminal knows that his chance of not being apprehended is enormous, the idea that criminal justice is an effective system is risible. The problem that confronts us is clearly administrative. I suspect that no amount of additional legislation will cure the deficiency. I do not want, and I am sure the Home Secretary does not want, to abolish the PACE rules, but we need to find a way to address the administrative deficiency that causes people to queue outside the custody suite.
  I have chosen just one example of the problem, and I recognise the great difficulty of achieving such an administrative change. The Home Secretary will no doubt taunt me with the fact that I am against centralised control and ask me how I can ask him to do something about it given that he is not in charge of each chief constable, but we need systems that impose pressures on chief constables and police forces in ways that make for sustainable improved administration. We do not have those at the moment.
  I do not want to deal with those elements that may provoke detailed consideration in Committee and on which we are broadly agreed. Instead, I want to discuss the controversial elements that will occupy most of the public's attention and most of the time of the House and, perhaps more importantly, of another place.
  On trial by jury, I recognise that part 7 does not contain the same measures as those proposed in the draft mode of trial Bill. For that we are truly grateful. I also recognise that some aspects of part 7 are carefully calculated to be minimally objectionable. For example, clause 36, which gives a defendant the right to choose his or her mode of trial under certain circumstances, has been constructed to be minimally objectionable.
  Given that the Government have rightly abandoned the mode of trial Bill, and given their desire to be minimally objectionable, why do we need to address trial by jury at all? What is the advantage of so doing and, balancing that, what are the risks attendant in so doing? I do not see the issue as black and white and utterly binary. There may be advantages and risks, and those need to be balanced. I have searched with my colleagues on the Front-Bench team and others, who are learned in such matters, to understand what the great gain is anticipated to be from addressing trial by jury.
  The hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) pointed out that the proportion of convictions by juries in serious fraud cases is approximately 85 per cent. I had thought the figure to be 83 per cent. That does not indicate any failure of the system to be able to bring the guilty face to face with their guilt, and I am in no way clear as to how the choice by the defendant of trial by judge rather than by jury under clause 36 will effect great improvement in the criminal justice system. We wait to hear the arguments
  932
  that may be deployed in Committee and on Report by Ministers to defend the proposition that there will be a great gain in that department, and the same is true of the other clauses in part 7. However, against any such advantages—which, as I said, at the moment I cannot see to be very great—we must set out the danger.
  Stephen Hesford: Is the right hon. Gentleman saying on behalf of the Conservative party that, as a matter of principle, the tribunals that may try serious fraud cases and the like are incapable of delivering justice? Does he object in principle to that new procedure, which will, as the Home Secretary has said, remove from juries the burden of trying massive fraud cases?
  Mr. Letwin: I am not saying that a new tribunal would be incapable of delivering justice. How should I know? It may be that such a tribunal would be capable of delivering justice; that is not the question that the House needs to address. The House needs to address the question that I am trying to address: is there such an advantage in moving away from a system that has served us a very long time as to justify that move in the light of any disadvantages?
  I have asked, and we may hear from Ministers, what great advantages attend. In circumstances where there may be inconveniences for juries, but where juries have repeatedly shown themselves to be capable of understanding fraud trials and of convicting in such trials—indeed, they are more capable of convicting in fraud trials than in others—I do not yet see the force of an argument that starts from the presumption that there is a vast advantage. But is there a great disadvantage? It has to be admitted that the disadvantages to the propositions in part 7 are by no means so great as the disadvantages to the mode of trial Bill. I accept that wholeheartedly. However, I still worry greatly about these measures.
  I harbour the thought, and I hope that it is not unworthy, that the Lord Chancellor, like some others, maintains scepticism about the validity of amateurs. He demonstrates that in his attitude to the lay magistracy, a feature of the British justice scheme that has long served us and is now dwindling fast. He demonstrates it also, I fear, in relation to juries. If this House and the other place eventually permit the Government to legislate as they intend in part 7, will we not be laying the ground for precedents that will later be used gradually to erode the scope for trial by jury and to enlarge the scope for trial by judge?
  I know from long and bitter experience in dealing with matters European that whenever one uses the argument of the slippery slope, one is told that one is being unnecessarily alarmist and it is pointed out that the measure in question is slight. It is argued that no precedent can be taken from the slight to the major. It is pointed out that the measure that is before us, such as the Single European Act in place of the draft treaty of union, is nugatory in comparison with the horrors that might have been visited on us.
  That structure of argument is familiar to all of us who witnessed that debate. Here we move to different terrain, but I fear that the structure of argument will be the same. I am sure that, as we pursue this issue through this

  933
  House and the other place, we will be told that we need not fear because these measures are in themselves unobjectionable and no precedent will be set. However, I think that a precedent will be set, and I fear that precedent.
  Mr. Bercow: I strongly agree with my right hon. Friend about trial by jury. I am not a lawyer—I say that as a matter of pride—and my exegesis of clause 36 may be flawed. However, whatever the other arguments about the clause, there is a danger that the Government may inadvertently create new confusion and complexity in subsection (6), which appears to suggest that people who have held office or employment in the administration of the civil or criminal justice system will be denied the right afforded to others to seek a trial without a jury. What is the reason for that?
  Mr. Letwin: It is delightful that my hon. Friend, whose Buckingham constituency lies close to Beaconsfield, by telepathy understands the very points that my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) has been making about clause 36 to me for the past few weeks. The clause is indeed inelegant, but I do not want to dwell on that unduly. In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), we do not know why that inelegant structure is there.
  Mr. Miller: As another non-lawyer, may I put the reverse argument to the right hon. Gentleman? In my constituency, a large sum of money disappeared from a pension fund. The police, looking at a chart as big as the Table in the Chamber, eventually told me, "If it's legal, why aren't we all doing it?" They then concluded that there was not sufficient evidence to convince a jury. Either it is legal and we should all be doing it, or it is not legal and the current system for bringing such cases to justice is inadequate.
  Mr. Letwin: My response is, "What has that got to do with the price of eggs?"
  Mr. Miller: Tell that to my constituents who lost their pension fund.
  Mr. Letwin: The hon. Gentleman misunderstands me. If there was not enough evidence to convince a jury, that is an extremely good reason for the police and the Crown Prosecution Service not to bring a prosecution. On the whole, I agree with the old-fashioned concept that convincing juries of guilt is an extremely important part of the criminal justice system.
  Simon Hughes: May I make one final point on this issue? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that one criticism of some charges being tried in judge-only trials and others in jury trials is that that would create a two-tier justice system? If someone were charged with serious fraud or another offence specified in the Bill, they could be convicted by a judge, not the larger population. A different view would be taken of sentencing, and the public confidence that stems from people like us or members of the wider public serving on juries would be
  934
  lost. For the first time, not at the defendant's instigation, a judge alone would judge guilt and innocence in the most serious cases in the land.
  Mr. Letwin: I agree.
  Mr. Blunkett: If the right hon. Gentleman does agree, that puts the stipendiary magistrates and the higher courts in an interesting position. They do not just confirm sentencing—sometimes they make that judgment. By agreeing with his friend, the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the right hon. Gentleman is going down a very dangerous avenue indeed.
  Mr. Letwin: That is interesting—I think that the Home Secretary is going down a dangerous avenue. Stipendiary magistrates, he will recall, no longer exist.
  Mr. Blunkett: They are district judges.
  Mr. Letwin: Indeed, I do not quibble about that. They are now district judges because the Lord Chancellor is keen to replace people whom he apparently considers dreadful amateurs with serious professionals who will be efficient district judges. Let us call them district judges and let us have efficiency by all means. Let us have them concentrated in great centres. No more rural courthouses staffed by amateurs—they are to be replaced by large, centralised courthouses staffed by serious professionals: district judges. I have nothing against district judges; indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) is a district judge. However, I believe that the amateur has a great role to play.
  In addition to agreeing with the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), I fear that a precedent will be set and what will happen next is that those like the Lord Chancellor who fear the amateur will argue that efficiency has improved and that we should slightly widen the scope. So, by slow degrees over the next decade or so, we will find those of like mind persuading us that the jury system is actually old hat. I hear the word "modernisation"—I hear it loudly ringing in my ears, and I fear it in this context.
  Miss Widdecombe: Does my right hon. Friend accept that there is another dimension? By and large, juries are anonymous—no one knows exactly who has sat on a jury. When there is a very big and controversial case, where there may be a great deal of public and tabloid pressure for a particular outcome, at least with a jury there is no individual pressure inasmuch as someone will have to answer to the public afterwards. A judge, of course, is fully identifiable. Could this be just the first step—I hate to use this phrase—on a rather slippery slope towards politicisation of the judiciary?
  Mr. Letwin: First, my right hon. Friend, as so often, makes a very telling point with which I wholeheartedly agree. Secondly, the fears that she raises—although I will not go into them in great detail now for obvious reasons—range far more widely. The pressures leading to the politicisation of the judiciary from the scope of action given through the Human Rights Act 1998 and a wide range of international agreements, to the extent that we see in the Anderson judgment, is leading

  935
  towards calls for parliamentary scrutiny or even election of judges. I fear the whole trend of thought that we see before us today in the British judicial system.
  I am unashamed in wishing to defend the principle of trial by jury, even against slight inroads that may in themselves appear relatively unobjectionable.
  Stephen Hesford: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, who is generous in giving way for a second time. What does he say about clause 38 and the problems with jury tampering in respect of safeguarding the rights of victims in serious gangster crime, when jury nobbling in some parts of London is rife?
  Mr. Letwin: We have very seriously considered that matter. It is the most serious accusation that can be made against the jury system in a given case. At present, juries are heavily protected when there is tampering. I am open to persuasion, as we move through the Committee stage, that we have not fully grasped the situation. However, we have considered whether there is evidence available that after the trial jurors who have convicted someone—but were protected during the trial because of tampering—have been subject to pressure, or worse. Were that to be proven on a significant scale, I would accept that it would constitute a significant argument for clause 38. I am not aware of such evidence at present. If the jury is adequately protected during the trial, and if there is no substantial evidence of jurors after the trial being subject to intimidation, and if jurors know that that is the currently the position—all of which are empirical points that can be verified by further investigation—the argument becomes very weak.
  I can go further. The structure of clause 38 illustrates well the fears that I am expressing. As I understand the provision, it will be open to the prosecution to move to remove the jury and replace it with a judge, not in cases of tampering but in cases where it is alleged that tampering may occur. The scope is therefore wide. I do not suggest that the prosecution service, the barristers that it employs or the police are ill disposed; they are all trying to do their job. However, their job is, properly, to convict speedily. In some cases, they may perceive that it would be easier to convince a judge than a jury, and there could be a temptation to allege that jury tampering might occur. It will be difficult to be sure that that does not become general practice. That is the slippery slope.
  Mr. Robert Marshall-Andrews: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that one of the main strengths of the jury system is that it is almost impossible to corrupt a jury? It has been proved time and again that 12 jurors are infinitely more powerful than one judge. If there is an allegation of jury tampering, and the judge hears it and receives evidence in secret under public interest immunity rules, he could not in any circumstances go on to try the case. Has the right hon. Gentleman considered that?
  Mr. Letwin: We have been discussing that internally.
  There will be much more debate in Committee, on Report and in another place, but today's early discussion has already revealed the considerable doubts that must be harboured about part 7. My hon. Friends and I will take a great deal of persuading about it.
  936
  Interventions from Conservative Members were not confined to my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham, who might be regarded as a louche moderniser. [Interruption.] He is also an old friend. They included contributions from my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe).
  Miss Widdecombe: I am not a moderniser.
  Mr. Letwin: I was about to observe that my right hon. Friend is not typically regarded as being on the side of the criminal or uninterested in obtaining justice. She is not perceived as being unconcerned with victims and witnesses. Indeed, a large part of her political career has been devoted to precisely those causes. We do not need to be bullied into accepting provisions that may set dangerous precedents, by accusations that we are lily-livered or on the side of the criminal. We are not. However, in the memorable words of the hon. and learned Member for Medway at Prime Minister's questions today, it is not always necessary in pursuit of apprehending the wicked to sacrifice liberties that are of great value to the nation.
  Let us consider double jeopardy. I accept that there is a genuine case for some change in the rules on double jeopardy in some circumstances. I know that some of my hon. Friends and some Labour Members do not accept that. My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald, who has been a strong proponent of such changes in the past, made the salient point that the definitions of, for example, new evidence, are critical. However, as the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes), who speaks for the Liberal Democrats, rightly pointed out that, beyond that there is a considerable and justified anxiety that, without great safeguards, the second trial may not start with the presumption of innocence. I accept that there is a certain unfairness in the logic here. It was partly, I suspect, because of pressure from myself and my hon. Friends—and, indeed, from the Liberal Democrats—that the Home Secretary carefully and rightly concocted the clauses in question to provide the safeguard that the Court of Appeal must judge that there is clear and compelling evidence, and that is welcome.
  With a certain irony, however, that creates its own problem. If the Court of Appeal has judged that there is clear and compelling evidence, it is difficult to see how that, if it is known to a jury, ceases to be a reason for starting with a presumption of guilt. If I know that the Court of Appeal has ruled that a defendant has against him clear and compelling evidence, how can I start with the presumption that he is innocent? I will go further in my tribute to the Home Secretary and his colleagues, because they have also—again, perhaps as a result of conversations that we have had—taken care, rightly, to build in reporting restrictions.
  That is welcome, and it helps to redress the problem. I am not convinced, however, that there are yet complete safeguards. Certainly, the amendment that my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald suggested in relation to the character of the new evidence required would address the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Medway that we need to be sure that the changes would not induce sloppy policing in the hope of a second trial. I think that there is common ground between us on that subject.

  937
  Beyond that, we shall want to consider carefully in Committee how we can build sufficient safeguards in to the clauses to ensure that there is a presumption of innocence. We may part company at that point from the Liberal Democrats, who may object in principle to double jeopardy. I respect that position, but it is not ours. Ours is a balanced position on double jeopardy. We accept the basis for change, but only if the safeguards can be very robust.
  Dr. Desmond Turner: Surely the effect on the presumption of innocence if new evidence is declared significant is no different from the presumption of innocence at the beginning of the first trial. The first trial would not have been brought unless the prosecution felt that it had compelling evidence, so I cannot really see the difference.
  Mr. Letwin: Seeing the difference depends on the beholder as well as on the thing seen. Let me try to convey to the hon. Gentleman how this looks from my perspective. If I were a juror and I knew that a prosecution barrister, whose job it is to prosecute—guided by the CPS, whose job it is to prepare prosecutions—and the police, whose job it is to get prosecutions to succeed, were all alleging that the defendant was guilty, I would regard that as part of the ordinary course of business. That is, after all, those people's job. I would, I hope, start with the presumption that they were wrong, and try to ensure that they had proved to me beyond all reasonable doubt that they were right.
  If, however, there were added to the mixture the observation that the second most senior set of judges in the kingdom had considered the case at great length, in the light of prolonged further investigations, and had already adjudicated that there was clear and compelling evidence, I think that it would be more difficult—although not absolutely impossible—to start with a presumption of innocence. To my mind, therefore, there is a difference between the first trial and the second. In this instance, the balance of doubt—the balance of advantage, so to speak—in the argument ought to lie with my perception rather than with that of the hon. Gentleman. If he is right, there will not be much to worry about if we follow the course that I recommend. If I am right, however, and we do as he recommends, we would have a real problem. The presumption of innocence is the single most important feature of our judicial system, and I want to protect it absolutely—even, if necessary, beyond the point at which it needs protection.
  I shall now move on to the question of the character of the defendant. I should begin by saying that some weeks ago, I would have described this issue in terms of the release of information about previous convictions. If I were still able so to describe it, I would say that we had severe hesitations about the release of previous convictions to juries and that we wanted, in this case as in that of double jeopardy, explicit and much tougher safeguards to ensure that such convictions were released and continued to be released—of course, they are already released under certain circumstances—only where the presumption of innocence and the prosecution's duty to prove beyond reasonable doubt
  938
  were protected. In Committee or on Report or both, we shall table amendments specifically to introduce such additional safeguards.
  However, I cannot describe that part of the Bill as dealing with the release of previous convictions because, to my astonishment—that is an accurate description—when we saw the Bill we discovered that it does not deal with the release of previous convictions alone. For example, if I understand it correctly, it deals with the release to juries of previous acquittals. I have to say that that fair takes the breath away. I cannot understand for the life of me how a jury can be expected to start with the presumption of innocence if it is open to the prosecution to bring forward a general character assassination based on innuendo and previous acquittal, tending, in the words of the Bill, to show a disposition on the part of the defendant towards criminality.
  Alas, I think that I understand entirely the logic behind the proposals in that part of the Bill. Lord Falconer, who is one of the Home Secretary's close colleagues, will handle the Bill in the Lords. He is a distinguished jurist—one of Britain's most distinguished—and he comes from a long tradition of civil litigation. I believe that he starts with the idea that, in the words of Lord Justice Auld, with which I agree, justice is not a game. However, I believe that he also starts with the view that if justice is not a game it should, fundamentally, be a judgment on the balance of probabilities. That is an appropriate test when two people are arguing about how to allocate moneys between them, but it is wholly inappropriate to the question of depriving citizens of their liberties, perhaps for a long time.
  I am devoted to the principle that we should eliminate from the list of factors that can be brought before a jury in any circumstances all those that have not been the subject of proof beyond reasonable doubt in a prior court. Having eliminated all other items, we would need additional safeguards that explicitly referred to the presumption of innocence and proof beyond reasonable doubt. Even then, if that position were achieved, I would, with a heavy heart, ask my hon. Friends to vote for such amended proposals. I would fear them even so, although I see the strength of the argument that at present there are inhibitions on trial judges that may need to be reduced to some degree.
  I apologise to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to the House, for having gone on so long, but I want two minutes to add one more point.
  Mr. Llwyd: The right hon. Gentleman knows, of course, that there is a right to introduce similar-fact evidence in certain circumstances, but is it not strange that the one category, or qualifying term, with regard to introducing bad character is that
  "without it, the court or jury would find it impossible or difficult properly to understand other evidence in the case"?
  I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me for saying so, but I have prosecuted many cases, and one of the prosecutor's jobs is to explain the case to the court and the jury. Frankly, if prosecutors cannot do so without denigrating the defendant's character, they should jolly well give up the Bar.
  Mr. Letwin: I agree with the hon. Gentleman—and beyond that, that phrasing reveals all too clearly the

  939
  very logic that I was exposing. It means that trying to persuade an old-fashioned jury beyond reasonable doubt, and against the presumption of innocence, that according to the facts presented, the person in question did what they are accused of, is beyond the wit of the prosecution, and therefore that explaining the prosecution's point to the jury's satisfaction is easier if it can make a pile of other assertions about the defendant. Well, I am sure that is true. If the hon. Gentleman were prosecuting me, he could say things about me—with perfect truth, alas—that would help him in his prosecution, but that would not prove that I had performed the deed of which I was accused. That is the essential difference.
  As I was saying, I want to spend two minutes responding to and defending myself against accusations. On various occasions, in the House and outside, the Home Secretary has said he finds it annoying that the official Opposition often greet his proposals with some warmth—that has been the case with the generality of the Bill—and then, following the outcome, cause an awful lot of trouble for him and his colleagues in the House of Lords.
  I have to say that I am not ashamed of that concatenation. I think it reasonable for us to back the generality of the Bill but to object to certain clauses. I also think it reasonable for us to try to forge an alliance with Members of the other House who are members of the Home Secretary's own party, and with Liberal Democrats and Cross Benchers in the other place—with, in many instances, Law Lords and bishops—and to limit the scope of Government action, especially in relation to matters that have very little effect on the control of crime.
  The three things I have mentioned in particular today will not, between them, account for any significant number of trials, or for any significant number of criminals. They do, however, have vast potential significance in relation to the fabric of our liberties. If there is a proper role for this House and the other place in checking and limiting the Government of this country, it is to protect the fabric of liberties against the Executive. That is the solemn duty of Parliament, and I am unashamed of trying to use Parliament to fulfil it.
  One of my colleagues in the shadow Cabinet who used to be involved, as a lawyer, in trials in Scotland told me that at the beginning of one trial the judge said, "Bring on the next criminal". That is the mindset to which we object.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. I remind Members that Mr. Speaker has imposed a 12-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches.
  5.27 pm
  Mr. Chris Mullin: May I draw Members' attention to my Select Committee's report on the Bill, which was published this morning and may help them? May I also lodge the usual protest that it is extremely difficult for a Select Committee to scrutinise a Bill published only 13 days before Second Reading,
  940
  without explanatory notes—which became available only on Friday last week, after our report had been finalised? Our witnesses had to give evidence without having seen the Bill. I will not labour the point, because it was made earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen). Let me repeat, however, that the sooner all Bills are published in draft, as the Extradition Bill was, the better it will be for all concerned. I do not know what the Home Secretary has lined up for us to deal with in the next Session, but it would be nice to think that the finest minds in his Department were already working on it, so that we could avoid the same unseemly rush next time.
  I believe that I speak for the entire Committee in saying that I am happy to support any measures designed to cut out unnecessary delay, and to make our notoriously insensitive judicial system more sensitive to the interests of victims and witnesses. We will also support any reasonable measures that help to make the judicial process a search for truth rather than a game of chance. I entirely agree with what the Home Secretary said about that.
  The penny still has to drop for many of our learned friends. A policeman of my acquaintance told me last week that he recently heard a judge who was addressing an audience of 50 flatly reject the notion that the trial process constituted a search for truth. What we will not support, however, are measures that, however well intentioned, are likely to dilute the quality of justice. This Bill contains one or two such measures, one of which we have dealt with thanks to assurances from the Home Secretary about the disclosure of names and addresses of witnesses to the prosecution. The other measure—concerning previous character, which I shall come to in a moment—requires further discussion.
  On part 1 of the Bill, we welcome measures such as street bail, which will reduce unnecessary police bureaucracy without impinging on the rights of the accused. We do not, however, believe that a convincing case has been made for extending to 36 hours the detention limit. In our view, there are alternative and more appropriate measures in the Bill, such as conditional bail, which will help to alleviate any problems with existing time constraints. On amendments to PACE, we strongly believe that any significant amendments should come into effect by affirmative order and not, as proposed in clause 7, simply by laying the amendment before Parliament. I should be grateful for the Minister's assurance on that point.
  On parts 2 and 4, which deal with bail and charging, we support the proposal in clause 16 to impose a treatment condition on bail for class A drug abusers. However, it is obvious that that will work only if treatment is readily available, and we look forward to the Minister's proposals as to where and when treatment will be available. Perhaps we can discuss that matter in more detail tomorrow. We accept that a power to impose conditions on bail before charging is a necessary and logical part of the move towards charging by the Crown Prosecution Service, but we recommend a number of safeguards in addition to those in schedule 2—notably a time limit of four weeks, which the Association of Chief Police Officers proposed in its evidence to the Committee. I should be grateful if Ministers would consider this point.

  941
  On part 5, which deals with disclosure, we welcome the proposal for a single objective test. As I have said, I think that revisions to the Home Secretary's proposed code will deal with the problem of potential abuse where names and addresses of defence witnesses are disclosed to the prosecution.
  On part 7, we welcome the Government's decision to retain the defendant's right to elect jury trial in so-called either-way cases. However, we accept that, in a limited category of cases—such as those where there is evidence of jury tampering—cogent reasons may exist for dispensing with jury trial. Nevertheless, as has already been pointed out, we should scrutinise carefully whether an allegation that a jury is about to be tampered with is being used as a device for escaping jury trial. Members of the Committee reluctantly accepted—we were by no means unanimous on this point—that this measure may also be necessary in complex fraud and financial trials, on the ground that length alone arguably undermines the principle of random selection of juries. We accept that in such cases, the rights of the defendant are adequately protected by the provision of a right to appeal against a decision not to grant a jury trial.
  I should add, however, that I do not accept—as I have sometimes heard it suggested—that it is necessary to dispense with a jury because the issues are so complex that only a clever lawyer can understand them. It is up to the prosecution to present its case in such a way that ordinary mortals can understand the issues. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I have also heard it argued that this may be the thin end of the wedge. I hope that no one in the Government takes that view—to judge by what the Home Secretary has said today, I doubt whether he does—because I do not, and nor does my Committee. Any attempt to go further will be met with stiff resistance.
  On double jeopardy, the Committee welcomes the proposed reforms, which are in line with the conclusions of its report of two years ago. The Committee believes that the proposed safeguards—that only certain serious offences will be taken into account, that retrials will be subject to the approval of the Attorney-General and the Court of Appeal, and that new and compelling evidence must exist—are adequate to prevent abuse.
  There was concern that the proposed increase in magistrates' sentencing powers might inflate the prison population unless it was implemented after the custody plus scheme was rolled out. I look forward to hearing from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Hilary Benn), on that point.
  We welcome the Government's proposal to preserve the presumption against hearsay evidence, subject to certain exceptions. I understand that the Government are proposing to adopt the Law Commission's suggestions on the reform of hearsay. I welcome that.
  The biggest bone of contention is the proposal to admit previous similar convictions. The Committee was unanimously of the view that such convictions should not be disclosed automatically. We believe that that is a bridge too far. As the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) noted, the measure undermines a fundamental principle of our criminal justice system—the presumption of innocence. It opens up the prospect of previous convictions being used to prop up an
  942
  otherwise weak case. In our view, it will inevitably increase the temptation for police to round up the usual suspects. Far from helping to create a balance between the rights of defendants and accusers, the proposal would create an imbalance. For all those reasons, we believe that clauses 84 to 92 should be deleted from the Bill.
  It may well be that safeguards can be brought in to meet our concerns on these matters. I shall only say that they will have to be pretty mighty, and that it is difficult for me to think what they could be. Speaking for myself, I shall vote for the Bill on Second Reading, but I shall not be minded to support it on Third Reading if it still contains that proposal. I should regret that, because I hope that I have made it clear that the Bill contains many useful and sensible measures. This proposal is not one of them, however.
  The Committee has suggested some possible additions to the Bill that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary might consider. They include anonymity for defendants in sexual offence cases, especially in those that involve historical abuse; the outlawing of unrecorded cell confessions; and the question of payments to witnesses.
  I shall elaborate on the latter suggestion. As Ministers will know, a number of major criminal trials have collapsed because the media have made payments to witnesses, sometimes on condition that the trial results in conviction. The issue has been the subject of endless debate and consultation. The Government accepted the National Heritage Select Committee recommendation that self-regulation would not work and that legislation was the only possible solution. Five years later, the media are still drinking in that much frequented hostelry, the last chance saloon. We think that the Bill provides an ideal opportunity to legislate on this matter, although I appreciate that the business managers may have something say about that.
  In conclusion, the question that arose over and over again in relation to many of the measures in the Bill was, "What is the problem they are intended to solve?" In many cases, the answer was that the resulting improvements would be modest in the overall scheme of things. I do not denigrate them: as I have just made clear, many represent progress and are perfectly sensible. However, as the right hon. Member for West Dorset noted a moment ago, if we are to restore the credibility of our system of justice, a cultural change by all the agencies concerned is required more than legislation. It is disorganised crime rather than organised crime that blights the lives of so many of our constituents. In most cases, the perpetrators never get anywhere near the courts because they are not apprehended and, in many cases, the courts are not the relevant agency.
  First, we must end the culture of impunity. That requires effective and visible policing. I have always believed that 100 policemen on bicycles are more effective than two in a helicopter. For cases that do not reach court, we need efficient, speedy and fair justice that takes into account the legitimate rights of victims and witnesses and not just those of the defendant, important though those are, or the convenience of the lawyers. That is not so important.

  943
  Above all, we must end the culture of adjournment, which more than anything else makes our legal system a nightmare for victims and witnesses. It plays into the hands of unscrupulous defence lawyers and their clients.
  In the end, those are management issues. They require not legislation, but effective management. I hope that the Government have now created for the police and the courts the legislative framework that will enable our system of justice to be managed in a way that commands the confidence of everyone who comes into contact with it.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's time is up.
  5.39 pm
  Simon Hughes: I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) and to the work that he and the Select Committee on Home Affairs do so promptly and efficiently to ensure that we regularly have the support and advice of his Committee before we deliberate on important Bills such as this. Let me pick just one matter from the many items that the Home Affairs Committee has recommended with which Liberal Democrat Members agree. The hon. Gentleman's last point has often been made to me about so much Home Office business—we need to deal with the administration, not the legislation. The Home Secretary understands this point and often makes it himself. If we could get the system working well, that might be more useful than seeking to amend the law which often does not make things work better.
  I thank the Home Secretary for the way in which he responded to the concerns expressed about the run-up to today in terms of the information available. I look forward to having the missing pieces of the information jigsaw as soon as possible. He must understand that we are all grappling with a work load that is bigger than we might have chosen—none the less we need the tools to enable Parliament to do its job.
  I understand exactly the point made by the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen). I also take the view that we should have draft Bills and pre-legislative scrutiny. The only reason we did not put down a motion proposing that this should be committed to a Special Standing Committee was that we had the Halliday report, the Auld report, the White Paper and a period of consultation. I hope that the Home Secretary understands that that was an attempt to respond positively to a Bill that has had a longer gestation period than much legislation. However, legislation often changes quite a lot between concept and delivery. As the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) said, the Bill contains some provisions that were not in the plans a few weeks ago.
  Mr. Allen: One of the advantages of pre-legislative scrutiny on the White Paper, which was eminently readable and well put together, would be to avoid having some of these provisions in draft legislation.
  944
  There would be less confrontation in this House or the other place because we would have been listening to people outside the House ahead of time.
  Simon Hughes: Absolutely. Let me then make a point that I was going to make later. At lunchtime today, I had the privilege of being invited to Church House for the launch of a book called "The Future of Criminal Justice", published by the Society for the Promotion of Christian Knowledge. I know that the Under-Secretary of State was also invited. The book's editorial was written by Lord Hurd of Westwell. The book was written in tribute to Bob Hardy who, for 16 years until last year, was the bishop for the prisons. He was Bishop of Lincoln for much of that time. I went in part because he used to be my college chaplain—I thought that he was a good man then and he went on to be an even more important good man later.
  Lord Hurd said in his introduction that one of the problems is that the penal system is a rather forlorn public service. The criminal justice system, until recently, has also been a rather forlorn public service in terms of the way in which we do our business. I accept the hon. Gentleman's point—that we need a less confrontational way of dealing with these reforms. I hope that the tone of the Liberal Democrats in this debate, in Committee and in the conversations that have taken place between the three major parties in recent weeks, has shown and will continue to show that although we may have strong differences and strong views, we will listen to the arguments, respond to them and amend our views if we are persuaded. That must be the way to make this very important Bill better and get it as near to being right as any legislation can be.
  I have one last point that I hope will be accepted as a statement of desire for consensus. The Home Secretary has heard me say elsewhere that we want to try, with him, to get a settled criminal justice system, not one that is for ever open to legislative change. We will work with him and others in all parties to get a codification of the criminal law. There are big prizes if we can work together.
  The Government have accepted that some of the mistakes that they made in their last Administration should not be made again. It is clear that the Home Secretary and the present Government have accepted the case that was made and won in the last Parliament: to get rid of the right to elect for trial by jury is a mistake and it should not have been proposed. After being defeated three times on the issue, the Government have understood that it should no longer be on the agenda. That is definite progress and we welcome it.
  At the reception that I attended earlier, Lord Hurd said that the House of Commons often does not "do its stuff" in ensuring that Bills such as this are right. Other people who were there made points that were partly alluded to in the remarks of the right hon. Member for West Dorset. The biggest failures in the criminal justice system do not happen between the beginning and ending of the trial—they occur elsewhere. There is not enough crime prevention. People are not deterred enough from committing crimes. We do not catch people who commit crimes nearly enough. Punishments are not effective enough. We do not prevent reoffending enough. Those are the priorities, and I have heard no dissenting voices about that.

  945
  At the end of the last Session, when we debated the laws on immigration, nationality and asylum and the Home Office directorates that dealt with those matters, we pointed out that administration and organisation require the most attention from the Government. The same is true for this Bill. We may try to improve things by legislating, but our systems of trial and punishment will benefit much more from structural review. There will of course be resource implications.
  Our consideration of the Bill gives us the opportunity to do two equally important things during the next few months. First, it will put the criminal justice system on trial—out in the open. There can be real debate about how to get it right. Secondly, it will put Parliament on trial, for the reasons set out by the right hon. Member for West Dorset and with which Liberal Democrats agree.
  One test of whether Parliament does its job properly is whether we understand what the fundamentally important liberties of the subject are, and how to defend them. Unless we understand that, we shall not pass the test. All participants in the criminal justice system must believe that it is just for them, and that means just for defendants, too, even though they start by being the least popular group in the system.
  Many people deserve praise for the way in which they participate in our criminal justice system: lay magistrates; people who work for the Court Service; judges and the Prison Service, from the director general downwards. By and large, they do an extremely good job. If there are mistakes and failings, it is often because people are not given the right direction or leadership.
  As I pointed out to the Home Secretary earlier, however, it is not necessary to reduce the rights of defendants in order to increase rights and a sense of justice for victims, and some of us become somewhat aggrieved when that is suggested. In the sort of communities represented by the Home Secretary, the Under-Secretary and me, we need no lessons on the need to look after victims and witnesses. In many urban communities, we know the score extremely well. However, those communities have more than their fair share of defendants too. It is no accident that most people who end up as defendants are not rich and well heeled—although some are—but are those with the least education and the poorest start in life. That is not to say that my hon. Friends and I believe that people should not take responsibility for their actions whatever their circumstances. Adults should be accountable for what they do. They are answerable for their actions and they should be dealt with. But it is not without significance that the majority of inmates in nearly every prison or youth offender institute have lower than average academic qualifications, fewer skills, more mental illness and more disordered backgrounds. Many have been in care, have become prey to addiction or are socially inadequate and sad.
  We all have a responsibility to understand that situation. The better answer is not to keep such people locked up for longer and longer. We have to ensure that they do not get into those circumstances in the first place. That is why, behind all we can do to get our trial and punishment systems right at the end of the day, sentencing reform—alternatives to prison—is the central, underlying issue for me. The alternatives need huge improvement and significant investment, and they
  946
  have often been the Cinderella service because prisons are not the most popular things to put in an election manifesto for reasons that we all understand.
  There are two areas of common ground, and I will mention them in a sentence each. As the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) said, we need to get back to an understanding that the sequence of punishment starts with rebuke, warning and caution, goes on to fines, which have been grossly under-used and have become inefficient because no one collects them properly—a point made by the hon. Gentleman—then involves non-custodial alternatives, and only when all those have been absolutely exhausted should the custodial alternative be considered last.
  May I also tell Ministers without qualification that the custody plus and custody minus proposals are extremely good? When people receive a sentence, some of which will be served in custody, they will in future understand that the sentence does not end when they come out of the prison doors, that what happens outside is as important as what happens inside and that the support, rehabilitation and retraining will continue afterwards too. If we can get that right, the ridiculous nonsense of people being literally thrown out of the prison gate and left to fend for themselves, with the consequence—we all know about it—that they often go back in again will, we hope, be considerably reduced.
  The Home Secretary does not like this phrase, but there are three mixed messages and at least one wrong message. The Prime Minister has often said—he did so again today in answer to the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews)—that the criminal justice system does not adequately convict the guilty. I simply do not think that that is right; it is a gross exaggeration of what happens. The Prime Minister also sometimes says that the greatest miscarriage of justice is when the guilty go free, not when the innocent are convicted. I do not think that that is right either.
  The price of a decent justice system is that, occasionally, the guilty will go free—the guilty will not be convicted—and it is wrong to think that trying to deal with that very small number of people is a price worth paying if, as a result, we end up with a criminal justice system that convicts more people unjustly or treats them unfairly.
  I shall remind the House of the figures. I need not elaborate on them, but 95 per cent. of defendants in magistrates courts plead guilty, 74 per cent. of defendants in Crown courts plead guilty and 65 per cent. of defendants in contested trials at Crown courts are acquitted. The total shows that nothing like most people are acquitted; a huge proportion of them are convicted because those people admit their guilt or because they are found guilty after trial. So the failure is not that hordes of people are let out when they should have been convicted. That is not the central issue that we need to address today.
  Mr. Dominic Grieve: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Prime Minister's comments today introduce a slightly worrying feature to the debate? It is important that we have a rational debate, but for the Prime Minister to suggest—I also heard his words today—that those who are acquitted by juries are

  947
  guilty seems to run counter to the entirety of our legal principles and to start our serious debate on quite the wrong foot.
  Simon Hughes: I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman. I was extremely troubled by what the Prime Minister said in answer to the question asked from the Labour Benches. The Government are becoming increasingly obsessed with putting up the conviction rate as though that were the right test and with trying to produce a system that makes that outcome more likely. The danger is that they will start to cut corners, to eat away at liberties and to undermine the criminal justice system, which used to have the best reputation in the world.
  Other things concern me. I hear mixed messages from the Government about whether the number of people in prison ought to be increased or decreased. The Prime Minister seems to say that more people need to be put in prison; the Home Secretary seems to say that fewer people need to be imprisoned. We on the Liberal Democrat Benches believe that many people who are in prison do not need to be there and that we should not seek to go on increasing the numbers.
  It would be helpful if the Government would make it clear whether it is their wish that prison numbers should start to go down and that the recent huge increase and huge overcrowding are trends that should not be replicated, with the danger of 100,000 people being locked up, increasingly two to a cell and with increasingly unsuccessful outcomes.
  Miss Widdecombe: Of course there is a difference between deploring overcrowding, as I did today, and taking a view as to whether more or fewer people should be in prison. With overcrowding, the number of places is inadequate no matter how many people there are. I put it to the hon. Gentleman that the aim of the justice system is not to imprison more or fewer people; the aim must be to find places where courts determine that custody is appropriate to protect the public.
  Simon Hughes: I agree with the right hon. Lady, but if she looks at the figures—she probably knows them as well as I do and will probably remember them specifically from her time as a Minister—she will see that, 10 years ago, one in 26 people who appeared before the courts went into custody. Now, one in 13 do so—exactly double the number. The same number of people appears before the courts and I cannot believe that is it necessary for double the number of people to be sent into custody now compared with 10 years ago. That happens because fines or alternatives to custody are not considered or thought to be inadequate.[Interruption.] The right hon. Lady says from a sedentary position that there is more crime, but I have to challenge her: there is not.
  Miss Widdecombe: I said that the system has brought crime down.
  Simon Hughes: It may or may not have brought crime down, but the Liberal Democrats share the view of the Director General of the Prison Service that the length of
  948
  prison sentences imposed by the courts, especially magistrates courts, is drifting upwards, as is the frequency with which they impose prison sentences, and that more effective alternatives to custody should be available so that the best punishment and treatment is provided.
  Miss Widdecombe: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way a second time; it is extremely generous of him. What I said from a sedentary position—I did not dare test his generosity by standing up again—was not that there is more crime now, but that the system brought crime down. Does he accept that, in fact, a sharp increase in the prison population has coincided with the only sharp decrease in crime that we have had in 30 years?
  Simon Hughes: The answer is that, as the right hon. Lady rightly suggests, there is one recent period when an increase in the prison population coincided with a fall in the crime figures, but whether the two things are directly linked is much more disputable. All that I know from those who do such things for their day jobs all the time is that, at the moment, the prison system has a high failure rate in terms of reoffending, particularly for young people, but for adults as well. We need a more successful punishment regime, with fewer people being imprisoned and more people receiving punishment in the community so that they can keep their jobs and stop their families breaking up. That must be a better alternative.
  Mr. David Cameron: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way; he has been generous. Does he agree that community sentences will not work as an alternative to prison unless they are viewed as tough and rigorous by those who impose sentences—magistrates, mostly—and by victims? That is absolutely key if we are to keep the prison population down. What does he think about weekend prison, which seems expensive in terms of prison places? The key is to have community sentences—whether picking up litter or wiping away graffiti—that people can see are rigorous, tough and meaningful.
  Simon Hughes: I have always taken the view that community sentences not only need to mean something, but to be seen to mean something. They must be seen to be worth imposing. They are getting much better. The Youth Justice Board and many other people have recently done a lot of work on them, but I entirely accept what the hon. Gentleman says. I agree that such sentences will often not be adequate, unless victims and others think that they represent real alternatives. As a postscript to that point, one of the things being explored in the hon. Gentleman's police authority area is the idea of victims and defendants confronting each other, so that the defendant understands the effect of his crime on the victim. The pilot schemes are not concluded, but it appears that it is much more likely that people will be persuaded not to repeat certain behaviour when they realise and accept the trauma that has been caused to the victim.
  I am conscious that many other Members want and ought to be heard, so I shall be brief about my two other concerns about Government mixed messages, one of

  949
  which is about money. The explanatory notes include the bill for the Government's custody plus and custody minus schemes. We have also had an announcement of more money in the coming year for the probation service. It is quite a large bill. The costs of implementation, over the next five years, will be £34 million, £195 million, £301 million, £361 million, £378 million and £390 million. According to the projection, the costs will continue at £390 million per year thereafter. It would be very helpful if, at the end of the debate, the Minister could tell us whether it is true that if we pass the Bill the Government will be able to fund the custody plus and custody minus schemes. Alternatively, is it true, as some of his ministerial colleagues have suggested recently, that it will be 10 or 12 years before the money comes through the system to provide the kind of intelligent sentencing system that we all agree is necessary?
  The last mixed message relates to clause 9 on drugs. It is unclear to send a message that cannabis is much less harmful than heroin, crack cocaine and the rest yet legislate to make an arrestable offence with an imprisonment consequence for possession, as well as other things, as clause 9 seeks to do. It would be far better if the dealing and commercial exploitation of drugs was seen as the iniquity that needed to be punished and dealing in cannabis for personal use was seen in a different league.
  I must refer to the three giant issues of the Bill. Liberal Democrats stand up for lay justice. Like the Conservative spokesman, for us, lay magistrates and lay jury trials are the cornerstone of a criminal justice system in which the public have confidence. Because we are dealing with the fundamentals of liberty—whether people are arrested, detained, convicted and imprisoned—the best people to decide those matters with confidence are those who come from the community concerned, not the professionals. We cannot therefore accept the changes that are currently recommended.
  On the change in the rules of evidence, it cannot be right, as the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee said, that there is wider scope for evidence relating to a defendant's previous life to be brought into a trial when what they are being judged on is the specific offence with which they are charged. There is a huge risk that people will in future be judged not by whether they have done something on a particular day, but by how they have lived their life and whether they have done things wrong previously. Rehabilitation is not possible if people cannot escape from their past. It is too easy to pick up people who have been regular offenders. That changes the presumption of a fair trial and the presumption of innocence in a way that we cannot accept.
  In relation to jury trials, the Minister knows—because we have had a conversation and debates about our objections—how successful serious fraud trials are. We have been reminded of that today. There are other ways of dealing with such cases. We can have assessors together with the judge, a smaller jury, a jury in which people are able to commit themselves for a long period, additional written material to help jurors, and an adviser to make sure that people understand the issues, but we need not get rid of the principle that, ultimately, the jury decides.

  950
  On the dangers in relation to the risk of intimidation, we understand the issue, but the threshold is too low. The serious risk applying to one defendant could suddenly mean that the jury trial disappears for all. We do not believe that that is right, and we hope that the Government will accept that that must be changed.
  On double jeopardy, in answer to the question asked by the right hon. Member for West Dorset, we do not have an absolutist view. We do believe, however, that questions must be answered before we need to change the law. How will we ensure that, in future, any acquittal on a serious offence in the list will not, in effect, be a conditional acquittal? How will the press be prevented from determining the jury's view as it starts the second trial? We also express concern, as my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) said in his intervention on the Home Secretary, that the Law Commission recommendations in relation to the test and the charges—namely, murder—have been greatly widened by the Government. Again, we would require a much narrower range of opportunities for retrial. My honest judgment is that retrial only on the basis of scientific evidence that was not previously available might be agreed across the parties and would be likely to find more acceptance outside the House.
  I have a long list of lesser first division points, although I can only deal with a couple. We share the concerns of the Home Affairs Committee that increased detention may not be the right answer, but more effective inquiry is needed in the time provided. We are worried that the criteria for the most serious violent and sex offenders—from whom we agree the public need greater protection—have been drawn too widely. For example, one of the offences in the list of those that would put someone in the indefinite sentence category is soliciting by men, which will be abolished in the sexual offences Bill that will be introduced in only a few months' time. It seems to us that the net is too wide. Ministers should seriously consider whether a decision later in a sentence on whether someone who has been convicted for a serious sex or violence offence is safe to be released should come back to court, so that a judge, having heard the case in public, can decide whether that person is fit to go back into the community. I do not accept the Home Secretary's view that there can never be redemption or rehabilitation, however terrible the crimes are. People may commit crimes that make them reviled as the scum of the earth, but even some of those individuals may later come good and be safe to be released. We must always allow for that eventuality.
  In relation to the increase in magistrates' powers, the risk is that we have much more severe sentences, although we do not have objections in principle to more severe sentences for persistent offenders. In our view, however, there should never be mandatory sentences; otherwise, we will end up with a nonsense in which people are sentenced to a long term of imprisonment when their last offence may have been after a very long interval or may have been much less serious than those that they committed previously. That is why we are clear too that Ministers should not set tariffs. Parliament should set a maximum sentence, judges should set the actual sentence and, in dangerous and violent cases, the courts should decide when somebody should be released.

  951
  Since I have been my party's spokesman, I have tried to make it clear, along with my hon. Friends, that our party is not weak on crime or naïve about the causes of crime. Like everybody else, my focus group is my community. We are all formed by our experiences, and crime is at the top of many people's agenda. But neither will we be weak on justice nor on defending the rights and liberties of an ordinary person who happens to be a defendant, possibly for the first time in their life, and possibly only once in their life in a criminal trial.
  Like the hon. and learned Member for Medway, although we tabled a reasoned amendment, it was not accepted, about which we make no criticism. We will therefore vote against the Second Reading of the Bill. That is not because we think that everything in the Bill is wrong—as I said to the Minister, we welcome many aspects of it—but because we believe that we need to register our opposition to some fundamentally wrong elements in it. We invite hon. Members on both sides of the House who feel able to do so to join us in that opposition. We will then work constructively, in this place and in the other place, because, when legislating for criminal justice, it is important that everybody thinks that justice has won, and that everybody feels that the system will treat them more justly in the future than it does at present.
  6.9 pm
  Ross Cranston: I declare an interest. I am a member of one of the unpopular groups that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) mentioned. I am a lawyer in the House. The register also has the entry that I am a recorder. I have sat in the Crown court for 10 years.
  I commend very much the measured and open-minded way in which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary presented the Bill. That paves the way for its thorough consideration as it wends its way through both Houses.
  On the Bilk background, I do not accept the view that some people have expressed, including police groups, that the Bill swings the pendulum back in favour of victims and witnesses. There is no symmetry between defendants on the one hand and victims and witnesses on the other. I also do not accept what is said at the other end of the spectrum. The Bill is not a frightening attack on civil liberties or a fundamental attack on ancient constitutional values. It is a collection of discrete and sensible reforms, based on detailed inquiries by John Halliday, Sir Robin Auld and the Law Commission. I commend John Halliday on his excellent report on sentencing. It was also right that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister paid tribute this afternoon to Lord Justice Auld for his thoroughly researched and rewarding report. As my right hon. Friend said, Sir Robin Auld is a man of enormous experience.
  I do not want to spend too much time on the non-controversial provisions in the Bill, but I very much welcome the sentencing provisions in it. A philosophy of sentencing is clearly set out and there are useful measures on the deferral of sentences and rehabilitative sentencing. They are very much to be welcomed. I also welcome provisions that will give the prosecution the
  952
  right to appeal when a judge stops a case halfway through. At present, there is a convoluted procedure whereby the Attorney-General has to refer the case to the Court of Appeal, but it cannot make a definitive ruling on it although there is a prospective effect given what the court might say about the judge's ruling. These changes are valuable.
  I want to discuss the controversial measures that were addressed in the speeches made by the Front-Bench spokesmen. The first measure is the possibility that in complex and lengthy cases—fraud cases in particular—the jury will be dispensed with and the case will be tried by the judge alone. I accept the point made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) that juries are competent to deal with such cases. If the charges are stripped down and presented properly to the jury, it can understand them.
  However, I support the change for two reasons. First, it is not possible to find a representative jury for such long and complex cases. We cannot expect people in ordinary jobs to take three, four, six or eight months off work. Therefore, it is not possible to have a representative jury. Secondly and more important—this point has not yet come out—the way in which the cases are stripped down to be presented to juries does not demonstrate to them the true complexity of the case and the true criminality of the fraud involved.
  Mr. Marshall-Andrews: Will my hon. and learned Friend give way?
  Ross Cranston: May I seek your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker? Do I lose part of my time if I give way?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): The hon. and learned Gentleman has obviously not been diligently reading Hansard or our rulings on the matter. I assure him that there is an additional minute for any intervention that he takes, up to and including the first two. I hope that that is helpful.
  Ross Cranston: Thank you for that guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I thought that, with modernisation, the rule might have changed. I give way to my hon. and learned Friend.
  Mr. Marshall-Andrews: Can my hon. and learned Friend cite a single fraud case that bears out or backs up the proposition that he has just made?
  Ross Cranston: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary mentioned the Maxwell case, and abuse-of-process arguments apply to such cases. The prosecution brings first a stripped-down charge, the jury acquits after six months, the prosecution then comes along with the second charge and is told by the judge that that is an abuse of process. The trial then stops. The true complexity of the criminality is never revealed to the public if such an approach is used.
  Mr. Grieve: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
  Ross Cranston: As this is the second intervention, I will give way.
  Mr. Grieve: Surely the abuse of process is related to the onerous burden that it placed upon defendants.

  953
  That was the nub of the burden; it had nothing to do with the jury or its status. A new jury might be produced. The problem was the burden placed on defendants in a series of prosecutions and, doubtless, may also have reflected the judge's view of the state that the prosecution had got itself into.
  Ross Cranston: The hon. Gentleman makes my point for me. That is precisely what I am saying. The true complexity of the fraud was never put before a jury, because of the abuse-of-process arguments. The hon. Gentleman also misunderstood what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said this afternoon.
  Mr. Marshall-Andrews: Will my hon. and learned Friend give way?
  Ross Cranston: I cannot give way again. My hon. and learned Friend will have his say.
  The shadow Home Secretary talked about slippery slopes in relation to this change. He suggested that it would somehow lead to elected judges. Frankly, I am still grappling with the gap in the logic there. I support the change as a sensible, limited and discrete measure to deal with complex fraud.
  I also want to speak briefly about the issue of double jeopardy, which arose in the Stephen Lawrence inquiry. The gateways in the Bill are very narrowly drawn. First, the Court of Appeal has to sanction a second trial. Secondly, the Director of Public Prosecutions has to give his consent, and that must include a public interest test. Thirdly, there must be new and compelling evidence, such as DNA evidence or a post-acquittal admission. It must be highly probable that the person is guilty. Fourthly, there is the interests-of-justice test.
  Concerns have been expressed about bad policing, but I invite my hon. Friends to look at clause 66(2)(c), where that issue is specifically addressed. It is not, therefore, a serious concern. There are problems about retrials and the prejudice that might be caused to the defendant if it becomes known that the Court of Appeal has held that it was highly probable that he was guilty. There are provisions in the Bill about how the media can be handled, and retrials already happen in some cases. I acknowledge the practical problem but that should be examined more clearly later in our considerations.
  Evidence about bad character will, in the main, be about previous convictions. Previous convictions are already admissible. The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) raised the issue of important explanatory evidence. If someone is prosecuted and has already been convicted of the offence of driving while disqualified, we have to adduce his previous conviction. I concede that the provision can be more broadly interpreted, and I shall deal with that point shortly. However, previous convictions can already be admitted. The House of Lords considered similar-fact evidence recently and extended the circumstances in which previous convictions can be admissible. Other examples include evidence of state of mind in handling cases and attacks on the prosecution. When a jury does not receive a good character direction, it knows implicitly that the defendant has previous convictions.
  Clause 84 rationalises those provisions in many ways, but there are concerns. The Bar Council rightly asked whether the judicial filter should be stronger. Clause
  954
  84(3) imposes a judicial filter, but not in relation to all provisions in clause 84(1). I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will consider whether judges should always consider the admissibility of previous convictions.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) referred to bolstering a bad case. A stronger judicial filter would deal with his objection. Propensity is not proof, but we have to be realistic. The chairman of the Magistrates Association said in a speech yesterday that when she sat on the bench she often knew that a defendant had previous convictions because, in a small community, she had dealt with that person before. Typically in France, the first thing a judge does is to read out previous convictions. If properly applied and modified as I suggest, the provision could be useful.
  I agree with what the Front-Bench spokesmen said about the administration of justice. That is one aspect of the necessary changes. The courts Bill will address some of the other problems with the administration of justice, but this Bill is sensible and modest and will improve confidence in the criminal justice system.
  6.22 pm
  Miss Ann Widdecombe: I want to address not only what is in the Bill, but what is not in it because there are one or two important omissions.
  The Bill makes no attempt to introduce an offence of substantial possession in drugs cases. The arrestability for possession of drugs has been mentioned. My principal concern is that following the Home Secretary's decision to reclassify cannabis—I shall leave my strong disapproval of that to one side for a moment—someone who carries a substantial quantity of it can argue that it is for personal use only and is, for example, a year's supply. Indeed, such a defence was mounted by someone accused of dealing in ecstasy. He said that he happened to be carrying 52 tablets because it amounted to one a week for a year.
  I have long argued that there should be an offence of substantial possession. I would welcome the Government's response to that because the Home Secretary has said that he would take the matter seriously. Such an offence would mean that although intent to supply cannot be absolutely proved, the quantity possessed is sufficiently great for it not to be treated as a case of simple possession. It would he helpful to address the idea of substantial possession. The argument that a drug is for personal consumption over a long time is a standard defence to charges of intent to supply.
  The Chairman of the Select Committee briefly touched on the other measure that is missing. He suggested that the Home Secretary might like to consider anonymity for defendants in rape cases. It is wholly wrong and completely unbalanced against the accused that his identity is known throughout when the accuser's identity is not. To justify that, it is often argued that if a defendant has committed similar unreported crimes, the disclosure of his identity encourages people to come forward. But of course, the converse argument applies. If the accuser has made false allegations before—perhaps not even at a legal point, but in an employment context—no similar means are open to the

  955
  defendant, which would encourage people to come forward and say that that has happened before. It is loading the dice against the accused, who is nearly always a man, of course. I wish that the men in this place would occasionally wake up and realise that the dice is being more and more heavily loaded against them.
  There have been two references to the injustice perpetrated when people serve enormous lengths in prison and are proved at the end to be innocent, although I accept that the Bill might not be the right vehicle to tackle that. The Stephen Downing case was mentioned. There was another case, the name of which eludes me—
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Hilary Benn): Robert Brown.
  Miss Widdecombe: Indeed. That case came to light only recently.
  I am sure that the Minister will understand that if people who have been convicted persist in denying their guilt, they are deemed not to have addressed their offending behaviour and therefore not to have satisfied a necessary criterion for release. That means that the small handful of people who have been wrongly convicted and who face substantial sentences have no hope while they persist in their innocence. Although I accept that there is no quick and easy solution, because we do require people to address their offending behaviour, that rule needs to be reconsidered because we have had not one but two cases in which people have served huge sentences, and in Stephen Downing's case it was 27 years.
  The Bill contains a measure to release criminal records to juries before a verdict. That is an extremely unwelcome development. The circumstances in which it can happen at the moment are limited and are especially relevant when a co-defendant might be prejudiced if the information is not available. However, the proposed widening of that rule will have extremely dangerous implications. Juries on the whole are diligent. Like many other hon. Members, I have sat on a jury. I was involved in a series of trials in the Crown court and remember that we were told not once, but twice to disregard things because they should never have been said. We may have been saintly and tried as hard as possible to ignore those comments, but we had heard them.
  In one case, a damaging piece of information was slipped in by a clever lawyer. We found out that although the man before us was pleading not guilty, a co-defendant had pleaded guilty. It was not the sort of crime in which one could be guilty and the other could be not guilty. They had either both done it or neither had done it. The judge told us to disregard the comment, but we knew. In our deliberations thereafter, no matter how hard we tried to carry out an academic exercise in weighing up an argument without that information, it came up time and time again. Only a jury of saints and angels could say, "But they still have to prove that he committed this particular crime", and not allow a long list of previous convictions to give weight to their decision.
  It is a central tenet of our justice system that someone must be proved guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. When a person sits in the dock, he is innocent of the
  956
  crime that is attributed to him until it has been proved beyond all reasonable doubt, irrespective of his previous record. If a person has done nine burglaries in the past three years, it does not follow that he is guilty of the 10th. I see the Minister writing and I know what is about to come. If a person has committed acts of domestic violence it does not follow that they have committed the act of which they stand accused.
  Suppose, for example, that a man had committed two assaults on his wife, and on the second occasion the judge said to him, "This is a very serious matter and if you come before the law again you will face a custodial sentence." It is possible that if relations with his wife continued to deteriorate, quite understandably in the circumstances, she might be tempted to say, "I am going to get rid of you for some time. I shall say that you hit me." The jury could then be told that the man was in the habit of assaulting his wife. I submit that it is impossible to maintain the view that somebody is innocent if we load the dice against them by laying open their past offences.
  Mr. David Kidney: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
  Miss Widdecombe: I will, but I want first to respond to a specific point made by the hon. and learned Member for Dudley, North (Ross Cranston) which is relevant to what I just said. He said that already, in juries' minds, if good character is not adduced there is an awareness that something is amiss and that the person must have erred before. That is true, but they do not know what that person has done. If a person has a 20-year-old conviction, which under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 is long since spent, they cannot be said in court to have a good character. The jury has no clue as to the seriousness of the offences indicated by the omission of good character. This provision is not at all the same—juries will be given that information.
  Ross Cranston: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
  Miss Widdecombe: Yes, but first I must give way to the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney), as I promised.
  Mr. Kidney: I was struck by the right hon. Lady's example of the jury who, according to the rules, should not have known that the co-accused was pleading guilty to the offence, a fact that was very material to their considerations, as she told us. In view of that, is she satisfied that the existing rules are perfectly adequate?
  Miss Widdecombe: No, but there is no need to make them worse.
  Ross Cranston: The point is that I said that the jury might know that a defendant had previous convictions, but they might not have appreciated that fact. However, is not the right hon. Lady's point an argument to the contrary, in that it may help the jury to know the specific offences committed by a defendant rather than simply to be left in the dark about how serious or trivial those previous convictions may be?
  Miss Widdecombe: No, I do not agree. The burden must be on the prosecution to prove beyond all

  957
  reasonable doubt that a particular crime, not a type of crime, was committed by a particular person. That must be the touchstone in determining whether a person is innocent or guilty.
  I do not think that one can reasonably put before a jury a long record of similar offences and not expect that to be taken strongly into account, even if it affects only the jury's attitude, because of course juries do not make decisions simply by weighing facts; they are directed to consider the bearing of a person and which version of events they prefer. A certain amount of gut instinct applies in jury deliberations, as I am sure the hon. and learned Gentleman is aware. Once a material fact about previous convictions has been thrown into the cauldron, it is difficult for the jury to lay that to one side and simply consider whether or not the defendant committed the crime in question.
  I also submit, in the short time available to me, that this provision is an invitation to sloppy policing. It will allow the police to think that a defendant has a record as long as their arm, so a jury will not be sympathetic and they are more than likely to convict because they will not think that they are doing much damage—the accused is a criminal anyway and is likely to commit another crime at some point.
  It must be central to our justice system that one comes to court as an innocent person, no matter what one's past record, and a case is made meticulously, beyond all reasonable doubt and not on the balance of probabilities, that one committed a particular crime. If that principle is not adhered to, we will be giving up a major and important civil liberty.
  6.34 pm
  Mr. Brian Sedgemore: I must confess that until today I had not considered the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) one of life's civil libertarians, but it just goes to show that there is hope of redemption for us all because I enjoyed the whole of her speech. It will not do her any good, but there we are.
  The Home Secretary was so emollient that there were times when I wanted to scream. Who put the real Home Secretary into a box, gift wrapped it and labelled it, "Merry Christmas to you all"? What happened to the Rottweiler that eats lawyers for breakfast, lunch, tea and dinner?
  I went through the Bill carefully and searched its every clause and subsection for a guiding principle, but I could find none. I then dug deep for any enduring values that might have enthused its progenitors, but there were none. Maybe, I thought to myself, this Bill has been inspired by noble ideas, ancient and modern. Alas, I was disappointed again.
  Eventually, the secret behind the Bill emerged in the newspapers. The Bill, so the spin-meisters told journalists, is designed to refocus the criminal justice system in the interest of victims. As Labour Members have said, that is nonsense. The Home Secretary is also reported to have said that the Bill will push up the conviction rate, and that is even worse nonsense. If, indeed, he really wanted to introduce legislation significantly to push up the conviction rate, and I am not advocating this, he would need to abolish our
  958
  adversarial system of justice and, with it, the presumption of innocence. Let us all pray that he does not read this speech tomorrow.
  My complaint about the Home Secretary's approach, and it is a serious one, is that where there is a clash, as there often is in these cases, between utilitarianism and individual rights, the Home Secretary always comes down in favour of utilitarianism. I shall develop that argument in a moment. Throughout the Bill, he wages war on liberty in certain important respects with the determination of the zealot and the understanding of one who has forsaken the scales of justice for the dead weight of popular prejudice.
  Let us take, for example, trial by jury. Everyone knows that removing the right to trial by jury, whether in the old plans, the new plans or the plans that will be introduced in the next Session, will lead to more innocent people being convicted, but no one has yet been able to explain to me how convicting the innocent helps the victim. On the contrary, it shows a contempt for victims that beggars belief. It is a cruel deception on victims born of political psycho-babble, of which we get all too much from the Home Office, as we can see from its list of Bills since 1997.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, West (Stephen Hesford) asked the shadow Home Secretary whether there is a point of principle about jury trials. There is indeed a point of principle about jury trials, which is explained concisely and lucidly by Lord Scott of Foscote in his judgment in Grobbelaar v. News Group Newspapers Ltd. and Another—the case of the cheating goalie—when he said:
  "Judges have not always in the history of our justice system been seen to be independent of the executive. The independence from the executive of prosecuting authorities has not always been apparent and still today is regarded with some cynicism by some people. So it is not surprising that the role of juries in the criminal justice system is widely regarded as constituting a key and necessary protection for the citizens of this country from unfair and oppressive prosecution."
  One cannot get a much better principle than that: protecting the citizen from unfair and oppressive prosecution.
  As has been said, the argument about the limited number of cases is not good in logic, and I have a nagging doubt that once we open the door, we may see other such Bills. Of course, we know in this case about the Home Secretary's previous bad character and previous convictions. He is, after all, the person who came before the House barely a year ago and told us that we need not worry because he was going to abolish jury trials only for lesser offences. Now he comes here and tells us that we do not have to worry because he will abolish jury trials only for a few very serious offences. I dare say that following next year's Queen's Speech he will say, "All I have in mind is the abolition of jury trials for middle-ranking offences." The Home Secretary, I suspect, may agree with Lord Thomas Denham, a man of no consequence and little intellect, who said in his judgment on O'Connell v. the Queen 150 years ago:
  "Trial by jury itself … will be a delusion, a mockery and a snare."
  Lord Denham, an authoritarian by nature, was concerned, as the Home Secretary may sometimes be, about the fact that juries have independent minds that cannot be controlled by the Executive or judicial elites—thank God for that, say most of us.

  959
  According to the philosophy of an acerbic 18th century writer of letters, whose identity was hidden behind the soubriquet "Junius":
  "The injustice done to an individual is sometimes of service to the public."
  Some say that Junius was Edmund Burke, others that he was Lord Shelburne, but I believe that he was our current Home Secretary in an earlier incarnation. Some of the Bill's provisions, including those on admitting prejudicial hearsay evidence and accounts of bad character, including the defendant's previous acquittals, come into Junius's category of causing injustice to individuals in the interests of some unstated higher good. We should challenge the Home Secretary on what higher good he is seeking to achieve in the Bill.
  Sadly, the Home Secretary's predilection for the philosophy of Junius was evident in the Anti-Terrorism, Crime And Security Act 2001, in which he paved the way for locking up foreigners indefinitely without charge, trial or sentence. Once a Home Secretary starts to erode civil liberties, it becomes easier to repeat the process and more difficult for people like me to shame him as the perpetrator. If the prosecution is unable to prove its case in a criminal trial, either because it does not have one or because it has been slipshod in marshalling the evidence, there is no better and more unjust way to enable it to secure a conviction than by allowing both a list of the defendant's previous convictions and an account of his bad character, which could deface the principles of fair trial in England and Wales. How the slaughter of innocents in those cases will refocus the criminal justice system in favour of victims is something that my enfeebled mind cannot comprehend. No doubt, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Hilary Benn), will explain it in his winding-up speech.
  I believe that civilisation depends on the holy trinity of justice, freedom and liberty. People who, like the Home Secretary, seek to separate justice from freedom and liberty soon find themselves, albeit inadvertently, going down the road of barbarism. I do not know of any Labour Back Bencher who wants to go down that road yet, in a bizarre refutation of conscience and belief, we shall tonight shut out the warning of the director of Liberty, who only accentuated the obvious when he said:
  "In years to come as more innocent people emerge after years in prison caused by these plans, we'll wonder how Parliament let this attack on justice get into law."
  Only a few days ago, on 24 November 2002, John Rawls—one of the foremost political philosophers of our era—died. His message to the Home Secretary would have been that the loss of freedom for some can never be made right by a greater good shared by others. In affirming the priority of the right over the good, he would tell the Home Secretary that major aspects of the Bill are morally, politically and philosophically flawed, as they are based on the priority of utilitarianism over individual rights. I would simply warn the Home Secretary that if he is unwilling to maintain justice, justice may well be unwilling to maintain him.
  6.44 pm
  Mr. Peter Lilley: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore), who followed me when I made my maiden speech and graciously honoured the conventions of the House by congratulating me. Without any need to apply convention, I congratulate him on his speech—I agree with it very much.
  My constituents want serious and substantive measures to punish the guilty and protect the innocent, and will be as puzzled as contributors to our debate by the insubstantial nature of the Bill's provisions on tackling crime. Those provisions appear to be the fruit of an unholy and cynical alliance between tabloid populism—which is designed to sound tough on crime but has no substantial effect on it at all—and modernising zeal, which, in practice, will undermine the liberties that have protected the innocent in this country for centuries.
  The Gracious Speech referred to safeguarding
  "the interests of victims, witnesses and communities."
  It may be significant that no mention is made of safeguarding the innocent. Indeed, I believe that the Home Secretary recently equated wrongful conviction of the innocent with a failure to convict the guilty. My constituents do not make that equation—they recognise that the risk of convicting innocent people is not merely abhorrent but will result in the guilty remaining at large, free to go on committing crime. Ministers foster the belief that few crimes result in convictions because the courts fail to convict—that is why they want to change the court process. In fact, as we have heard, more than 95 per cent. of cases in magistrates courts result in conviction and more than 87 per cent. of cases in Crown courts result in conviction.
  The Government want to increase those conviction rates even further, but make no mention of the fact that more than an average of more than 4,000 convictions every year for the past 10 years have been quashed. Innocent people have been found to be wrongly convicted. The Government are not anxious to change that in future—they are not worried that 4,000 guilty people may be at large because 4,000 or more innocent people have been wrongly convicted. In practice, the measures introduced by the Government will undermine the protection of the innocent, which is an important principle.
  I do not necessarily oppose change to things such as jury trial or centuries-old rules on double jeopardy, but anything that has existed for a long period and has served us well should be changed only if the change can be shown to be necessary to produce a substantial improvement; if it has been well researched; and if it is clearly well motivated. A number of Government measures, I am afraid, do not pass any of those tests. As the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch said, the Government cannot complain if we refer to their previous convictions. On the matter of jury trial, they have two serious previous convictions and have attempted to remove people's right to choose jury trial in either-way cases.
  In the light of that attempt to restrict jury trial, we must evaluate the four measures that the Government wish to introduce, all of which would undermine the use

  961
  of jury trial by stealth. First, they want to increase the sentencing powers of magistrates courts from six months to 12 months, although that is accompanied by a welcome quid pro quo that magistrates will no longer be able to refer to higher courts for sentencing. The net effect, however, is to reduce the number of jury trials, the Government anticipate, by 6,000 a year.
  The remaining three measures are designed to reduce the use of jury trial in the most serious cases of indictment. The Government propose that defendants be given the option to choose not to be tried by jury. Frankly, it is bizarre of a Government who have previously justified their attempt to abolish the right to choose trial by jury instead of in a magistrates court, with the principle that it is wrong for defendants to have the right to choose jury trial, now to say that as a matter of principle they will introduce choice so that people can choose not to have jury trial in the most serious cases.
  The only unifying feature in both instances is, as I pointed out to the Home Secretary—although he did not take the point—that the Government want to move in a direction that will result in fewer jury trials. It is odd that the previous Home Secretary described our system of allowing a measure of choice in either-way cases as wrong in principle, "frankly eccentric" and almost unique in the world. It is now said that he was misleading the House. Far from the system being frankly eccentric and almost unique, we are told that it is almost universal in other common law jurisdictions for there to be an element of choice. It is proposed to introduce that element of choice in trials by indictment.
  Should we accept the conversion to choice, welcome it and say that if it works overseas we will accept it? That would be unwise. The conversion is being introduced by those who want to reduce the use of jury trial. There is the danger that once it is introduced, the same arguments that were applied to the right to elect for jury trial rather than the case appearing before a magistrates court will be used in cases where people continue to opt for jury trial rather than trial by the judge. It will be said, "They are merely using it to manipulate the system. There should be trial by judge. That would be more economic, for example."
  All the other jurisdictions have entrenched the right to jury trial in their constitutions. They are safe from a slippery slope. According to their constitutions, there cannot be the complete erosion of jury trial. We do not have that protection. Instead, the House is that protection. The House should not start down the slippery slope.
  Another measure that the Government propose to reduce the number of jury trials is to give prosecutors the option, if they consider that a case would be too complex a burden on a jury, to ask for a trial without a jury. It seems odd that prosecutors should be made the defenders of jurors' rights and convenience. However, that is the proposal. It gives the prosecutor an incentive to make a case long and complex and the documentation excessive if he or she wants to do without a jury trial and thinks that a judge is more likely to arrive at a favourable judgment.
  That is bad because we should be trying to speed and simplify such trials. On page 17 of "Taking Liberties", which is available on my website, a senior judge states:
  "Brevity and simplicity are the handmaidens of justice, and length and complexity are its enemies".
  962
  We should not give prosecutors an incentive to make their cases long and complex, especially as in the past four years the Serious Fraud Office has achieved a 92 per cent. success rate in obtaining convictions as against a 57 per cent. success rate in contested trials before jurors generally.
  The final measure that the Government are proposing to erode the use of jury trial is to give the court the option, again on the application of the prosecution, to forgo a jury trial if there is a risk of jury tampering. As far as I can establish, the proposal was not even put forward by Lord Justice Auld. He put forward the most comprehensive proposals for reducing jury trial ever previously known short of abolishing juries, but he had not thought of the measure that the Government are putting forward. Presumably, that is because he had not found any evidence that it was needed. Nor have the Government put forward any evidence of the need for it.
  It means that effectively judges will say, "These are the sort of people who might tamper with juries. Therefore, I will not give them the protection of a jury; I will judge them myself." That is not likely to encourage respect for the law. Would it not be better to say that if there is such a risk, let us consider the option of giving juries anonymity rather than doing without juries?
  The Government's measures are all moving in one direction, which is the decline in the use of juries. They are mistaken in wanting to move in that direction because juries are not only the best method of trying cases but the only method that we have as citizens, apart from our vote, in participating in government and our system of justice. About 187,000 people a year participate in juries. That is a good thing and something to be encouraged and increased, not diminished. When Tocqueville was analysing democracy in America and Anglo Saxon countries and saying why it was so important, he said:
  "The jury is above all a political institution. The jury plays an incredibly important part in forming popular judgment and improving people's natural understanding of the law."
  I believe that we reduce its role at our peril.
  I move on to double jeopardy. The two arguments in favour of diminishing the use of the rule are that the evidence of DNA could be available and the evidence of confessions post-conviction could be used. It is important to understand that neither case will apply to any offences committed in future. Only retrospective offences will apply. In any offence committed in future, DNA will be available at the first trial. If it is not brought up then, it will not be a justification for a second trial.
  Confessions after conviction will no longer occur if we do not have the double jeopardy rule. We are talking about changing a rule to bring about convictions for offences that have already occurred and not increasing in any way the likelihood of—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
  6.56 pm
  Mr. Robert Marshall-Andrews: It is a pleasure to be able to welcome some limited parts of the Bill. I do not want to pick them out individually, but there is the abolition of magistrates courts' right to commit for sentence. That is long overdue and ends the

  963
  iniquity of one court deciding on guilt and allowing another court to pass sentence. There are some parts of the Bill that are good and some that are bad, but in truth not that bad. In that I include the rules for the admission of previous convictions. It is with great trepidation that I disagree with my good and hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore). If we make allowance for the deplorable drafting of clauses 84 to 92, it appears that what is postulated in the Bill is not very different from the rules that we already apply in criminal courts.
  In a criminal case, it is often an enormous release to put our form in. The way in which we run a defence is often so gravely inhibited by not being able to do so that it can be a significant and positive disadvantage. To say to a jury, "Yes, I've done it four times before, but I didn't do this one. I'm only here because I've done it four times before and the Old Bill picked me up," is not a bad defence, especially if there is not much else to say.
  There are parts of the Bill, however, that are not just bad, but are conspicuously and dreadfully bad. The provisions that are an assault on jury trial represent the most serious infringement of fundamental liberty that has come before Parliament in recent history. They are substantially greater than the mode of trial provisions, and I shall echo what my hon.—and learned—Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch said. There is a savage irony. When we were fighting mode of trial Bills 1 and 2 to the death, we were told repeatedly by the Home Secretary that our opposition was ill founded because they would apply only to the less serious offences in the criminal calendar. Now that the Government have been beaten to a standstill twice, they are attacking the beast from the other end. We are told that only the most serious offences in the criminal calendar will be decided by the judge. In making such provisions, I fear that the Government show a savage ignorance of the centrality and essential nature of the jury in our adversarial system. The provisions will undoubtedly bring judges into serious disrepute. In their current form they are impossible to apply in the trial process, and they will result in many cases being successfully brought in Europe. Apart from that, they are fine.
  Lady Hermon: For many years, non-jury trials have taken place in the Diplock courts for serious terrorist offences. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman is not implying that judges have been brought into serious disrepute in Northern Ireland because of those trials?
  Mr. Marshall-Andrews: No, I am not. I acknowledge immediately the special circumstances that apply in Northern Ireland. The hon. Lady will forgive me if I do not get into an argument about Diplock courts, which are a different matter.
  The centrality of the jury in our system cannot be overstated. It was said recently that jury trial does not go back to Magna Carta—it has formed part of our criminal justice system since well before then. It has been suggested that it dates back to 1855. That is false and misleading. On the contrary, in 1855, people were allowed to opt for summary trial, not jury trial, and
  964
  either-way offences were created. Jury trial, which was the only mode of trial for centuries, did not always result in acquittal. It has not been a soft option. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch—to whom I shall not refer again—will know, because he is named after the famous battle, that the bloody assizes in the west country were conducted by means of jury trials. Doubtless the Home Secretary would thoroughly approve of those assizes.
  The great benefit of jury trial is not simply that it is fair and perceived to be fair, and that it involves the citizen in the process of justice, but that it is profoundly modern. It is one of our most ancient rights and liberties, but also the most modern. How many institutions do we seek to modernise by bringing in the ordinary citizen to participate in running them? It is our permanent aim to bring the citizen in to health, education—and, indeed, politics. Yet that has happened in the law for nearly 8,000 years. Jury trial is therefore our most modern institution. The citizen is empowered, and thereby ennobled.
  Our adversarial system means that the jury is vital. We are an adversarial people. Like the court, the Chamber is an adversarial arena. That is the way we do business. The Government decree, and they are opposed—not necessarily from the Conservative Benches. Governments should be opposed. We do business in our courts in the same way. We do not have an inquisitorial system. I suspect that the judge to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) referred was really saying that we do seek the truth in our criminal justice system. In our adversarial system, the state brings its case, which it must prove. If it does not prove the case, that is the end of the matter.
  How can the state bring its case in front of someone who is its agent and employee? The principle of our jury system is that the state brings its case, but must prove it in front of the citizen. To suggest that one can create an inquisitorial system by simply ripping out jury trial is the precise equivalent of claiming that one can remove the wheels from a car and thereby create a boat. The checks and balances that are implicit in an inquisitorial system are absent from the system that we operate. Judges cannot sit as judges of fact as well as of admissibility, fairness and law.
  The change is unnecessary. None of us who has laboured in jury trials in serious fraud cases has the slightest doubt that juries understand perfectly well the issues involved in serious fraud. That is almost always because the question of whether serious fraud has been committed is not an issue, and the case is a therefore a whodunnit. Juries cannot be surpassed for defining who done it.
  Jury tampering and nobbling are rare in our system, because it is almost impossible to corrupt an entire jury. That is the strength of the system, and the reason for having 12 people. Corrupting, bullying, bribing or intimidating 12 people is almost impossible. We have an incorruptible judiciary and we are unique in the world in being able to say that. We have the worst system in the world—except for all the others.
  One of the reasons for the incorruptibility of our judges is the jury system. There is no point in attempting to bribe, bully, cajole or intimidate judges, because they

  965
  have nothing to do with the findings of fact at the end of a trial. However, if we allow judges to sit alone, they will become the subject of bribery, bullying and intimidation. Of course, 99.9 per cent. will resist, but if one goes, the whole system that we value in this country above any other institution will be at risk. There will be strong judges, who get a reputation for permanently favouring the Crown, and weak judges, against whom the accusation will be levelled that they are buyable and bent. Before we know where we are, our whole criminal justice system will be brought into disrepute and disarray. Hon. Members must defend our system.
  Of course the changes will not work. Nothing has been thought through. What happens if a judge is told that a jury has been tampered with and the prosecution places an application before him? It will be heard in secret because of the public interest immunity rules. If the judge, after hearing the application in secret, decides that there is a risk of tampering by one defendant out of, for example, 10, will all 10 lose the right to jury trial? Will we have two trials under two different systems for the same offence? The judge cannot try the case. If he does, the trial will be rendered a nullity by Europe, because the judge and the prosecution are privy to information that is not available to the defence. That applies to every application for PII in any trial.
  I have reached the end of my time, and I have not yet mentioned double jeopardy. We lawyers have an odd vested interest if we are against the change to the double jeopardy rule, which will double the number of trials available for us. However, we are against it for the same reasons of liberty that I have outlined. Let me end by saying that one cannot reduce human wickedness by reducing human liberty. That has never been done in history. Totalitarian states, where liberty is completely curtailed, may reduce crime, but they do so by the immediate equation of transferring wickedness from the individual to the state.
  7.8 pm
  Lady Hermon: I must confess that I have lost track of the number of criminal justice measures that have come before the House in the past 10 years. I would dread being a law student who had to sit through a criminal law lecture and try to keep up to speed with what has happened. I should also hate to be a practitioner or member of a police service who was trying to keep abreast of all the criminal justice legislation.
  Will the Under-Secretary confirm in his winding-up speech that that useful hard-working institution, the Law Commission for England and Wales, which has existed since 1965, has consolidation of criminal justice legislation near the top of its agenda? That would hugely benefit all of us, especially practitioners who have to apply such legislation. The Law Commission's website states:
  "The Government has said that it sees the enactment of a Code as an important part of its plans to modernise the criminal justice system."
  I would therefore welcome the Under-Secretary's confirmation that codification of the criminal justice system is a top priority.
  It intrigues me that criminal justice is not a devolved issue in Northern Ireland. Our Assembly is suspended at present, but criminal justice is still not a devolved issue,
  966
  and has not been for a considerable time. It has remained here at Westminster. Will the Minister explain why the Bill does not extend to Northern Ireland—and, indeed, why the Hunting Bill that we discussed yesterday does not do so? I should perhaps put it on record that I am probably not speaking for all my colleagues when I ask for the Hunting Bill to be extended to Northern Ireland.
  I am exceedingly concerned about the cost of implementing the Criminal Justice Bill. In an interview in The Times yesterday, Lord Falconer was asked what the financial costs of the Bill would be. He replied:
  "On current assumptions it will require £1.6 billion over six years."
  Fighting crime involves putting police officers on the streets of our villages, towns and cities. If even a fraction of £1.6 billion were directed towards recruiting more police officers, it would help in the fight against crime. Tinkering with our criminal justice legislation will not.
  When I say "tinkering", I am referring specifically to two aspects of the Bill that worry me considerably. The first involves double jeopardy. The Minister will be aware that schedule 4 lists 30 very serious offences which, it is proposed, should become exceptions to the double jeopardy rule. At the same time, we are considering the Extradition Bill, which is also the responsibility of the Home Secretary. I am sure that the Minister will be familiar with clause 12 of that Bill, which is headed, "Rule against double jeopardy". It states:
  "A person's extradition to a category 1 territory"—
  I will not go into that subject now—
  "is barred by reason of the rule against double jeopardy".
  There are no exceptions to that. Will the Minister confirm that the one hand actually knows what the other hand is doing, and that either there will be 30 exceptions when it comes to extradition cases, or the double jeopardy rule will remain intact for all purposes and all reasons?
  Furthermore, the 30 crimes listed in schedule 4 of the Criminal Justice Bill—including robbery, armed robbery, rape, murder and manslaughter—are all very serious. In our media-driven culture, it is inevitable that all cases involving those crimes will have been given great media attention and will be out in the public domain, particularly when the defendant has been acquitted. For the Court of Appeal to make an application for a retrial, it would have to certify that fresh evidence was both "new and compelling". I am extremely troubled by the definition of compelling evidence, as set out in clause 65(3)(c). The clause states that evidence is compelling if the Court of Appeal concludes that
  "it is highly probable that the person is guilty of the offence."
  When we couple the media attention that has been given to a high-profile case, on acquittal in the first instance, with the conclusion of the Court of Appeal that it is "highly probable" that the person is guilty, how in heaven's name can the Minister convince the House that the defendant can be guaranteed a fair trial?
  On my second point, I am sure that the Minister will be familiar with the work of Professor Sally Lloyd-Bostock. It is a matter of regret to me that this learned academic is not a constituent of mine, but perhaps we

  967
  can recruit her to come over to Northern Ireland. She is presently working for the university of Birmingham. Before that, she worked in the Oxford university centre for socio-legal studies. She was commissioned to carry out research for the Home Office in 1995 into the effects on magistrates and juries of the disclosure of previous convictions. In her more recent research paper, headed "The Lord Chancellor's Department: Research 2000", Dr.—now Professor—Sally Lloyd-Bostock concluded:
  "The results showed clearly that the magistrates' ratings of likely guilt were significantly affected by information about the defendant's prior record … Most magistrates thought that neither magistrates nor juries should learn about previous convictions until after the verdict, and felt that the information was dangerously biasing."
  Given that that learned professor is an expert in this field, it ill behoves the Government to set aside research of this quality, carried out by someone who was commissioned to carry it out by the Home Office in 1995 and, more recently, by the Lord Chancellor's Office. I ask the Minister to address the points raised in that research.
  I would like to pick up a couple of points made by other hon. Members. The hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) rightly drew attention to the fact that what increases our constituents' confidence that crime is being successfully fought is the visibility of police officers on the streets. He mentioned the number of police officers on bicycles. I am not simply asking for the police to be put back on bicycles, although that would be helpful. There is no doubt that, with crime rates rising, our constituents need a sense of confidence that the Government intend to tackle crime. That involves recruiting more police officers, and the visibility of the police officers is the key.
  The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) made the valid point that an awful lot of young people should be kept out of the court system and not put into jail, and should instead have to make restoration to the public for whatever crime they have committed. I would draw to the Minister's attention the restorative justice schemes that have now been built into Northern Ireland's criminal justice legislation. We have just had a major review, and the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002 went on to the statute book in July. About one third of that important piece of legislation was dedicated to youth justice, and particularly to accredited restorative justice schemes.
  Let us consider the difficulties that we have had in Northern Ireland with paramilitary violence, including the so-called punishment beatings, which, in one extreme case, involved the crucifixion of a young man. Having had his legs broken, he was nailed to a fence through both hands. We have seen appalling crimes by paramilitaries, both loyalist—I have to say that loyalists are utterly ruthless—and republican. They carry out a type of justice in their own right, in which they beat up young people for joyriding and other antisocial crimes. We have tried to deal with this by introducing restorative justice schemes. In my constituency we have an exceedingly good scheme up and running on the Kilcooley estate in Bangor. Those schemes involve the perpetrators of the crimes of vandalism, joyriding or intimidating elderly folk—I could go on and list many
  968
  more—making reparation to the older person or other victim, and saying sorry. Those are accredited schemes, and I draw the Minister's attention to the possibility of building into future legislation, if not the Bill, restorative justice schemes, which have worked in Northern Ireland when they are accredited.
  7.19 pm
  Mr. David Kidney: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon), and I begin with the same point: we have had a proliferation of criminal justice laws in this country since 1984. Sadly, a lot have not stood the test of time, so it will be interesting to see whether the Bill suffers a fate similar to the majority of that legislation or proves more lasting.
  I draw attention to a couple of points that will give the Bill a lasting nature, at least in certain areas—the inclusion of the principles of sentencing and the establishment of the Sentencing Guidelines Council, which is an important development for the future. Furthermore, a Bill has begun its life in the other place that will unify magistrates court and Crown court structures and which, equally, will bring significant change. So the package that we shall deal with in this Session contains lasting elements.
  I begin my detailed comments by referring to jury trials. It might be helpful to point out that this country uses three classifications of offence. Summary-only offences, by their very nature, do not involve jury trial, as they may be tried only by magistrates summarily. On either-way offences, the defendant has the right to choose either summary trial before a magistrate or trial before a jury in the Crown court. On indictable-only offences, the defendant gets no choice and must be tried before a jury in the Crown court.
  I set that out to show the difference between this Bill and the previous Bills through which the Government attempted to make changes to jury trial. The mode of trial Bills aimed at those either-way offences and provided that, instead of the defendant having the choice of where to be tried, the court would say whether that person could be tried by jury.
  I remind the House that I was fanatically opposed to that proposal on principle, and I spoke and voted against the Bill that was introduced in this House to give it effect. I was overlooked for service on the Committee, but I returned to the issue on Report and even tabled an amendment, which some Members will recall. It is a great delight to me that the Government have abandoned that way of proceeding on trials and have introduced in this Bill my amendment on magistrates not committing people to the Crown court for sentence if they have dealt with the trial themselves. I feel happy about the Government's attitude to the Bill, although a couple of Members have had difficulty with accepting yes for an answer, even though the Government have said that that is not their intention and it is not what they are doing through this legislation.
  I am happy with the changes that have been made there, but there is worry around the House over those offences that are indictable only, but for which the Government propose some change to jury trial. It is worth saying a word about them. On long and complex cases, the matter involves degree rather than principle, because there would be a danger of a jury losing the

  969
  battle—losing the thread of what they are there to do because of the sheer weight of the proceedings—owing to a war of attrition in only a small minority of cases. That would occur, I hasten to add, only because of the tactics of the parties to the trial and not because of any difficulty for the jury in coping with complex facts and situations. I entirely agree with those Members who said that jurors are sensible people who can take in a lot. Therefore it follows that I am talking about exceptional cases in which it is right that there should be no jury trial.
  The same goes for jury tampering. Surely it is unacceptable to the House that somebody could get an acquittal by tampering with the jury. Obviously, the response normally stops short of saying that there will be no jury to try a certain case, as we can protect a jury and ensure that anyone caught tampering with it is treated as one who has committed a serious criminal offence; and we can limit the number of cases in which a judge has to say, "There is no way that we can have a fair trial with a jury because of the attempt to interfere with that jury." Again, a small number of cases would be involved, but being able to give such a response would be useful weapon in the judge's armoury.
  Mr. Grieve: The hon. Gentleman will have noted the comments on the difficulties that would be likely to arise in practice when a judge continued to hear a case after a jury had been discharged because of tampering. I suggest that, in reality, it would be necessary to start again. He may also agree that, in reality, tampering involving 12 jurors would be unlikely, although it is likely that such a jury would be unable to return a verdict. However, if adequate protection were in place and supplied for the retrial, especially if there were a fear that a previous jury had been tampered with, the chances are that justice would be properly done with a jury. There would be no need for a judge to sit on his own.
  Mr. Kidney: The hon. Gentleman's points are contradictory. I agree with and accept the first, which is that it would be difficult for a judge to continue the trial knowing what the judge knows, as he or she would be prejudiced. I do not agree with his second point, however, as there would be few cases in which the judge said, "No amount of protection and no amount of retrial is satisfactory for the conduct of justice in this case. I believe that it needs no jury and a judge-only trial." That may happen, but only in a small number of cases.
  The third consequence of the Bill for judge-only trials would arise if the defendant chose such a trial. I spent all my time in the debates on the previous Bill arguing that the defendant's choice should be upheld, so I find it difficult to disagree with the Government on that point now, as they have come round to my view. Disagreeing over that would be an unusual choice, although I see that such events could arise from time to time.
  Mr. Grieve: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way again. He refers to upholding defendant choice—whether he should have jury trial or not—but the Government have included a rider that that choice will be denied in certain cases. Does not that in some
  970
  way negate their argument, which is, "We are offering you a choice between two systems that we consider to be equally justified—it is up to you."?
  Mr. Kidney: May we return to that in Committee? I understand the point but, equally, I understand the Government's worry about some people appearing to have a cosy relationship with judges—they do not need a jury because they will get off if they know the judge.
  I want to include a footnote on jury trials in either-way cases, as some provisions, which nobody has objected to tonight, would reduce the number of such trials—again, very modestly. The first would extend magistrates' power of sentence from six months to a maximum of 12. Magistrates would turn away fewer cases that they would have sent to Crown court for trial and keep them for themselves. That would reduce the number of jury trials in itself.
  If the provision on a defendant requesting an advance indication of sentence survives to the statute book and if magistrates agree to give such an indication, that would convert some defendants to staying with the magistrates rather than going to Crown court for trial. That, too, would reduce the number of jury trials. For the same reason, custody plus might tempt some people to stay in the magistrates court. Interestingly, there has been no controversy in the House about a smaller number of jury trials resulting from any of those measures.
  I hesitate to step into tonight's other controversies. The double jeopardy proposals are very much a response from the whole country to DNA being discovered as a reliable test that almost certainly provides proof positive of someone's guilt of an offence which could not be proved previously because such technology was not available. It was said earlier that this is probably a passing change that involves a few cases in which DNA evidence is available and helps to secure a conviction that could not be secured before. I am happy with that analysis, although none of us can foretell the future or what scientific advances will be made after today. That may mean that the provision remains valid for many years, even after those few DNA cases have been mopped up by the provision.
  Tonight's other controversy is the introduction of the defendant's bad character. Interestingly, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) takes no objection to that one. I am happy about that, because I shall take no objection either, provided that the safeguards are right. That matter should be hammered out in Committee.
  Clearly, we have been introducing evidence of a defendant's bad character in cases for over a century. A common-law rule and two Acts dating from 1865 and 1898 have permitted it in some circumstances. Nevertheless, we can surely ask from time to time whether the current rules are adequate. I do not think they are, and I think we are entitled to change them slightly if that is what we believe is right in order to ensure fair trials as between prosecution and defence.
  The Bill gives us an opportunity to rehabilitate community sentences as a genuine alternative to prison, and to reduce the appallingly large prison population. That means, however, that we must make the community options robust. It does not help us if the media can report that fines need not be paid, and it does

  971
  not help us if nothing happens to people who break the conditions attached to community sentences. The Government are right to pay attention to such issues, although extra resources will of course be required. The hon. Member for North Down asked for all the resources to go to police officers, but some should go to, for instance, the National Probation Service, so that it can supervise community sentences and their conditions. Otherwise, people may often break the conditions, which will bring the service into disrepute. It will also mean that more people are sent to prison, because that is the only thing that will satisfy the public mood.
  I want to say something about what is, in a sense, a local issue. When I met local magistrates and their clerks to discuss the Bill, I was very pleased with their response. They like the extra sentencing powers that they will have—both the powers relating to imprisonment and the wider range of conditions they can attach to community sentences. They also like—subject to the detail—the proposal for a unified system for magistrates courts and Crown courts. That, I thought, was a positive response. Stafford currently exceeds the national average for fine collection, but the magistrates would like the Government to continue their financial support for fine enforcers so that they can maintain that good record.
  The magistrates commented that recent media reporting of inadequate arrangements for fine collection had affected their ability to collect fines. People believed newspaper reports that the payment of fines was now optional, and did not pay. That is an interesting message for reporters.
  My last point, in fact, concerns reporting. Since when has it been right for most cases heard in my local magistrates court to go unreported by the local media? I think the reporting of cases is part of the fair administration of justice: people should know which members of their community have been to court, and have been convicted. That is the whole point of the saying that justice must not only be done, but be seen to be done. Let me please the Society of Editors by asking the Government not to overlook the need of reporters to be able to report cases. There are substantial obstacles preventing journalists from doing their job in magistrates courts—an issue that I may be able to pursue in more detail if I am fortunate enough to be a member of the Committee on this occasion.
  7.33 pm
  Mr. Nick Gibb: Bills of this sort worry me hugely. Like the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore), I see no philosophical underpinning for many of the proposed changes. That does not apply to most of the legislation with which we must deal.
  The Bill is supported by both Labour and the Conservatives, and of course it contains much that is good. Nevertheless, ending the double-jeopardy rule, allowing hearsay evidence and the admissibility of previous convictions constitute huge changes to our legal system, and, as far as I can tell, they are being proposed for reasons of administrative simplicity rather than on the basis of a deeply held conviction that they are right. They are not about securing justice.
  972
  These measures do not form part of Labour's traditional view of justice, or of the judicial system; nor do they emanate from Conservative principles. Indeed, I believe that Conservative principles clearly state the opposite. F.A. Hayek—who has had a profound influence on much Conservative thinking over the past 30 years—pointed out that ancient, and therefore sometimes bafflingly obscure, traditions, tenets and principles had evolved over the centuries as a result of hundreds of thousands of instances of experience, and that the cumulative knowledge gained from those was far beyond the capacity of any one human mind. We may not even understand the reason for a particular tradition until it has been abolished, when the errors and catastrophes that it was designed to avoid start to occur again.
  That does not mean that rules cannot evolve. Of course they can evolve and change, particularly through specific precedents in the Court of Appeal. That does not, however, mean the wholesale change proposed in the Bill. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) said in a briefing to The Independent in May 2000, ending the double-jeopardy rule would be
  "a serious blow for justice in this country".
  He said that Britain's "unbreakable" tradition that all citizens are equal before the law and innocent until proved guilty would be "seriously damaged" if the rule was scrapped. He added
  "It is a reform I cannot and will not support."
  So where do these measures come from? They certainly do not come from philosophical belief, but nor, it seems, do they come from experts and practitioners in the legal profession. We have heard from members of that profession in the Chamber today, but both the Bar Council and the Criminal Bar Association strongly oppose the measures to end double jeopardy. According to their briefing,
  "There is a real risk of harassment from the state and press where both believe that the acquitted defendant should be retried … There is a real risk that disappointed investigators, particularly in high profile cases may well wish immediately to recommence investigations after an acquittal, particularly if there is pressure from the media, victims or politicians. Those with previous convictions known to the investigating officer would also be a target. Officers with a personal animus against an accused may wish to pursue him despite an acquittal."
  If these measures do not stem from philosophical belief and are not demanded by the practitioners, they can only have come from that source of ideas that parties can draw on only when in government—Home Office civil servants, bless them. I fear that once again we are being presented with a Bill based on administrative convenience, with no regard for the historic safeguards that formed the rock on which our freedoms stand. It is a rock that has been chipped away by both parties with increasing speed over the past few years. This is yet another Home Office Bill that deals only with the immediate symptoms, and does nothing to tackle the roots of crime.
  The real problem that the Government should be—maybe are—seeking to address in the Bill is the problem of rising crime. Whatever Government figures may suggest, there is no doubt that crime is rising. Britain now experiences more crimes per 100,000 of the population than the United States, Italy, Germany and

  973
  a host of other countries. The Government may from time to time produce figures that show something else, but I believe that the fact that we have dealt with 12 criminal justice Bills since 1997 speaks volumes.
  The question is, how do we stem the rise in crime? Clause 126 sets out "Purposes of sentencing", which it says are punishment, reduction of crime including deterrence, protection of the public and reparation. I consider deterrence overwhelmingly the most important of those four principles, but if prison is to be a deterrent sentences must be of appropriate and sufficient length. Over the past 30 years prison sentences have become shorter, initially as a left-wing experiment to test the validity of prison but later because, under both parties, there was an attempt to control the ever-growing prison population as crime continued to rise. For example, the maximum prison sentence for burglary is 14 years, but the average sentence is just 22 months.
  As a libertarian Conservative I strongly believe in the maximum freedom of the individual. I believe in keeping the number of laws, particularly criminal laws, to the minimum necessary to preserve that freedom. Once a person breaks those laws, however, he should be subject to severe penalties. I believe that the increase in crime over the past 30 years is largely due to the increasing leniency of sentencing, and I am optimistic that the Home Secretary agrees.
  For many habitual criminals, a prison sentence is merely an occupational hazard rather than a life-changing catastrophe. Eighteen months in prison is a risk worth taking; eight full years is something else.
  Mr. Andrew Turner: I find my hon. Friend's argument compelling, but he has introduced a mechanistic solution to what did appear to be a problem relating to the way in which the bulwarks that society is built on are being undermined. Which is more important, the failure of society to support and educate those who might commit crime, or the failure to punish them sufficiently after the crime has been committed?
  Mr. Gibb: My hon. Friend makes a good point about recidivism and rehabilitation in prison, but the important point about the poor recidivism rates in this country is that the sentence itself is not a sufficient deterrent.
  I welcome the fact that the Bill contains many provisions to increase maximum sentences, but a lot of discretion will still be left to judges. My concern is that the Bill may well discourage courts from passing further increases in prison sentences. The US has demonstrated beyond any doubt that raising the level of sentences leads to falling crime. For example, in the US, prison sentences for murder are, on average, three years longer than in England; sentences for rape and for robbery are four years longer; and sentences for assault are almost three years longer. Sentences for burglary are two years longer than in England and Wales. The consequence is that burglary rates in the US have declined dramatically since the mid-1980s—from about 75 burglaries per 1,000 households to just 28. Violent crime in the US has fallen year on year since 1994, to the lowest level ever recorded by 2001. In 1994, there were 51 episodes of violent crime per 1,000 population; by 2001, the figure had fallen to 24.
  974
  If we in this country are to impose severe penalties on those who have committed crimes, however, we need to be sure that our judicial system is as infallible as humanly possible. We need in place every safeguard possible to avoid errors. We need principles such as the inadmissibility of previous convictions, so that we can be absolutely sure that a jury is not prejudiced in its duty to examine objectively the facts put before it. We need to keep the carefully constructed and evolved set of rules that govern the use of hearsay evidence, to ensure that what the jury is hearing is absolutely what was said. Sweeping away these safeguards will lead to an increase in the number of unsafe convictions, many of which will be traced back to this legislation. Magistrates courts already find 72 per cent. of those tried guilty, and Crown courts find 76 per cent. guilty. As the Financial Times commented recently:
  "the number of miscarriages of justice highlighted in recent decades does not suggest that the courts err on the side of gullibility."
  There must be no shortcuts on the way to prison. Once a person is convicted, they should serve a sentence that is commensurate with the crime committed. If the state takes short cuts to get a conviction, the reputation of the judicial system will suffer as people lose faith in its ability to convict only the guilty. Notwithstanding the measures in the Bill, the consequence of that will undoubtedly be a reluctance to impose long prison sentences, because of a vague feeling that convictions are perhaps unsafe. That in turn will mean that conviction and punishment will continue to fail to provide the deterrent necessary to bring rising crime under control. In other words, a Bill designed ostensibly to help cut crime will actually result in crime continuing to rise.
  I believe that the Bill is fundamentally and profoundly flawed. It will fail to deliver what the public want—less crime—while promising to do the opposite. It will fail to ensure that criminals serve sentences that deter them and others from committing crime in future. The public expect such measures, but I fear that they are not what the Bill will deliver. Instead, it will damage the reputation of the judicial system, and above all it will be responsible for a rise in the number of unsafe convictions and the perpetration of deep injustice.
  7.44 pm
  Mr. Alan Hurst: The problem with speaking late on in a debate is not only that most of the good arguments have been made, but so have most of the good jokes. I should begin by declaring an interest—these days, it has to be a vested interest—in that I am a partner in a firm of solicitors.
  There are so many aspects of this Bill on which one could comment that the debate could go on for a very long time. With that in mind, I shall seek to address the three salient issues that have troubled Members today, the first of which is, of course, trial by jury. Underlying our comments has been the assumption that every criminal offence can be tried by jury, but as we know—and as my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) wisely pointed out—many offences are summary only, and do not have jury choice. It is only in certain bands that such choice is available. I am committed at least to maintaining the existing bands, so that a defendant retains the choice of being tried by jury.

  975
  I accept that the two Bills that came to a sorry end in the previous two Sessions were much more wide ranging than the current proposal. One could argue that the latter is pragmatic—that we are seeking to tidy matters up and to help out jurors, so that they do not have to deliberate for too long, and so that we can create a family friendly jury system. However, I am not certain that juries were ever family friendly. Some things in life are by nature quite hard, and the preservation of some of our essential liberties is sometimes a hard task to follow through in its entirety. The fact that jurors may sometimes be inconvenienced when a trial goes on for a long time may not be a sufficient reason, therefore, to allow a further ebbing of the current jury trial system. On the face of it, such a suggestion seems practical and relatively harmless, but therein lies the danger. When something seems harmless, matters creep forward, but when there is an outright onslaught—such as we witnessed in the previous two Bills—it is easy to condemn and to say, "We are not going down that route."
  The question of how to deal with the intimidation of a juror has been well explored and answered fully by other Members, but I would go a little further by arguing that we should consider extending jury trial. In essence, trial by jury has been on the defensive for years. The recent Bills that went the way of the frailty of flesh were not in fact the first attacks on jury trial. Over time, various offences have lost the right to elect trial, and have become summary only. I would argue that one category in particular should have the option of trial by jury: allegations of assault or attack on a police officer or other persons in a position of public trust. I say that because those who are charged with such offences should be judged by their fellow citizens. In other words, cases involving victims who are employees of the state should be judged by the citizenry at large. Legislation passed in the 1960s specifically exempted the assaulting of police officers from those categories involving trial by jury, unless it suited the prosecutor to make the charge of actual bodily harm.
  Mr. John Taylor: Does the hon. Gentleman think that magistrates tend to be too deferential towards, or too believing of, police officers?
  Mr. Hurst: That view has been current for many years among those who practise in the criminal courts—prosecutors and defenders alike. For that very reason, in cases where police officers or other public officials are the victims, it is even more important for the defendants to have the right to elect jury trial.
  Prosecutors get a very bad press these days, but in the main they are wily people. In the past few years, it has become the practice that, where the injuries on the victim clearly constitute actual bodily harm, trial by jury can be elected. The prosecutor or the police may well decide to make the charge of common assault, because by so doing they will deny trial by jury. It could be argued that that subterfuge is an insult to the victim. The victim has clearly been assaulted—they have suffered actual bodily harm—but the defendant is charged with common assault, which used to be regarded as the most trifling of matters. Perhaps we need to look again at the
  976
  question of which offences are summary, and which are either-way. There needs to be an adjustment back in favour of jury trial, rather than continuing on the road to excluding it.
  I shall touch briefly on the question of double jeopardy. We humble solicitors in the magistrates courts do not often deal with great cases, at least not with their final stages, although I know that some learned and hon. Members have done so. However, it is possible to see the grave difficulty that could arise from the proposal in the Bill. It has been argued that we should be allowed to reopen cases in which evidence based on later scientific advances, such as DNA testing, had not been available. We were told that protection and safeguards would be put in place, so that the information would not percolate down to the second trial jury.
  However, there are newspapers in foreign countries such as Scotland, the Republic of Ireland, France and so on. People who travel will be able to read in lurid detail about a trial, as they allegedly did about the Duke of Windsor and Mrs. Simpson. People who travelled abroad knew about that case, whereas those who stayed at home did not. Those of us who live near Stansted know that everyone now travels abroad, and that similar information would be widely spread.
  Even if people did not travel so widely, there is no doubt that titbits of judicial and legal gossip would be peddled on the internet. Few jurors would be able to approach a case fresh, saying that they knew nothing about it. They will know about any such case, as it will be notorious.
  If we adopt the proposal in the Bill, there will be no verdict of acquittal, but of "not proven, yet". Essentially, the ending of the double jeopardy rule would mean that all cases that did not result in a guilty verdict would be considered to be "not proven, yet". That would remain the decision until the state decided to open up the matter again, with the leave of the courts.
  Like other hon. Members, I shall touch on the matter of character and previous convictions. I admire the confidence of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews). It is no trouble for him to brush aside the fact that a client may have a number of convictions. I concede that there may be times when that would be the right thing to do, tactically. Generally, however, as the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) noted, most jurors are likely to say, "If he's done it before, why not this time?"
  For example, a person with previous burglary convictions might be charged with, say, drink driving. The proposal in the Bill would mean that that person's character could be attacked. What about the difficulties arising from a person's demeanour or dress? If the person charged with drink driving arrived in court with a briefcase, the prosecution could say that he should have a striped jersey and a bag bearing the word "swag", and that he was a burglar trying to delude the court into thinking that he was a clerical worker.
  We can go down a ludicrous road and make it almost impossible for a defendant's character not to have a bearing on a case. If that happens, the balance will shift heavily towards conviction. That may be the purpose of the change. However, the balance will also shift in favour of trial by judge alone. If a person faces the risk

  977
  that all of his past life could come out before a jury, he may well opt, if the case is one for which it is permitted, for trial by judge alone.
  For those reasons, I hope that it is clear that I have my doubts about some of the important parts of the Bill. The evil to be remedied may not be sufficient to justify the evils of the remedy. I am concerned about the Bill. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and other Ministers will think hard and long about these matters as the Bill passes through the House.
  7.54 pm
  Mrs. Annette L. Brooke: Like many of those hon. Members who have spoken before, I accept the need to reform the criminal justice system, but not at the expense of increasing the risk that innocent people will be convicted.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) has outlined the three problems that especially concern Liberal Democrat Members. The same concerns have been expressed by hon. Members of all parties, in particular about the need to retain trial by jury.
  The three main issues have been discussed pretty thoroughly and, as the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) said, by this time of the evening there is some repetition of the points to be covered. I shall therefore look at other issues, but I do not in any way belittle the importance of the three issues that are of such great concern.
  I welcome some of the proposals in the Bill. In particular, I welcome the recognition that the rehabilitation of offenders is a major goal of sentencing. I look forward to further developments in terms of restoration and reparation, and I welcome the comments made by the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon).
  In a general sense, it is important to go beyond what is being said about crime and examine some of the potential outcomes. We need to get right the perspective and balance involved in being tough on crime and its causes. All hon. Members share the aim of controlling and reducing crime, but an overwhelming emphasis on being tough on crime has had unintended consequences that have exacerbated existing problems and created others. In saying that, I realise that I am rather disagreeing with the previous speaker, the hon. Member for Braintree.
  Although the Lord Chief Justice and many other key figures have publicly recognised that we should send fewer people to prison, and that short prison sentences generally serve no useful purpose, it seems that the phrase "tough on crime" has merely come to mean that more people are locked up. There are more than 72,000 people in prison in this country, and more than half of our prisons are overcrowded. Attempts by the Prison Service to make prison a constructive experience are being seriously hindered. Reoffending rates are still as high as 60 per cent.—although I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Hilary Benn), will tell me that they are falling—and the rates are even higher for juveniles and young offenders.
  On 30 September this year, there were 2,633 children locked up in 25 jails in England and Wales. Young girls are being held in adult prisons, despite a commitment to
  978
  remove all those under 18 from prison by April 2000. In both instances, there are huge issues concerning the distances from home at which those young people are being held.
  Andrew Selous: Would the hon. Lady care to respond to my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb), who spoke about the situation in the US? Over the past few years, longer sentences have led directly to a decrease in crime there. What is the hon. Lady's response to that?
  Mrs. Brooke: I have a coherent argument, from which I shall not digress. However, when we talk about shorter sentences, we are talking about sentences that are of less than 12 months. I would need much more specific information about the length of the sentences involved before I responded to the hon. Gentleman's question.
  Last week, the Howard League for Penal Reform won a judicial review against the Home Office. The High Court decided that the Children Act 1989 applied to children held in prison. Today, I saw for the first time the press statement issued by the Home Secretary, and one sentence leaped off the page at me. I was somewhat horrified. It said:
  "The court has ruled that one sentence of our policy document needs to be corrected to reflect this."
  The matter is very important, as this was an historic judgment. To be fair to the Home Secretary, I should add that the statement goes on to say that there is deep concern and that many things need to be improved.
  We are talking about reforming the criminal justice system, but what are we doing to improve the treatment of children? The criminal justice system should treat the children who come before the courts as children whose behaviour has been unacceptable, rather than as criminals who happen to be children. The Bill is sometimes not clear about whether its provisions would apply to minors as well as adults. That problem will need much scrutiny.
  For example, mention has been made of the definition of bad character. I am not sure about whether that applies to minors. I would also like the alcohol treatment requirement to be applied to minors, but that is not entirely clear. It seems unbalanced that under-18s can be eligible for drug testing and treatment but not for alcohol treatment, but we know that alcohol is an enormous problem among young people.
  I always like to welcome the many positive initiatives in our local communities that the Government have introduced. I know that some people have concerns about proposals for parent orders and that there are questions about them, but research shows that they have produced very good results. Similarly, there are questions about referral orders, but we need to consider the research.
  Individual support orders will accompany antisocial behaviour orders. As I have said many times, I dislike the idea of having a stop measure alone, without accompanying measures. I will be interested to see what is involved in an individual support order.
  Being tough on crime has the connotation of locking more and more people up. It costs the taxpayer a great deal of money and, in certain circumstances,

  979
  it reinforces criminal behaviour. At least one newspaper report has suggested that the changes proposed in the Bill could result in having more than 100,000 prisoners before the end of the decade. That would cost an extra £2 billion a year on top of the £3 billion a year that the Prison Service already costs us.
  Mr. Andrew Turner: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Brooke: I should like to make progress.
  Some proposals in the Bill could have advantages, such as that to introduce a new indeterminate sentence for serious violent offenders. In very exceptional circumstances, and with certain caveats, that could have advantages, for example, it would enable an offender's progress to be regularly reviewed during a prison sentence so that he could be released if and when it was safe so to do. However, it is important that there is ultimately a court decision on that offender.
  In principle, I welcome the new custody plus sentence, which will ensure that short-term prisoners are subject to supervision on release. At present, short-term prisoners receive little in the way of rehabilitation while in prison and are not under supervision when they leave. Not surprisingly, they have a high rate of reconviction and are responsible for much of the high-volume crime that is so troublesome and distressing. However, if custody plus sentencing is to be successful, it must be backed by resources to fund probation service supervision and efforts by voluntary agencies to help with accommodation, employment and mentoring. That is crucial to prevent reoffending.
  I recently raised with the Department the issue of adequate funding in relation to early release with tagging. I was given the impression that the money was being spent. However, a number of agencies and organisations share my concern about resources. Indeed, it will take time to recruit and train sufficient probation officers even with adequate resourcing. The Howard League for Penal Reform suggests that the proposal should be deferred until it can be delivered properly. That would be a shame because it is a good proposal, but it shows the strength of concern about the need for probation officers to be in place to make tagging work properly.
  There is a risk with the custody plus sentence in so far as the courts may find it an attractive proposition for offenders who currently receive community sentences. It is crucial that the sentencing framework strongly dissuades courts from passing short-term prison sentences as opposed to a straightforward community sentence. There are opportunities to develop excellent practices across the country with community sentencing. We need to avoid a situation in which more people end up in prison because they have defaulted on a community sentence. To my mind, having a tough community sentence means having a good one that works—people stay on it and it leads to a reformation of behaviour.
  I have some doubts about the proposed intermittent custody sentences. There is an attraction in the argument that offenders will be able to maintain jobs, family ties and education. The burden on society is less
  980
  and there are positive contributions. However, an offender considered for such a punishment will not be perceived as a threat to society. I wonder whether it is right to put such people into our already overcrowded prisons, creating extra administrative burdens and burdens relating to travel. Will it be a workable proposal?
  The proposal to empower magistrates courts to pass prison sentences of up to 12 months could also prove to be a mixed blessing. It will reduce waiting times on remand if offenders who would otherwise have been committed to the Crown court are dealt with by magistrates instead, but there is the possibility that magistrates may pass prison sentences of nine or 12 months where the Crown courts might have imposed a community sentence or a shorter prison sentence. We must be very sure about our guidelines.
  I believe that it is important to have consistent leaderships at all levels to support a reduced use of custody in appropriate circumstances to make sentencing truly make sense. I am excluding serious and dangerous offenders from my comments, because I agree with other hon. Members that imprisonment should be a penalty of last resort when no other sentence is adequate for the protection of the public and the severity of the crime. It is so important to develop well-supported, worthwhile community sentences with the objective of being smart on crime. Above all, we need to be effective on the causes of crime by tackling them with better educational, housing and employment opportunities and well-structured youth programmes. These issues must not be forgotten when changes are made to the criminal justice system. The early intervention through sure start is a major breakthrough and we are beginning to see excellent work with crime and disorder partnerships and the youth offending teams. However, there is so much more to be done, and we must not forget that while we are debating the details of the Bill.
  8.7 pm
  Mr. Marsha Singh: I would like to turn the focus of the debate on to the victims and communities suffering from crime, as that does not seem to have been addressed so far. Those communities and people, in working-class and deprived areas, face crime on a daily basis. They face crime committed against their families, themselves and the wider community. They will understand and support the measures in the Bill. Those are the people for whom I wish to speak today.
  Those people understand implicitly the comments of the Home Secretary when he said recently that when the criminal justice system works badly, everyone suffers. He said that at the moment, too many offenders escape justice and cases drop out at every stage of the process, often because of court practices that need modernising or because of tactical manoeuvres designed to disrupt the justice process and secure acquittal of the guilty. The fundamental principle remains that the prosecution must prove its case, but that does not mean that the system should enable a defendant to obstruct justice by inaction or by abuse of the system.
  The people with whom I am concerned understand that only a fifth of the cases taken up by the police result in conviction. They know that the criminal justice

  981
  system is letting them down. It is to them that we owe a duty to improve the system and to improve the quality of their life and security, which is impaired by crime every day.
  I support the measures in the Bill with very few reservations. I will comment briefly on only a few because of the time constraints.
  Clause 3 allows for street bail, which should give police officers greater flexibility in dealing with offenders. A Library research paper noted that if only 10 per cent. of arrests were dealt with in that way, 390,000 patrol officer hours could be saved—equivalent to 200 police officer posts. That potential alone should recommend the clause.
  Clause 5 will extend the detention time limit for any arrestable offence to a maximum of 36 hours. That period applies only to serious offences at present. Although I am not fully convinced of the need for the proposal, I am prepared to accept the contention of the Association of Chief Police Officers that the initial detention period may provide insufficient time for the investigation due to delays elsewhere in the custody process; for example, when intoxication renders a suspect unfit for interview, the provision will be helpful.
  Clause 23 deals with conditions on bail before a charge is made. I concur fully with the conclusion of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, which states:
  "We accept that a power to impose conditions on bail before charge is a necessary and logical part of the move towards charging by the Crown Prosecution Service."
  Clause 84 is one of the most controversial elements of the Bill. It will allow evidence of a defendant's bad character to be admissible automatically in a range of specified circumstances. I take a simple view of that matter—as will my constituents. Most of them cannot understand why a person's record is not revealed automatically, and I agree with them.
  Many of my constituents have heard criminals outside the court boast about their criminal record. What is good enough outside court should be good enough in court. No one has thrust a criminal record at such people. They gain their CV of their own accord by breaking the law, so my constituents and I believe that their full CV should be available to the law when they appear in court.
  Although I should like to refer to many other clauses, IL shall speak briefly on double jeopardy and then on trial by jury. It would be completely intolerable if the murderer of a child was acquitted and subsequently DNA evidence became available. My community could not support that and nor could I. I do not understand the principle involved. If somebody commits a heinous crime and evidence—especially DNA evidence—crops up later, why should that person get away with their crime? Why should not the state have a second bite at that cherry?
  If such people are acquitted, it is because they have lied to the court. Why should people be allowed to benefit from lying to the court? My constituents cannot understand that and nor can I. If people have lied to the court and new and compelling evidence has been uncovered, we should have a second chance to hear the case.No one should benefit from lies. No one should escape the consequences of their crime.
  982
  The proposals on trial by jury are not a complete assault on the jury system. The provision is small but positive and deals with lengthy and complex issues. They may involve intimidation of jurors, terrorism cases, gangsterism or organised crime. If juries are intimidated, it is right and proper that cases should not fall by the wayside or be affected by such actions.
  Finally, I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on the reasoned and reasonable way in which he introduced the Bill to the House. I wish him and his team every success in steering the Bill to a successful conclusion.
  8.15 pm
  Mr. Andrew Turner: May I point out to the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Singh) that middle-class communities are just as entitled to the protection of the law and that they feel the impact of crime as severely as other groups? Of course, I recognise that crime makes the greatest impact on working-class and deprived communities and we should bear that in mind at all times.
  The Bill is good in parts, but it has no fundamental underlying principle, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) pointed out. I welcome some of its provisions, which give me hope, but I regret others. I also regret that there have been some omissions.
  I welcome the proposal that the disclosure of previous convictions should become easier. I do not share the view that a jury cannot be trusted with that information. As I said during the debate on the Gracious Speech, for many years an underlying failure of those of us who rule or who are elected to this place has been that we do not trust the public with information to which they are entitled and that we would expect to receive.
  I also welcome the changes in eligibility for the avoidance of jury service. We can hardly criticise juries for being incapable of taking on board the information that they are given, whether it relates to previous convictions or to difficult fraud cases, if those who are more capable, at least by education or profession, find it easy to escape their civic responsibilities for jury service.
  I welcome those two provisions, but I have a greater number of regrets. I regret the proposed reduction in eligibility for jury trial. The Government have not yet made their case. As hon. Members on both sides of the House have observed, the Government began by attacking jury trial from one direction and are now attacking it from another.
  Although I accept that some cases are especially difficult or time consuming, it cannot be impossible to empanel a jury that is capable of devoting enough time and energy to its civic responsibility. I respect the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) and I listened carefully to his arguments, but I am still unable to understand why he supports the change.
  There are several omissions on which I invite the Minister to comment. One of the omissions is very narrow, but I feel it particularly in my constituency, which, as the Minister will know, has three prisons, one of which has an enviable record in the treatment of sex offenders. However, it also imprisons people from the Channel Islands, which have a different judicial process.

  983
  The Channel Islands do not have the same safeguards on release as those for people imprisoned in this jurisdiction. The arrangements for the supervision of prisoners released from Albany who have served sentences imposed by Channel Islands' courts are different. That is a matter of concern to some of my constituents. They fear that those prisoners, when released, can remain in my constituency or in other parts of the United Kingdom without supervision. That supervision would be definitely imposed on those who have been convicted in this jurisdiction.
  The second issue on which I hope some changes will be made as the Bill progresses through the House and the other place is that of pleas in mitigation. Those in the legal profession, whom the Home Secretary likes to malign from time to time, deserve every bit of the Home Secretary's opinion of them where they exercise the greatest inventiveness with the least possible evidence to demonstrate to judges and magistrates why a convicted defendant should not serve an appropriate sentence.
  I am sure that judges and perhaps many magistrates will say that they can see through the arguments put by the defending solicitor when he comes up with a host of stories about how the criminal has perhaps suffered a deprived childhood or has just made up with his girlfriend—and they do—or perhaps has found a job and that any kind of custodial sentence would mean that the job would be lost. However, a great weakness in the whole system is that the truth or accuracy of those assertions is not tested in court. All that the solicitor has to say is, "I am instructed that these are the circumstances in which my client finds himself." The judge or magistrate must judge entirely for himself, without any evidence, whether those claims are accurate.
  A third omission, on which I should like further work to be done, is that of unduly lenient sentences. Many hon. Members will perhaps be surprised to hear that they, the prosecution and the victims of crime have only 28 days to refer a case of an allegedly unduly lenient sentence to the Attorney-General for action. I argue not that 28 days is too short a period, but that more information should be made available, particularly to the victims of crime, as to their powers to take back such matters to the Crown Prosecution Service or the Attorney-General.
  The failure of judges to impose what are seen as reasonable sentences is perhaps one of the greatest irritants to the public. They see that the police have taken the trouble to secure the evidence, the CPS has taken the trouble to prosecute and the courts have provided a conviction, yet the judge is convinced for some reason or other that a short rather than a lengthy sentence is appropriate.
  I have dealt with such a case in my constituency this week. It involves someone who died after being intentionally kicked by a drunken man who had made threats of killing and had intimidated other witnesses. He received a two-year sentence. I am pleased to say that I have had the opportunity to refer the case to the Attorney-General.
  The Bill fails to deal with a huge setback to the effective treatment of life prisoners: the recent judgment about the Home Secretary's powers to set a tariff.
  984
  Perhaps Ministers intend to deal with that by some means or other in the Bill, but I believe that we should reverse the judgment. There is no means to deal with the issue effectively other than to give back to the Home Secretary the powers that he had before that judgment. I do not wish to be told that that is an unexpected or unwarranted effect of the Human Rights Act 1998. The Government are responsible for that Act and, if necessary, they must admit that it was wrong.
  I also hope that the Government, having dealt with many minor changes, will now develop some serious measures to tackle crime and to defend the innocent. Those measures must deal effectively with the causes of crime, one of the most significant of which is the drugs culture. Another of those causes is poor and inadequate parenting, a third is human greed and folly, and a fourth is the simple failure of many people to control primitive urges. Underlying the latter two is something that, all too frequently, we fail to spell out to our constituents and to others—that there is a link between cause and effect.
  At the risk of resorting to anecdote, I shall tell the story of someone in my constituency who has now been evicted from her council house by the Medina housing association. I congratulate the association on that eviction because her children persistently offended neighbours. Her argument was that they were only children, and that it was not her responsibility. It is, of course, her responsibility, and the Minister agrees that it is. Far too many people are beginning to feel that not only are they not responsible for the acts of their children and grandchildren, they are no longer responsible for their own acts. Only when we address that and re-establish the link between cause and effect will we truly succeed in conquering the causes of crime.
  8.26 pm
  Mr. Paul Stinchcombe: I am grateful for the opportunity to make a brief contribution to this important debate on an important Bill. I shall concentrate on parts 10 and 11 of the Bill, which, as we know, contain some of the most controversial measures. They would abolish two long-standing principles of common law by which the rights of the accused have hitherto been protected: the double jeopardy rule and the rules governing the admissibility of evidence of bad character in criminal proceedings.
  At the outset, I want to set out the analytical framework that guides me as I approach those two proposals. It is made up of just three basic principles, but I believe it to be robust. First, the purpose of the criminal justice system is twofold: not just to protect the innocent from the guilty but to protect the innocent from conviction. Secondly, the criminal justice system must therefore permit evidence to be adduced by the prosecutor if, but only if, the prejudice done to the defendant is justified by the probative value of that evidence. Thirdly, we should prevent evidence of that probative value from being admitted to the court only if that is justified by some other public interest of compelling importance. With those three basic principles in mind, let me look first at the rule on double jeopardy and then at the rules on the admissibility of evidence of bad character, and thereby come to a conclusion on the Government's current proposals.

  985
  As the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) said, the rule on double jeopardy is ancient, dating back some 800 years in our common law tradition. I agree, therefore, that it is hardly a rule that we should discard lightly and without deep reflection guided by the principles that I have described. I must say, however, that a lot happens over eight centuries. Eight hundred years ago, we did not have the advantage of contemporary forensic science. No second trial all those years ago could have brought forth previously missed evidence, capable of proving the identity of someone from a spot of blood too small for the human eye to see. All of that has changed. Forensic scientists are now capable of assisting the judicial process in ways that would have been wholly unimaginable to our forefathers. First came fingerprinting, and then genetic fingerprinting—DNA testing. I must tell the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden that progress will continue. It does not stop now. There will be corneal mapping and facial mapping. All sorts of different scientific advantages and advances will be available to future generations.
  Those technical advances can bring forward compelling evidence of probative value that could not have been adduced when the double jeopardy rule was first established. When such evidence can prove conclusively the innocence of someone accused of crime, it is admissible because of that probative value, and because the innocent should not be convicted. Likewise, when such evidence can prove conclusively the innocence of someone previously found guilty of a crime, it is admissible, so that an appeal against conviction can succeed. Indeed, when such evidence can prove conclusively the guilt of someone for the first time accused of an offence, it is again admissible, and quite properly so. Its probative value demonstrably justifies the prejudice that would be occasioned to the defendant.
  We must therefore ask ourselves a fairly basic question. What on earth is the compelling public interest reason that demands that when exactly the same evidence of identical probative value can help prove the guilt of someone previously found innocent of a serious crime, our criminal system must by operation of law ignore it? The reason cannot be for fear that a second trial can never be fair, because we already allow second trials and we know that they can be fair. It should never be for fear of sloppy police investigations. That would he a truly appalling basis upon which to frame the legislation of this country.
  Surely to goodness, the reason cannot be for fear of oppression by an over-zealous prosecutor. That made sense 800 years ago when the rule was first established, in an age of trial by torture and mediaeval monarchs. Then, the rule had genuine civilising purposes. It was to protect the citizen from the oppression of the state and to prevent the mediaeval monarch from dragging his opponents repeatedly to the court, subjecting those citizens to the stress, ordeal and expense of repeat trials. Then we did not have the Human Rights Act 1998 and the police and criminal evidence procedures that we have now to protect against the abuses of processes. Now we have protections against such oppression.
  Quite simply, the march of time has done away with the justification for double jeopardy—when judged against the guiding principles—through advances in science, human rights law and criminal procedures. If
  986
  the criminal justice system fails to catch up with those changes, and if, for no good reason, it fails to allow such evidence to be adduced, it will fail to achieve one of its two principal purposes. It will fail to protect the innocent from the guilty. That will bring the criminal justice system into disrepute.
  Mr. Grieve rose—
  Mr. Stinchcombe: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to finish my remarks? I know that hon. Friends wish to speak.
  If the criminal justice system fails to catch up, the parents of raped and murdered sons and daughters will be told by scientists that the villains—the people who committed the crime—are known and have been identified, but are walking free.
  I want to apply the same consistent principles to the Government's second proposal—to abolish the rules that prevent evidence of previous bad character from being admitted save in exceptional circumstances. Does that proposal meet the tests of principle that I have set out? I have to say to my hon. Friend the Minister that the answer is a little less clear.
  Those common law rules have been developed by judges over the centuries precisely to apply the three principles by which we should be guided. The very reason for the common law prohibition on the general admissibility of evidence of past convictions is that such evidence can be massively prejudicial to the accused, while having absolutely no probative value at all in respect of the offence with which the accused is currently charged. In lay terms, proving someone was a naughty boy before does not remotely mean that he has been a naughty boy again.
  The common law therefore requires more than the existence of a past conviction before it can be admitted in evidence. It generally requires more even than conviction for the same offence. Indeed, admitting evidence of that past conviction would be even more obviously prejudicial to the accused, without necessarily raising the probative value of the fact of that past conviction one little bit. What the common law requires before a past conviction can be admitted in evidence is something beyond the fact of that conviction. It requires something additional and something sufficient to raise the probative value of that conviction, so that it justifies the prejudice that would be caused to the accused.
  It could be that the past conviction was for an offence that was "strikingly similar". That would admit it in evidence. The common law recognises the additional probative value of that fact. It could be something different, as the leading House of Lords case makes clear. However, there should be something to increase probative value before the conviction can be admitted in evidence. I speak as a lawyer, and that seems to be good law. It is in accordance with the principles that I have set out. However, the Bill would do away with that common law and replace it with a new extended statutory code, whereby numerous preconditions for the admissibility of the fact of the conviction are set, including, for example, whether the conviction was for an offence of the same description as the one with which the defendant is now charged. That inevitably means that all such convictions might routinely be admitted in

  987
  evidence without anything to raise their evidential value. That is precisely what the common law has been developed to prevent, because it would be unfair to the accused.
  That in turn raises a question of fundamental principle, which I hope my hon. Friend will address. Do the Government want the courts to admit evidence of past convictions even if the probative value of the convictions does not justify the prejudice to the accused? I do not believe that that is the Government's intention, but if it is, I simply disagree with them. If it is not their intention, however, I cannot understand the benefit of this part of the Bill.
  Indeed, there are risks in introducing the extended statutory code in place of common law. One of the benefits of common law over statutory codes is that it is flexible. It is capable of developing to meet new circumstances when the words of legislation are fixed. If we continue to take this route in what is otherwise a good Bill, we could end up removing flexible rules—designed by judges over countless years to meet the three principles by which we should be guided, and are guided in other parts of the Bill—and replacing them with a rigid code, possibly incomplete, whereby evidence might be adduced even though its prejudice to the accused outweighs its true probative value. With the greatest respect, I suggest that if we did that, we would not much improve the existing criminal justice system.
  8.36 pm
  Andrew Selous: It is a great privilege to take part in the debate. Unlike many hon. Members present, I am not a lawyer. I am not necessarily proud of that, unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow). I recognise that lawyers are valuable members of society. They dispense justice and ensure that victims are afforded protection. Nevertheless, I am a lay person and speak with perhaps a little trepidation.
  I have twice served on a jury in the Old Bailey. In the past few months alone, I have twice been a victim of crime when I suffered from theft and criminal damage. MPs do not live in another world from their constituents; we live in it alongside them and experience what they experience.
  I am convinced that in emphasising law and order in this legislative Session, the Government are addressing the public's No. 1 concern. From talking to my constituents and seeing them in my advice surgery week by week, and from the information that I have gathered from the survey and polls that I have conducted extensively in my constituency, I know that their No. 1 concern is crime, antisocial behaviour and the fear of crime. Notwithstanding the many problems that we have to tackle in our public services and elsewhere, my constituents say to me time and time again that crime and antisocial behaviour is their No. 1 concern. So I understand why the Government have emphasised doing something about it.
  I was struck by the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin). He said that in tackling the problem the emphasis should be on apprehension. He said that 80 per cent. or so of crimes are
  988
  undetected and do not get anywhere near the criminal justice system. We should remind ourselves that that is not the tip of the iceberg—that would be putting it too strongly—but a vast mass of crime, disorder and antisocial behaviour is committed from which our constituents suffer daily. Sadly, such behaviour never gets near the criminal justice system because, perhaps, the police are not there to prevent it, there is no evidence or our constituents are too scared to give evidence to enable due process. To coin a phrase, we should be concerned about apprehension, apprehension, apprehension. That will have the greatest effect for constituents.
  On prisons, my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) cited interesting evidence on the experience in the United States of America, to which I referred in an intervention, where there is a direct connection between increasing prison sentences and the reduction of crime. We should look at that evidence carefully and try to establish whether there is indeed a causal link between the two factors.
  My hon. Friend was also right to point out that although the average sentence passed by British courts is 14 years, on average only 22 months are served. That is a cause of great concern to our constituents. Time and again, we hear people say that a criminal was sentenced to so many years in prison but is out after a much shorter period, often only a matter of months.
  As my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) pointed out in an intervention, the decline in crime in this country in the mid-1990s was directly related to the increase in the number of prison sentences arid the length of those sentences. That also has lessons for us as we face these serious problems.
  I am delighted to see the emphasis in the Bill on rehabilitation in prison. Obviously, it is extremely sad and regrettable that people commit crime, and we all regret the distress caused to our constituents as a result. However, once the offender has been identified, the question is how we can reform his character to make sure that he does not go on committing crimes.
  The other day I heard evidence about prisons in Merseyside. One, which is run by Group 4, has one of the highest rates of rehabilitation work among prisoners, providing effective education in a structured programme throughout the day. That was compared with similar prisons in the area, where prisoners do not have the same opportunities for study and work and for improvement, largely because their schedules are arranged pretty much for the convenience of the prison warders. I ask the Minister to look into the practice in different prisons and different management regimes to see whether we can learn from best practice and export it to prisons throughout the UK. All prisoners should have the best possible chance of improving themselves so that they do not commit crime when they come out.
  It is excellent that the Bill contains measures to focus on drug rehabilitation in our prisons. I cannot believe that I am the only Member of the House who is astounded by the amount of drugs available to prisoners. That is something that I cannot understand and I do not accept, and I do not believe that our constituents accept it. We know that drugs are rife in society and that they are responsible for some

  989
  80 per cent. of the crime committed on our streets. However, it is wholly unacceptable that convicted criminals can continue their drug habit when they go to prison—often, we are led to believe, with the connivance of the prison officers, because being able to control the prisoners makes their own lives easier. I urge the Minister to do whatever is in his power and that of the Home Office to make sure that drugs are not freely circulating in our prisons. We certainly need to concentrate on that problem.
  I was struck by the remarks of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes), who went through the characteristics that prisoners tend to have. We know that they tend to come from low-income backgrounds and areas of high unemployment and that they are likely to have experienced bad housing. Those are all issues that we need to address, and the Government are trying to do that. That is probably the part of their programme that relates to their slogan about being tough on the causes of crime, and that is right.
  However, I hoped the Liberal Democrat spokesman would include in that category family background and parenting, which were rightly touched on my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner). I was talking to a sergeant in Dunstable police station the other day about that subject, and he suddenly looked at me and said, "Now I think of it, not one of the 12 top criminals in the Dunstable area has a conventional family background." We can argue about cause and effect, and I agree with many Government Members that poverty, bad housing and unemployment lead to family breakdown—there is a vicious circle—although that is not the case for many families. However, we must get real—the Government must address seriously the things that it can tackle. Initiatives like sure start are excellent, but much more needs to be done. We need a national debate focusing on responsibility in our schools, and on the relationship between parents and children in families. Again, my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight discussed that.
  My own constituency does not qualify for sure start despite the fact that it has significant pockets of deprivation. However, I commend Homestart, an excellent charity in Leighton Buzzard, as well as the community link project of the Baptist church in Houghton Regis, which I visited last Friday, on its excellent and worthwhile work with parents and young children.
  I very much identify with the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset about the need for juries to be local and accessible. He painted a picture of justice gradually retreating from some of our smaller towns and being focused in larger centres, where it was dispensed more professionally by district judges and so on. That has a strong resonance in my own constituency—Leighton Buzzard has lost its magistrates court, and witnesses and victims must make a long and difficult journey by public transport to court in Luton. How many witnesses will not come forward if they cannot get to court because travel is too difficult, or because they have to take too long off work to give evidence? Justice must be local to be effective. I urge the Government to look at the closure of magistrates courts throughout the country. If they restore them to local communities, that will help them to achieve their objectives.
  990
  As for double jeopardy, where there is clear new evidence, the Government's proposals make sense—I agree with the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Stinchcombe) on that. However, the presumption of innocence is an important fundamental tenet of English law. Getting rid of the double jeopardy principle may contravene the European Union's charter of fundamental rights, a matter that has been raised previously by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), and we need to look at that.
  8.48 pm
  Stephen Hesford: I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in this interesting and important debate. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Stinchcombe), I was going to concentrate on two key areas of the Bill that may delay us in the Committee—if I have the honour of serving on it. I shall deal in passing with one of the most contentious aspects of the Bill—jury trial. The Opposition spokesman seemed to be in great difficulty when he dealt with that issue, which leads to me to wonder what is behind the questioning of the Government's reasons for changing jury trial, as set out by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. The right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) appeared to posit an equivalence between the lay magistracy and jury trial, but anyone who has practised in the courts will know that the opposite is true. Defendants elect for jury trial because they want to get away from lay magistrates. It is nonsensical to say that we are denying people's right to appear before their peers within the magistrates system and the jury system. I wonder why the right hon. Gentleman is seeking to make that link; it is not a real link.
  The right hon. Gentleman talked about professionalisation of the magistracy—the deputy judges. When I practised in the lower courts many years ago, the defendants whom I came across were happy to appear before stipendiary magistrates. They were dealt with better and faster. Stipendiary magistrates understood cases, and defendants trusted them more than they trusted lay magistrates. Again, I question the right hon. Gentleman's logic.
  It has been said that there is no theme in the Bill and that it is a sort of Churchillian pudding. I strongly disagree with that. There is a simple theme, which is about addressing the rights and responsibilities of the criminal justice system so that it focuses more on the rights of the victim. Talking about the number of Criminal Justice Bills is a cheap debating point. There may be one or two more than we would like, but we cannot abdicate our responsibility to get the system right. That is what the Bill is designed to do, and I welcome it. Broadly, that is what most Members are saying.
  It has been said that the measure is a populist Bill designed to make a headline. I do not understand that. When my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary introduced the Bill this afternoon he dealt with some of the issues in an attractive and helpful way. On sensitive issues—those of crime and disorder—the Government are encouraging debate about the fundamentals of our criminal justice system. It is wrong-headed to argue that the Government are seeking to be populist while

  991
  encouraging a debate on what might be seen as a difficult issue for them; no doubt the Opposition would say that in terms of delivery, it certainly is difficult.
  My right hon. Friend mentioned enforcement, and talked about seeking the truth during the trial process. I welcome that suggestion. I reject the suggestion of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews), who said that the trial process is not about seeking the truth. It should be. Some of the measures set out in the Bill are about redressing the balance of the process so as to do just that. The process is not a philosophical game or a tug of war, to determine who is best on the day. It must be more sophisticated than that. Some of the measures proposed in the Bill address that problem.
  Mr. Grieve: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Stephen Hesford: No; I am sorry, but I will give way on another occasion.
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary mentioned enforcement. I have in mind two of my constituents. Mr. Yeardsley lives on a working-class housing estate at Woodchurch. He was assaulted more than two years ago and was awarded compensation by the courts. The defendant still has not paid the compensation to that elderly gentleman, who comes to see me regularly with a look that is heart-rending. To use an American term, he says that he cannot have closure. He says, "All I can think about is this toerag"—that is the word that he uses—"who assaulted me. He is still out there and he has still not paid his dues."
  The second constituent is a serving police officer who was assaulted in the course of his duty. He was awarded compensation, and is still waiting for it. He got in touch with me and asked, "How can I trust the system?" The Bill reconnects the system to those whom it is supposed to serve.
  The Bill is courageous. The hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon), who is not in her place, mentioned an article in The Times yesterday. It was a good, short write-up of the some of the points that we are debating. The Times also contained an interview with Lord Falconer, who spoke plainly about the reasons for the Bill, and for entertaining such difficult issues. He said:
  "The criminal justice system is not effective and needs reform. About 20 per cent. of recorded crimes are brought to justice, 25 per cent. of offenders commit offences while on bail, 48 per cent. of prosecution files are not properly prepared, 30,000 trials a year are abandoned because witnesses do not turn up, and more than 50 per cent. of defendants who are sentenced to custody or community penalties reoffend within two years."
  That is a sorry catalogue.
  Many parts of the Bill are welcome: street bail, live links in criminal proceedings, the prosecution appeal against early termination, disclosure, drug rehabilitation requirements, widening jury service to pull in the middle classes, and conditional cautions. I suggest to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary that we should make breaching the conditional caution an offence, so that the system does not go straight from breach of caution to dealing with the original offence.
  992
  There could be a halfway measure, which would be only a summary offence and might help to maintain the integrity of the caution process without burdening the system downstream.
  It has been said that lawyers do not like double jeopardy, but I am sure that most hon. Members received the same Law Society briefing as me, and the Law Society now supports the change. Justice, which is not a right-wing organisation, also supports the provision. It says:
  "this is particularly necessary to deal with the effectively short-term problem of the development of DNA and other scientific testing."
  Other hon. Members made that point.
  I support the Bill's provision on bad character. The Law Commission also broadly supports it in its report, "Evidence of Bad Character in Criminal Proceedings", published in October, which said:
  "The Commission believes that all the rules on admissibility of bad character should be contained in one regulation"
  and:
  "there is currently too much confusion in the current law."
  The provision would help to codify a complicated area of law, as has already been suggested.
  The Times yesterday also included an interview with Dame Heather Hallett, a High Court judge.
  Ross Cranston: It was very interesting.
  Stephen Hesford: That is true. She said that she had been trying a murder case involving a multiple stabbing—81 stab wounds—and a severe head injury. The defendant was convicted, but the jury did not know that the man was a knife user and a beater of persons. The judge postulated that it might have helped if the jury had known that. That is sort of case that we have in mind, and I commend the Government on the measure.
  If the Bill becomes law in roughly its current state, it will reconnect the police, the Crown Prosecution Service, witnesses and the public.

  Criminal Justice Bill

    DEFERRED DIVISIONS
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): I now have to announce the result of Divisions deferred from a previous day.
    On the motion on the Convention on the Future of Europe, the Ayes were 282, the Noes were 12, so the motion was agreed to.
    On the motion on Estimates 2001–02, the Ayes were 412, the Noes were 39, so the motion was agreed to.
    [The Division Lists are published at the end of today's debates.]
    I must also inform the House that a Bill will be brought in upon the resolution in the name of the Financial Secretary relating to Estimates 2001–02. I understand that a Minister will present the Bill at the conclusion of proceedings on the Criminal Justice Bill.

  Criminal Justice Bill
  Question again proposed, That the Bill be read a Second time.
  9.00 pm
  Mr. Andrew Miller: I speak as a minority participant in tonight's debate, in that I am a non-lawyer. Following the speech of the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), I must tell him that I agreed with about 85 per cent. of what he said, and with every word that he said during his first three minutes. That will therefore cut down the length of my contribution, which should assist my colleagues.
  The Home Secretary said that the Bill formed part of an end-to-end reform of the criminal justice system. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have had the good grace to mention projects such as sure start. Important projects such as that and the Children's Fund are all critical to this end-to-end reform. I am sure that I am not the only one who gets letters week after week from constituents facing antisocial behaviour in their communities. Tonight I want to talk specifically from the point of view of the victims. That is the right end of the telescope through which to look, in the context not only of the Bill but of the whole of the Government's programme.
  Yobbish behaviour is undertaken by a very small group of people; it is not the norm. Most young people do a tremendous amount of good in our communities, but that small group must be dealt with more severely within the framework of the criminal justice system. The hon. Members for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) and for South-West Bedfordshire both talked about the role of parents, and in that respect I agree with them. From the small beginnings of antisocial behaviour, all the way through to major criminality, we need to consider the point of view of the victims first. That means that we need to give the police the powers to deal with issues at the investigative stage, and the courts the powers to play their part.
  I mentioned a particular case in an earlier intervention. An 83-year-old lady in my constituency, who is registered disabled, has over the past couple of years had her house and outbuildings pelted with air gun pellets, had windows broken and so on. When she bravely confronted the perpetrators, all that she received was verbal abuse. She now lives in fear in her property and, despite having lived there for 25 years, is now considering moving home. The police have been called on a number of occasions, but under current legislation they seem powerless to put an end to the activities of those young terrorists—because that is what they are—who are making her life a misery. We need a framework of law to address such cases. The new sentencing policy will, to use its catchphrase, put "sense into the sentencing". Ensuring that the punishment fits the crime and the criminal is important at this stage, in relation to the kind of behaviour that we all see in our constituencies. New provisions affecting juveniles in this Bill and others are equally important.
  Another case involves a local man who was the victim of a violent assault. This case particularly illustrates the need for an end-to-end revision of the system. The sole witness to the crime was terrorised into withdrawing his
  994
  statement, and as a result there has been no prosecution. My constituent, who has suffered not only physical hurt but real trauma, has now had salt rubbed into his wounds by the attitude of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority, which treats him as nothing but a nuisance. Its attitude is simply, "You cannot be traumatised unless you have had time off work." This man is a professional who has stuck at his work—he is a schoolteacher. He has gone through a great deal of personal distress, but he is being told that he cannot be compensated for his trauma because he did not take time off. Is that the message that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary wants to send out? I am sure that it is not. We need end-to-end reform.
  The Government must take a tougher line on criminality, and the Bill will help to achieve that. Referring back to that particular case, knowledge of previous convictions will convince people and perhaps make it easier for the police and the Crown Prosecution Service to satisfy the court of the validity of the evidence that they can bring before it. If it would not jeopardise any future prosecution, I would name the perpetrators of that crime. We all live in relatively small communities, and because of anecdotal evidence built up from casework, we often know who the perpetrators are. We need a measure to help the process.
  I particularly welcome the Bill's proposals on reforming the double jeopardy law. As my hon. Friend the Minister will know, apparently, once a person has been tried and acquitted of a serious offence, there can be no retrial unless compelling new evidence comes to light. That is wrong, for reasons that have been clearly enunciated tonight. The consideration of the matter by some of our Oscar-winning colleagues in the legal profession is entirely false, and we must consider it from the victims' point of view.
  I admired the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Stinchcombe), who referred to DNA and other evidence and hit the nail on the head. As time goes on, we shall see developments not just in DNA technology, but across the panoply of the forensic armoury, and we cannot predict where those will end. We must create a framework within which scientific advances enable us to adduce evidence from things that would previously have been discarded, and we must be able to retrieve those things and put them back in use if they might fundamentally alter the outcome of any logical analysis of the evidence that has been gathered.
  That will be difficult to achieve. One could argue on the one hand that the system ought to be based only on information gathered at the time or, on the other, that the great problem is deducing what evidence will be of use in the future, when different analytical techniques begin to emerge. We need a framework that enables us to move forward as the science develops.
  In my capacity as patron of the charity RoadPeace, and chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on justice for road traffic victims, I am delighted to see steady progress being made in relation to crimes on the road—in particular, in relation to focusing on the victims' point of view. Time and again in cases that I have dealt with in that capacity, we discover that issues of intent—for instance, in the case of a drunk who did not intend to go out and kill—result in rather bizarre

  995
  sentences. In a range of areas, logic would produce a solution different from that offered by our current system.
  My plea to the House, and to my hon. Friend the Minister, is that we should review our criminal justice system root and branch and ensure that it is a victims' justice system. The reform is long overdue; the system is much in need of change to ensure that it has the public's confidence and provides the justice that victims deserve. The reforms proposed today will create a justice system that supports and informs victims, respects and protects witnesses and delivers justice on behalf of victims, defendants and the community. That is what the House should be achieving.
  9.09 pm
  Mrs. Claire Curtis-Thomas: Like many who have spoken today, I have no legal qualifications. I speak as chair of the all-party group for abuse investigations, which has been examining procedures employed by the police and other parts of the criminal justice system when investigating historic complex sexual abuse cases. The Home Affairs Select Committee recently—this year—inquired into the conduct of such investigations, and produced its report a few weeks ago. Its recommendations support the concerns of the all-party group, and I hope that the Bill will be developed to enable it to respond positively to those 23 recommendations.
  My comments will be made in the context of my knowledge of the way in which sexual abuse inquiries are conducted in the United Kingdom. I am deeply concerned about the fact that the current criminal justice process has led to the conviction of innocent men, many of whom will die in jail. Thousands of men have been identified as sex offenders in the UK in the last four years. Many are arrested and many are charged. Many cases are dropped. A few men are acquitted, and many are convicted.
  The evidence advanced in such cases consists of the verbal recollection by an individual of events that may have taken place up to 50 years earlier. The accusers are normally convicted criminals who are in prison, on remand or on parole. Witnesses who may be prisoners are interviewed, in prison or at home, many times while the police try to obtain a statement that will pass muster as far as the CPS is concerned. I have evidence of men being interviewed 13 times in 10 different prisons.
  Witnesses in such cases may be "worked" by the police for up to five years. Meanwhile, the accused is damned to a never-ending torture, waiting to be called to court—or, in some cases, the investigation is dropped the day before the case is due to go to court. Many witnesses subsequently claim huge amounts in compensation, typically £40,000, and there is a consensus that the availability for compensation corrupts the integrity of the process and the police inquiries.
  While I welcome the changes in the regulations relating to the management of suspects, I am deeply concerned about the absence of a comparable system for the management of witnesses, particularly vulnerable witnesses such as prisoners who have a unique
  996
  relationship with the police. They may well comply with the desires of the police, but to gain personal advantage rather than to ensure a just outcome. The case of the Birmingham six led to the establishment of protocols for the management of physical evidence. I want comparable arrangements for oral evidence, when merely the recollections of individuals can cause men with unblemished characters to be sent to jail for up to 18 years.
  I am acutely aware that the definition of disclosure varies from judge to judge. Any attempt to reduce that variation would be welcomed by all prosecuting and defence solicitors involved in such cases. Many solicitors believe that innocent men have frequently been found guilty because evidence has not been made available to them as it is in other cases.
  As for indictment without a jury, some legal teams representing men who say they are innocent of sexual abuse crimes want such cases, which are very emotive, to be heard by a judge and panel. I understand why that is desirable. All of us who have seen press reports produced before such cases go to court can well imagine the impact that has. However, I think that addressing the inadequacies of police procedures, and also reviewing the discretion of the press, would obviate the need for trial by judge.
  I cannot agree with the proposal concerning double jeopardy. My experience of such cases suggests that although some men are acquitted, the police have formed a view of them. I believe that they will continue to trawl for further witnesses until they get their man. I suppose I could accept double jeopardy in some circumstances, but my confidence in the police has been badly eroded.
  As for evidence of bad character, a witness's bad character is a positive benefit, as the prosecution normally asserts that the witness has a bad character because of the abuse that he or she has suffered. I cannot comment on the validity of such statements, but I believe there is a strong argument for allowing the defence to determine the validity of witnesses, many of whom have serious mental health problems or convictions for perjury. Indeed, this proposal has been considered by the Attorney-General following the collapse of the Damilola case. I hope that it can be considered again during this Bill's passage. Bringing into court a victim who is not fit to give evidence is an abuse of the victim.
  I want three further matters to be considered in the Bill. I want full declaration of intent with regard to the claiming of compensation, and a complete ban on payments to witnesses. Compensation in any payment form invariably corrupts the outcome of a case. I want anonymity for people who are accused of sex abuse crimes. Hundreds of lives have been ruined, and even where suspects are found innocent, they never recover from the damage caused by these accusations, and their families and children continue to suffer. Lifting anonymity following a conviction would still allow the victims to advance complaints.
  Most importantly, I want the terms of reference of the Criminal Cases Review Commission to be changed, so that it is able to consider cases that it currently cannot. At the moment, the CCRC's terms of reference allow it to refer cases back to the Court of Appeal only if a

  997
  technical error has been committed during the conduct of a case, or if new evidence has been advanced. However, there is never new evidence in such cases, and technical failure is very difficult to establish. The CCRC's terms of reference should therefore be extended to enable cases to be referred on the basis that there has been a miscarriage of justice. Unless this change is introduced, many men currently in prison who are believed to be innocent will die there.
  9.16 pm
  Mr. Graham Allen: I begin by placing on the record my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Murphy), and to his opposite number, the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan), whose astute management of business allowed every Member who wanted to speak to get in. That success is a tribute to their skills. I also hope that the Procedure Committee will revisit the question of putting the list of speakers on the back of the Speaker's Chair, so that colleagues do not have to endure the agony of not knowing whether they are going to be able to speak. However, that issue is for another day.
  At times, today's debate reminded me of going to a soccer match, reading the report the next day and wondering whether one actually attended the match. I thought that I was here to discuss the Criminal Justice Bill, but I discovered that it had already been commandeered by some of the usual suspects, the rounding up of whom we have talked about in another context. Perhaps they could be described as the civil liberties lobby. Some of them are born again Conservative civil libertarians, which is wonderful to see. The lawyerly representatives of producer interests were out in force, along with those who are rightly preoccupied with some of the vital, if esoteric, issues of high legality: double jeopardy, hearsay, previous convictions, and so on.
  I want to try to retrieve this Bill, and to return it to some of its original purposes and perspectives. For the great majority of my constituents, such high drama is meaningless. Instead, they have to cope with the daily dramas caused by lesser offences and antisocial behaviour—activities that rarely, if ever, go before a jury, and which still less elicit stirring defences of ancient liberties. Nevertheless, such activities degrade and impoverish the ordinary life of the community. The civic liberty of those ordinary people has long been lost, but their condition goes unremarked by a legal elite that has robbed them of their law, just as certainly as—I am afraid—we have occasionally distanced them from our representative democracy. They will judge this Bill by its determination and ability to reduce vandalism, graffiti, shoplifting and domestic theft, the stealing and abandoning of cars, and street brawls. They want this Bill to reduce the ugly, un-neighbourly behaviour that they see and hear around them: litter, noise, foul language, and alcohol and other drug excesses. They want this Bill to provide faster and more efficient justice. They want to be assured that the same small core of repeat offenders will not be left endlessly at large in the community, unpunished and unreformed. They want the Bill to ensure that witnesses are not intimidated and that trials are not delayed by bureaucracy and procedural trickery sometimes masquerading as civil
  998
  liberty. They want the Bill to provide clear and consistent sentencing, not because they are vindictive but simply because they want to have the confidence that the criminal justice system is working for them.
  The law—our law—must be repatriated to those people. It must address the reality of their lives. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary should make no apology for that. We all know him to be an honourable and affable man, but he should not back down easily on some of the proposals in the Bill. We do not want a repeat of what happened with the mode of trial proposals, with people able to pick and choose their preferred type of trial. That does not go down well on some of the estates in Nottingham, North. Neither do we want the Home Secretary to back down in the way that happened when chief constables were able to decide which Government policies they would like to implement and which they preferred to put on one side.
  I am afraid that that pick-and-mix legality has no place in tackling some serious problems that do not involve esoteric, philosophical musings about civil liberties. The problems about which I am concerned are to do with the liberties of my constituents on my estates. Their concerns need to be addressed, and the House should not follow its tendency to go in for lawyerly debate and discussion. That leaves most people cold, and deeply dissatisfied with a criminal justice system that does not deliver for them.
  Not only must justice be seen to be done, it must be understood to be done. Those are the tests of the Bill proposed by constituents in my relatively tough area of Nottingham, North. I hope that they will get new hope from the Bill. They will welcome the promise, in the forthcoming courts Bill, of better support and protection for victims and witnesses. They will welcome the commitment in this Bill to greater clarity and certainty in sentencing. The Government cannot do too much to make sentencers explain exactly what a sentence means and to correct the widespread perception that a prisoner released to serve the second half of a sentence in the community is, in effect, getting out early.
  When we reach the portion of the Bill devoted to sentencing, I hope that the Government will make sentencers distinguish clearly between a sentence's different purposes, and ascribe an element of a sentence to each purpose. For instance, they would have to say that so much of a sentence was for punishment, so much for deterrence, and so much for restitution or rehabilitation. With long sentences, I hope that the Government will consider allowing sentencers to set educational targets as part of the rehabilitation element.
  Although it is welcome, in isolation the Bill cannot solve the problem of offending behaviour, in my constituency or anywhere else. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary recognises that, and is carrying through the approach set out in the White Paper, which dwelt on the importance of the multiagency and interdepartmental approach. I am pleased that my right hon. Friend has decided not only to look at the criminal justice system in its entirety, but to strengthen its relationship with other agencies that aim to reduce offending in the community.
  That can be seen most obviously in the proposals for drug-related offending and for the supervision of dangerous offenders in the community. However, as has

  999
  been noted by hon. Members of all parties, just as important are the sure start schemes that work with children under five years of age, and the vigilance of health workers, health visitors and primary school teachers, who must institute early remedial action.
  It is a tragic waste that agencies and professional experts so often come together only after someone has offended. Society must be prepared to intervene earlier. Again, that will cause some screams from civil libertarians, but we must look at the possibility of intervening earlier, with the fullest possible professional assessment and support, before a crime or tragedy happens. The cost of delay—to the individual involved, the child, the growing human being and, above all, the wider society—is incalculable.
  My right hon. Friend will know how much the success of the Bill depends on issues that are outside it. The impact of Government economic success, not least in creating jobs for young people, has been one of our foremost crime prevention measures. The need to be clear about the role of the police and the deployment of record numbers of officers is irrelevant if they are not on our streets and seen to be doing their job. The Home Secretary needs to reconsider how we get chief constables to operate under their operational responsibilities in a way that reflects the collective desire of the House to see community policing work.
  I am delighted to see in his place my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, who has responsibility for drugs. Another part of a co-ordinated approach has to be a national education policy for drugs education. It cannot be left to chance or to isolated and sporadic if well meaning efforts, but must be co-ordinated nationally. We will stand condemned if, by the end of our second term in office, we do not have a national roll-out of a drugs education policy. I look forward to my hon. Friend's statement later this week.
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will know from his experience in education that a major element in preventing offending is to engage local communities in education—not only children but people of every age. It does not simply mean cracking down on truanting, although that it important, but giving the whole community the belief that education is the pathway to ambition and personal prosperity. Unfortunately, for reasons that no one has analysed, young people in my constituency do not have that belief. My constituency sends fewer youngsters to university than any other in the UK. We are looking at that, and I ask my right hon. Friend to keep that interest in education because of its connection with reducing offending.
  This is a long and ambitious Bill. Certain parts of it are destined to be failures; indeed, we have had failures in all previous efforts made to reform the criminal justice system. It follows a series of Bills that have attempted to address these problems. Once again, a failing of our institution in tackling crime is to ignore the front-line professionals and the public who could help us with some of the answers. That is why I am sorry that the Government did not submit the Bill to pre-legislative scrutiny. None the less, I pay tribute to the brief and brave effort of the Home Affairs Committee to give us
  1000
  some background on the Bill. However, I am afraid that that is not as adequate as having proper online scrutiny which would have produced a better Bill.
  The Government and the House would have been enriched by ideas and comments from the front line—people in neighbourhood watches, front-line staff in the police, probation and court services, victims and witnesses. We could have put right straight away areas of practice that will need further legislation, rather than struggling in Committee in our ritualised way.
  We have denied the public the understanding and ownership of these much needed measures. Instead of being the culmination of a national debate, these necessary and welcome measures feel hasty and imposed and will need to be revisited. I hope very much that the Government will learn this lesson and that any future Bills of this nature that are amenable to genuine public consultation will be consulted on early, so that when we come to our formal processes, we will make better law. I commend the Bill and hope that it finds safe passage through the House.
  9.29 pm
  Mr. Dominic Grieve: First, I have to declare an interest as a barrister. However, speaking for myself, this has been the most interesting Second Reading debate that I have ever attended in the Chamber because of the sheer diversity of views. I am sure that one of the reasons for that was the way in which the Home Secretary set the tone for the debate in presenting the Bill. The contributions that I heard were all illuminating and suggest that a great deal will be able to be done in Committee, a point that I will return to later.
  The hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) set a tone that was slightly different from that of other contributors, as he admitted himself. His speech provides a good starting point. He said, rightly, that he hoped for great things from the Bill but accepted that many connected provisions, which would ensure its success, had not been included.
  The hon. Gentleman is right. We are legislating on only one aspect of the criminal justice system. Many of the concerns that he raised, which I have no difficulty in sharing—especially as regards the anxieties of his constituents—cannot be solved by the Bill because it relates only to that percentage of those who commit offences who are arrested and brought before the courts. The vast majority are not.
  A point that the hon. Gentleman may want to bear in mind is that as all human systems are fallible, we have to accept that, however well-intentioned we are, many of the sentences or ideas that we come up with often do not work. Only a few days ago, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Hilary Benn), in answer to a letter from my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins), explained how drug treatment and testing orders were working.

  We discover that between October 2000 and 30 September 2002, 9,042 orders were made, but it is accepted that in just one six-month period during that time, 2,175 breach proceedings were instigated, and that only 902 cases resulted in termination of the order for failure to comply. If that is extrapolated over the two-

  1001
  year period, it suggests that those extremely well-intentioned provisions are not working. We need to bear that in mind when considering how to reassure the public.
  I hope that I shall be able to do justice to some of the many contributions to the debate.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Bob Ainsworth): May I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that his assessment of the nature of addiction and of how it can be dealt with under DTTOs needs a little more analysis?
  Mr. Grieve: I did not cite those figures as a criticism; I know that the Government were well intentioned when they introduced the orders. However, the letter gives cause for concern as to whether the system, which was designed to ensure that offenders were kept off drugs by regular treatment and testing, is working. It rather suggests—[Interruption.] I do not want to get into a dispute with the Minister. We cannot get away from the fact that the figures suggest the contrary—that a good idea has not worked.
  The hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) expressed serious concerns, especially on previous convictions. I hope that the Government will bear those points in mind. I shall try to return to them later.
  The hon. and learned Member for Dudley, North (Ross Cranston) made an interesting speech, one of the few that was broadly supportive of the entirety of the Government's position. Two points arose from what he said in what was a civil lawyer's speech. What shone through it was the belief that criminal cases can be solved on the balance of probabilities by throwing everything into the pot and expecting that elusive commodity called the truth to emerge. A similar belief underpinned comments made to me by Lord Falconer. However, I do not think that the court system can ever be like that.
  On the contrary, we all seek the truth. Doubtless we shall find it on the great day of judgment, but until then we should be very wary of running around in search of the truth and, in the process, blinding ourselves to the fact that it may be more sensible not to do that but to ensure—as our criminal justice system does—that in any given case we are sure of a person's guilt before we convict him. The hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) made that point with great force.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) made a most powerful speech. I hope that her comments, taken with those of my hon. Friends the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) and for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner), will highlight the fact that it is possible to believe that one should be tough on crime while not wishing to see injustice perpetrated in trying to arrive at that position. That underpins our philosophy. I dare say that it underpins the philosophy of many hon. Members who have contributed this evening, but we cannot get away from that point because a totalitarian system will never deliver justice. It may fill the prisons, but there will be many innocent people in them.
  That point was also well made by the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore). I was interested in his comments about prejudicial
  1002
  hearsay—a very complicated issue on which the Bill will require extremely close scrutiny, although I accept that there may be circumstances in which it is proper to relax the current rules on hearsay.
  I wish to refer to the speech made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley). I very much enjoyed his defence of the jury system, not just because it delivers proper results—it produces as good an assessment of guilt or innocence as we can get—but because it involves the participation of the community in the criminal justice system and underpins our liberties in doing so. It ensures that our system of justice does not pitch the state against the person, but in fact involves a condemnation that comes from those in the community who have heard and assessed the evidence.
  The jury system is an immense advantage in our system of justice, but the hon. and learned Member for Dudley, North seemed to like the French inquisitorial system. Well, I am half French; I know France well. The French newspapers cannot be opened without reading about one scandal after another involving miscarriages of justice brought about by the over-zealousness of inquisitorial magistrates, backed by their extensive powers and, in fact, by the lack of an adequate jury system to safeguard defendants. I would not wish this country to follow that example.
  The hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) made some very important comments on restorative justice. Of course much of that is outside the scope of the Bill, which highlights our great need to address the issues that go to the root of crime, rather than simply being obsessed with procedure or easy fixes.
  I was also pleased with the comments on jury trial made by the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney), but I was not persuaded by his views on jury tampering. Where are the cases? Where is the evidence of the cases that relate to jury tampering? I have not yet come across them to determine the extent of the problem.
  The hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) made a speech calling for caution, which I welcome in relation to the Government's proposals. I was interested in the robust speech made by the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Singh), and I fully accept that crime has become a major problem for our constituents irrespective of whether they live in middle-class areas or inner cities. I assure him that when I open a speech on crime to my constituents or any new audience, I simply highlight the fact that the view that crime has risen exponentially and is a real problem is not some derangement. [Interruption.] The Home Secretary has just arrived back in the Chamber, so perhaps he will finish hearing what I have to say.
  In the 1940s, there were 600 robberies per annum; there are now 95,000. There were 55,000 burglaries per annum; there are now more than 800,000. At one stage, the figure peaked at 1.3 million. That is an exponential rise, especially as the population of this country has risen only by about 14 million in that period. Those comments have as much relevance and application to Conservative Governments as to Labour Governments, but they should remind us to be very wary of quick fixes.
  I should mention my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), who called for local justice. I did not have a chance to intervene in

  1003
  the speech made by the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Stinchcombe), but he will find that I will have a chance to deal with at least one point that he made in the remarks that follow.
  Let me turn to the main issues in the Bill. First, there are some good things. I am delighted with part 6 and the speeding up of procedure. I agree that there are vested interests that stand in the way of that, and I have no truck with them whatever. At least one of those vested interests, however, in my experience as a barrister, is the judiciary. We cannot avoid the fact that some of the delays in the criminal justice system are due to professional judges. I have had direct experience of that, and we must tackle that as well as the activities of lawyers.
  I am also pleased about the sentencing provisions, although I would hope for some reassurance from the Minister. Sentencing plus and sentencing minus are key reforms. I had always understood that they would accompany the raising of the magistrates' sentencing powers. If it is suggested that magistrates' sentencing powers are to be raised without sentencing plus and sentencing minus being introduced at the same time, however, I fear that we will see a massive increase in the prison population, and that the system will not be in place to deal with it in the manner that was envisaged in the Halliday report.
  Simon Hughes: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, linked to those two things, which I agree must go together, must be the resources—almost as soon as the Bill becomes law—so that custody plus and custody minus can be implemented? A resource implementation of five or 10 years hence is clearly ludicrous if magistrates courts are to have real alternatives to custody.
  Mr. Grieve: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is right. I cannot see how this centrepiece of the Bill, which is in many ways its key part, will work if there is a dysfunctional system in which the parts have not been brought together.
  Much has been said about jury trial, but I want to make one or two further remarks. The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) in an intervention seemed to be right. I do not understand the criticism of jury trial and the reason why we are to get rid of it, as it seems that the Government have answered their own question in the Bill. It sets out to suggest that people may opt for trial by judge alone as an alternative that the state sees as identical in quality to jury trial, yet it puts in caveats to deny it to certain categories of individual to provide public reassurance. If the Minister thinks carefully about that issue, he should incline to the view that the jury trial proposals should be dropped.
  Similarly, it was suggested that long trials would be a problem for jurors. It was also suggested, which surprised me, that we should be concerned if trials were broken up. My experience as a barrister is that the best service that judges ever do in trials is to order the severance of indictments. Far from leading to bad justice, that means that issues are discussed much faster,
  1004
  and if, at the end of the first trial, someone is found not guilty, the prosecution tends to think long and hard before proceeding with the second, and if it does not succeed on the second, it thinks long and hard before proceeding with the third. That is a great cost saving, and if the defendant is convicted on the first, he is sometimes willing to plead guilty to the indictments on the second. I therefore do not accept that argument.
  Mr. Allen: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that some of the esoteric legal games about which he is talking are the very things that drive witnesses away from participating in the process? The longer the delays, and the more options that are available, the easier it is for defendants to get at witnesses. That is not only prevalent in gangland cases but in the case of abandoned cars, antisocial behaviour—indeed, right across the board.
  Mr. Grieve: I appreciate the strength of the hon. Gentleman's feelings, and we can certainly look at the matter carefully in Committee, but he has not understood my point. I disagree with him entirely that severance of indictments by judges to have short trials on discrete issues leads to any of the mischief with which he is concerned.
  Further detail and careful consideration are needed on the rules on hearsay. In relation to double jeopardy, we have centred on scientific evidence and the question of DNA. A meeting that I had with DNA experts only yesterday, however, suggests that it may be of much less use than we think, because the conditions in which scientific samples were collected in the 1960s and 1970s properly raise issues of contamination that may make subsequent DNA analysis worthless. We should be wary of getting carried away with the idea that there is a quick fix. However, I accept that double jeopardy should be examined carefully.
  I shall wind up my remarks to give the Minister a chance to reply, but I make a final point. We have had a good debate. If the Home Secretary's words are true, I am confident that, in Committee and subsequent stages, the Bill can be improved and turned into a worthwhile monument of the House's endeavour. However, I make a simple plea. It is all too easy to trivialise the issues and to play to the gallery. The Prime Minister's remarks at Question Time today did not encourage me in the view that the measured approach that we have adopted today will survive if there is genuine debate when matters are raised that are contrary to what the Government are trying to achieve. There are good things in the Bill, and we can make a positive impact. However, if we get carried away with rhetoric, we will fail the country and the criminal justice system.
  9.45 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Hilary Benn): I begin by declaring an interest: I am not a lawyer. However, I agree entirely with a lawyer, the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), when he described this as an excellent and considered debate. I will do my best in the time available to respond to as many points as possible. Where that is not possible, I shall write to hon. Members.
  Although this a complex and lengthy Bill that will keep us occupied for many happy and occasionally disputatious hours in Committee, it is important to keep

  1005
  in sight the purpose of these green pages. The purpose was set out clearly by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in his measured opening speech, and by the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) when he said at column 289 on 17 July 2002, "The system needs reform." I agree. That is what the Bill seeks to do. It seeks reform to make the criminal justice system work more effectively in the search for truth.
  Dr. Desmond Turner: There is one problem that the Bill does not currently address. More than 200 children under two are either killed or seriously injured every year in their homes, and only about a quarter of those cases result in prosecution of any kind. Can my hon. Friend assure me that that point will at least be considered in Committee?
  Hilary Benn: I am happy to assure my hon. Friend that we will consider that point although, currently, it is not directly covered by the Bill.
  The reform is about trying to increase confidence in the system and about developing and making available a range of sentences, including effective community penalties. It seeks to do all this in a way that upholds the fundamental principles of presumption of innocence and the prosecution having to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
  The right hon. Member for West Dorset conjured up a vision of the queue before the custody sergeant. It is an issue with which we should be concerned but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Singh) pointed out, clause 3 on street bail will, I hope, shorten that queue. The proposal has been widely welcomed.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee, referred to amendments to the PACE code. We are happy to consider the arrangements for parliamentary approval and guidance for time limits on custodial bail.
  I say to the hon. Members for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) and for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) and to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dudley, North (Ross Cranston) that I welcome very much their welcome for the new sentencing structure—custody minus and custody plus. We have to ensure that it is properly resourced. I also welcome the theme that has run through a number of speeches on the importance of rehabilitation.
  The hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) asked about Northern Ireland, and whether some of the provisions will be extended there For example, those on disclosure, double jeopardy and prosecution appeals will be extended there and others could be so extended if my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland wishes. A review of sentencing is currently going on in Northern Ireland, and I agree very much with the points the hon. Lady made about the importance of restorative justice.
  The Bill will in part help to tackle the issues addressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen). His eloquent words expressed the anger, fear, bewilderment and even sometimes the tears of my constituents who stand before me not understanding what is happening. They cannot cope and cannot understand why they have to live their lives in the way that they do.
  1006
  Three main issues occupied hon. Members. The first was trial by jury. We propose to amend the principle of trial by jury in a very limited number of cases. One or two hon. Members used the phrase "a slippery slope". I think it is more a friction incline. We have changed our mind on mode of trial, a fact acknowledged most eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney). The mode of trial proposals, which we are not proceeding with because we have listened to the arguments, would have removed jury trial from about 20,000 defendants a year. The proposals in this Bill will affect perhaps fewer than a hundred cases a year. The right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) asked, quite reasonably, about the extended sentencing power for magistrates, and mentioned 6,000 fewer jury trials. Notwithstanding that change, defendants will retain the right, if they wish, to opt for jury trial in either-way cases.
  There are only two motivations for the proposed change: one is to protect jury members from the burden of long complex trials, a point acknowledged by the Select Committee in its report today and the second is to protect the integrity of our legal process from those who attempt to subvert it. In the light of some speeches, in particular by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) and the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden, I simply ask the House to consider whether our proposal is a fundamental assault on the principle of jury trial, or are there, as the Select Committee reasonably said in its report, "cogent reasons" and "cogent arguments" for change in two specific sets of circumstances?
  Simon Hughes: Does the Minister accept that there are reasonable arguments, although he might not yet have been persuaded by them, for finding ways in which we enable people to cope with complex fraud cases more easily? Juries could be found and we would not have to cause inconvenience to people who would find a long trial difficult. There are alternative ways to deal with the problem, which do not involve removing jury trial. Will the Government reconsider that?
  Hilary Benn: I am much persuaded by the comments and experiences of judges who have tried to use the system in some of the longest running fraud trials. The Maxwell case has been mentioned. Blue Arrow is another example. Those judges have expressed great frustration about the difficulties of trying to accommodate the wish to include all the evidence and the pressure to separate bits of it so that juries can cope. The Government's fundamental concern relates to the burden on individual jury members and the damage that that does to the principle of representative juries.
  The second issue relates to double jeopardy. The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) asked who came up with the idea of making changes to double jeopardy. The change was recommended by the Law Commission, Lord Justice Auld, the Home Affairs Committee and, dare I say it, the 2001 Conservative party manifesto, not a source of advice that I would usually pray in aid as a guide to policy, but I am happy to make an exception in this case.
  We are worried about miscarriages of justice. That is why the safeguards are in the Bill. However, it is because we are concerned about miscarriages of justice that we

  1007
  want to change the law on double jeopardy. If the purpose of justice is to acquit the innocent and bring the guilty to account—and it is—then why not put compelling new evidence before a jury for the reasons set out passionately by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West? Of course the ultimate safeguard—the real answer to the question of whether such a trial can be fair—is the jury: we must trust the jury.
  Thirdly, I turn to previous convictions and bad conduct. I recognise the fears and genuine concerns expressed about the impact of the proposal. However, anybody who reads what Sir Robin Auld had to say about the issue, particularly about his own reluctance in this matter, which he acknowledged in his report, will see that the current system is not clear and does not make sense. The Law Commission said:
  "The present law suffers from a number of defects … they constitute a haphazard mixture of statute and common law rules which produce inconsistent and unpredictable results, in crucial respects distort the trial process, make tactical considerations paramount and inhibit the defence in presenting its true case to the fact-finders".
  In his opening remarks, the right hon. Member for West Dorset expressed surprise that we are proposing to allow the admittance not only of previous convictions but of previous acquittals, and I simply point out that that is already the case. Paragraph 287 of the explanatory memorandum, which refers to the case of Z, says that
  "the House of Lords held that there was no special rule that 'required the exclusion of evidence that a person had been involved in earlier offences, even if they had been acquitted of those crimes, provided that that evidence was otherwise admissible."
  On previous convictions and previous conduct—I think that this is the answer to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Stinchcombe)—the key safeguard is that on application by the defendant under clause 84(3) the judge will have to be satisfied that the probative value of that evidence outweighs its prejudicial effect. In other words, the judge must ask whether admitting the evidence would adversely affect the fairness of the proceedings. If so, it would not be admitted. Again, the ultimate safeguard remains—the jury. We should trust the jury to weigh the evidence in those cases.
  Mr. Grieve: I am mindful of the comments made by the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) who said that he did not think that the rules would change very much. Yet the way in which the Government have gone on about them, particularly to the media, suggests that they make a fundamental change in procedure by allowing juries to know about previous convictions. It has to be one or the other. I think that the Bill will allow serious changes to take place unless, of course, judges, in their discretion, simply make sure that those changes are mitigated, and that is not what I understood the Minister to be trying to achieve.
  Hilary Benn: The Bill aims to achieve much greater clarity and consistency in the way in which that evidence is admitted, but that process is subject to what must, in light of the concerns that have been expressed, be the ultimate safeguard—the judge making a judgment.
  1008
  Another reason why the debate has been so good is that we have clarified the fundamental arguments and I look forward to those being taken forward in Committee. However, I hope that the House will recognise that this is not an argument with the legal profession; it is not about undermining fundamental principles and it is not about tilting the scales of justice against the accused. I do not believe that treating victims better means treating defendants any less fairly.
  This is about the 30,000 trials a year that never take place because witnesses are intimidated or are too frightened to turn up. It is about processes leading to better-prepared cases and swifter hearings. It is about putting relevant evidence before the court so that it can judge the facts and discover the truth. It is about better protection for our constituents from dangerous offenders. It is about new community sentences that will help to rehabilitate. It is about looking, for the first time, at the effectiveness of sentences in preventing reoffending. It is ultimately about trying to rebuild confidence in the criminal justice system. Those sound to me like pretty good principles. In the end, this is about changes that I hope will make a difference to the lives of the people that we represent because we are seeking to reform the system, and for that reason I commend the Bill to the House.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 303, Noes 67.

  Division No. 19]

  [9:59 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Allen, Graham

  Caplin, Ivor

  Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

  Caton, Martin

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

  Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

  Challen, Cohn

  Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Chaytor, David

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Clapham, Michael

  Bailey, Adrian

  Clark, hon. Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Baird, Vera

  Barron, rh Kevin

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Battle, John

  Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

  Beard, Nigel

  Beckett, rh Margaret

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Clelland, David

  Benn, Hilary

  Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

  Bennett, Andrew

  Coaker, Vernon

  Benton, Joe (Bootle)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Berry, Roger

  Cohen, Harry

  Betts, Clive

  Coleman, Iain

  Blackman, Liz

  Colman, Tony

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Blizzard, Bob

  Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

  Blunkett, rh David

  Cousins, Jim

  Boateng, rh Paul

  Cranston, hon. Ross

  Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

  Crausby, David

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Cruddas, Jon

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

  Cummings, John

  Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack (Copeland)

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Bryant, Chris

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Burden, Richard

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Burgon, Cohn

  Darling, rh Alistair

  Byers, rh Stephen

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Davidson, Ian

  1009

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Jowell, rh Tessa

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

  Denham, rh John

  Kaufman, rh Gerald

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Keen, Alan (Feltham)

  Dobson, rh Frank

  Keen, Ann (Brentford)

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Kelly, Ruth (Bolton W)

  Doran, Frank

  Kemp, Fraser

  Drew, David (Stroud)

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Kidney, David

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  King, Andy (Rugby)

  Edwards, Huw

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Efford, Clive

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Flint, Caroline

  Lepper, David

  Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

  Leslie, Christopher

  Follett, Barbara

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

  Foster, rh Derek

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

  Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

  Linton, Martin

  Francis, Dr. Hywel

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Galloway, George

  Love, Andrew

  Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

  Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

  Gibson, Dr. Ian

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Gilroy, Linda

  McCabe, Stephen

  Godsiff, Roger

  McCartney, rh Ian

  Goggins, Paul

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  MacDonald, Calum

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  MacDougall, John

  Grogan, John

  McFall, John

  Hain, rh Peter

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  McKechin, Ann

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Hanson, David

  McNulty, Tony

  Harman, rh Ms Harriet

  MacShane, Denis

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

  McWalter, Tony

  McWilliam, John

  Healey, John

  Mallaber, Judy

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Heppell, John

  Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

  Hesford, Stephen

  Heyes, David

  Martlew, Eric

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Meacher, rh Michael

  Hodge, Margaret

  Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

  Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

  Merron, Gillian

  Hoon, rh Geoffrey

  Michael, rh Alun

  Hope, Phil (Corby)

  Miller, Andrew

  Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Mole, Chris

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Moonie, Dr. Lewis

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Morgan, Julie

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Morley, Elliot

  Hutton, rh John

  Mountford, Kali

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Mudie, George

  Illsley, Eric

  Mullin, Chris

  Ingram, rh Adam

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Jamieson, David

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Jenkins, Brian

  Olner, Bill

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Palmer, Dr. Nick

  1010

  Perham, Linda

  Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

  Picking, Anne

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Pickthall, Colin

  Stevenson, George

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

  Plaskitt, James

  Pollard, Kerry

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

  Stoate, Dr. Howard

  Pound, Stephen

  Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Stringer, Graham

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Tami, Mark (Alyn)

  Prescott, rh John

  Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

  Primarolo, rh Dawn

  Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Purchase, Ken

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Quin, rh Joyce

  Tipping, Paddy

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

  Rammell, Bill

  Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  Trickett, Jon

  Raynsford, rh Nick

  Truswell, Paul

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Rooney, Terry

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Ward Claire

  Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

  Watson Tom (W Bromwich E)

  Ruane, Chris

  Watts, David

  Ruddock, Joan

  White, Brian

  Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Salter, Martin

  Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Sawford, Phil

  Wilson, Brian

  Sheerman, Barry

  Winnick, David

  Sheridan, Jim

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

  Singh, Marsha

  Worthington, Tony

  Skinner, Dennis

  Wray, James (Glasgow Baillieston)

  Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

  Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

  Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Spellar, rh John

  Joan Ryan and

  Squire, Rachel

  Mr. Phil Woolas

  NOES

  Allan, Richard

  Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

  Baker, Norman

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Baldry, Tony

  Hancock, Mike

  Barrett, John

  Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

  Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

  Beith, rh A. J.

  Heath, David

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Hermon, Lady

  Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

  Hogg, rh Douglas

  Breed, Colin

  Holmes, Paul

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Burnett, John

  Keetch, Paul

  Burnside, David

  Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness)

  Burstow, Paul

  Cable, Dr. Vincent

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Lamb, Norman

  Cotter, Brian

  Laws, David (Yeovil)

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Lilley, rh Peter

  Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Dodds, Nigel

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury & Atcham)

  Doughty, Sue

  Ewing, Annabelle

  Moore, Michael

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

  George, Andrew (St. Ives)

  Öpik, Lembit

  1011

  Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

  Thurso, John

  Tonge, Dr. Jenny

  Pugh, Dr. John

  Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

  Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

  Webb, Steve (Northavon)

  Rendel, David

  Weir, Michael

  Robertson, Angus (Moray)

  Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

  Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Willis, Phil

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Wishart, Pete

  Sanders, Adrian

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

  Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Mr. Andrew Stunell and

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Sir Robert Smith

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time.

  Criminal Justice Bill

    CRIMINAL JUSTICE BILL (PROGRAMME)
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Orders [28 June 2001 and 29 October 2002],
    That the following provisions shall apply to the Criminal Justice Bill:

    CRIMINAL JUSTICE BILL (PROGRAMME)
      Committal
      (1) The Bill shall be committed to a Standing Committee.

      Proceedings in Standing Committee.
      (2) Proceedings in the Standing Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on 27th February 2003.
      (3) The Standing Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.

      Consideration and Third Reading
      (4) Proceedings on consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
      (5) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on the day on which proceedings on consideration are commenced.
      (6) Sessional Order B (programming committees) made by the House on 28th June 2001 shall not apply to proceedings on consideration and Third Reading.

      Other proceedings
      (7) Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments or any further messages from the Lords) may be programmed.—[Keith Hill.]
      The House divided: Ayes 345, Noes 58.

      Division No. 20]

      [10:12 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Allan, Richard

      Beith, rh A. J.

      Allen, Graham

      Benn, Hilary

      Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

      Benton, Joe (Bootle)

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

      Berry, Roger

      Betts, Clive

      Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

      Blackman, Liz

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Blizzard, Bob

      Bailey, Adrian

      Blunkett, rh David

      Baird, Vera

      Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

      Baker, Norman

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Barrett, John

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Barron, rh Kevin

      Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

      Battle, John

      Breed, Colin

      Bayley, Hugh

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

      Beard, Nigel

      Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

      Beckett, rh Margaret

      1012

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      Bruce, Malcolm

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

      Bryant, Chris

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Francis, Dr. Hywel

      Burden, Richard

      Galloway, George

      Burgon, Colin

      Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

      Burstow, Paul

      George, Andrew (St. Ives)

      Byers, rh Stephen

      Gerrard, Neil

      Cable, Dr. Vincent

      Gibson, Dr. Ian

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Gilroy, Linda

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Godsiff, Roger

      Caplin, Ivor

      Goggins, Paul

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

      Caton, Martin

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Challen, Colin

      Grogan, John

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Hain, rh Peter

      Chaytor, David

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Clapham, Michael

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Clark, hon. Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Hancock, Mike

      Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

      Hanson, David

      Harman, rh Ms Harriet

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

      Clelland, David

      Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      Coaker, Vernon

      Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Cohen, Harry

      Healey, John

      Coleman, Iain

      Heath, David

      Colman, Tony

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Cotter, Brian

      Heppell, John

      Cousins, Jim

      Hesford, Stephen

      Cranston, hon. Ross

      Heyes, David

      Crausby, David

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Cruddas, Jon

      Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Holmes, Paul

      Cummings, John

      Hoon, rh Geoffrey

      Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack (Copeland)

      Hope, Phil (Corby)

      Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

      Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Darling, rh Alistair

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Davidson, Ian

      Hutton, rh John

      Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

      Iddon, Dr. Brian

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Illsley, Eric

      Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      Ingram, rh Adam

      Dawson, Hilton

      Irranca-Davies, Huw

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

      Denham, rh John

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Dobson, rh Frank

      Jamieson, David

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Jenkins, Brian

      Doran, Frank

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

      Doughty, Sue

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Drew, David (Stroud)

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Jowell, rh Tessa

      Edwards, Huw

      Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

      Efford, Clive

      Kaufman, rh Gerald

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Keen, Alan (Feltham)

      Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

      Keen, Ann (Brentford)

      Fisher, Mark

      Kelly, Ruth (Bolton W)

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Kemp, Fraser

      Flint, Caroline

      Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness)

      Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

      Follett, Barbara

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Foster, rh Derek

      Kidney David

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      1013

      King, Andy (Rugby)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

      Kumar, Dr. Ashok

      Pound, Stephen

      Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Laws, David (Yeovil)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Prescott, rh John

      Lepper, David

      Primarolo, rh Dawn

      Leslie, Christopher

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

      Pugh, Dr. John

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Purchase, Ken

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Quin, rh Joyce

      Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Linton, Martin

      Rammell, Bill

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

      Love, Andrew

      Raynsford, rh Nick

      Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

      Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

      McCabe, Stephen

      McCartney, rh Ian

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Rooney, Terry

      MacDonald, Calum

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      MacDougall, John

      Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

      McFall, John

      Ruane, Chris

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Ruddock, Joan

      McIsaac, Shona

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      McKechin, Ann

      Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

      McKenna, Rosemary

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Salter, Martin

      McNulty, Tony

      Sanders, Adrian

      MacShane, Denis

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Sawford, Phil

      McWalter, Tony

      Sheerman, Barry

      McWilliam, John

      Sheridan, Jim

      Mallaber, Judy

      Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

      Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

      Singh, Marsha

      Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

      Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

      Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Martlew, Eric

      Meacher, rh Michael

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Merron, Gillian

      Spellar, rh John

      Michael, rh Alun

      Squire, Rachel

      Miller, Andrew

      Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Moffatt, Laura

      Stevenson, George

      Mole, Chris

      Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

      Moonie, Dr. Lewis

      Moore, Michael

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Moran, Margaret

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Morgan, Julie

      Stoate, Dr. Howard

      Morley, Elliot

      Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

      Mountford, Kali

      Stringer, Graham

      Mullin, Chris

      Stunell, Andrew

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Tami, Mark (Alyn)

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

      Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

      Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

      Thurso, John

      Olner, Bill

      Tipping, Paddy

      O'Neill, Martin

      Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

      Öpik, Lembit

      Tonge, Dr. Jenny

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

      Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

      Palmer, Dr. Nick

      Trickett, Jon

      Perham, Linda

      Truswell, Paul

      Picking, Anne

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

      Pike, Peter (Burnley)

      Plaskitt, James

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      1014

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Winnick, David

      Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Ward, Claire

      Worthington, Tony

      Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

      Wray, James (Glasgow Baillieston)

      Watts, David

      Webb, Steve (Northavon)

      Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

      White, Brian

      Whitehead, Dr. Alan

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Wyatt, Derek

      Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

      Younger-Ross, Richard

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Williams, Roger (Brecon)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Willis, Phil

      Joan Ryan and

      Wilson, Brian

      Mr. Phil Woolas

      NOES

      Baldry, Tony

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Barker, Gregory

      Maclean, rh David

      Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

      Malins, Humfrey

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Murrison, Dr. Andrew

      Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

      Page, Richard

      Pickles, Eric

      Burnside, David

      Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

      Cash, William

      Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

      Robertson, Angus (Moray)

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Dodds, Nigel

      Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

      Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Ewing, Annabelle

      Rosindell, Andrew

      Fallon, Michael

      Ruffley, David

      Forth, rh Eric

      Selous, Andrew

      Francois, Mark

      Simmonds, Mark

      Garnier, hon. Edward

      Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

      Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

      Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

      Stanley, rh Sir John

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Swayne, Desmond

      Gray, James (N Wilts)

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Grieve, Dominic

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Gummer, rh John

      Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      Hawkins, Nick

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Hermon, Lady

      Weir, Michael

      Hogg, rh Douglas

      Whittingdale, John

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

      Lansley, Andrew

      Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

      Letwin, rh Oliver

      Wishart, Pete

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Lidington, David

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Mr. David Wilshire and

      Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

      Angela Watkinson

      Question accordingly agreed to.

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

    (1) any expenditure incurred by a Minister of the Crown by virtue of the Act, and

    (2) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums which by virtue of any other Act are payable out of money provided by Parliament.—[Mr. Sutcliffe.]

    Question agreed to.

    ESTIMATES, 2001–02
    Ordered,
    That a Bill be brought in upon the resolutions agreed earlier this day: And that the Chairman of Ways and Means, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Paul Boateng, Dawn Primarolo, Ruth Kelly and John Healey do prepare and bring it in.

    ESTIMATES, 2001–02
      CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL
      Ruth Kelly accordingly presented a Bill to modify limits on non-operating appropriations in aid set for the year that ended on 31st March 2002: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed [Bill 11].
    DELEGATED LEGISLATION
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
    DELEGATED LEGISLATION

      NORTHERN IRELAND
      That the draft Environment (Northern Ireland) Order 2002, which was laid before this House on 25th 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),

      POLICE
      That the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Codes of Practice) (Statutory Powers of Stop and Search) Order 2002, dated 11th November, a copy of which was laid before this House on 13th 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),

      INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
      That the draft International Development Association (Thirteenth Replenishment) Order 2002, which was laid before this House on 20th November, be approved.—[Mr. Sutcliffe.]
      Question agreed to.

      MODERNISATION OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS
      Ordered,
      That Mr. John Taylor be discharged from the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons and Mr. Andrew Mitchell be added.—[Mr. Sutcliffe.]
      Question agreed to.

  PETITION

    Food Supplements
    10.28 pm
    Mr. Paul Truswell: I wish to present a petition from my constituent Mr. C. Foster, signed by 340 of my constituents and others supporting the campaign for choice in natural health products. I understand that the petition forms a small part of a national petition that has so far collected nearly 1.1 million signatures. It reads as follows.
    "The Petition of Consumers for Health Choice and its supporters declares that consumers in the United Kingdom have for many years maintained good health by choosing to take safe vitamin and mineral supplements and herbal remedies; and fears that the European Food Supplements Directive and the proposed European Directive on Traditional Medicinal Products would severely restrict the number and range of such products on general retail sale in the future.
    The petitions therefore request that the House of Commons requires that the Secretary of State for Health does all in his power to protect the rights of UK consumers by ensuring that such European legislation does not unnecessarily and unacceptably restrict the availability of natural health products.
    And the petitioners remain, etc.
    To lie upon the Table.

  Tenancy deposit schemes
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Sutcliffe.]
  10.30 pm
  Mrs. Anne Campbell: I am very grateful to be given the opportunity to discuss the topic of tenancy deposit schemes, because it is of great relevance to many of my constituents in Cambridge.
  The idea of securing an Adjournment debate on this topic arose as a result of my visiting Anglia polytechnic university to hold one of my regular student advice surgeries. While I was there, I spoke to Emma Gray, the education and welfare officer at the student union. She told me that unreturned deposits are a major worry for many of the students that she sees.
  There are more than 8,000 registered APU students on the Cambridge campus alone. The university has only 836 bed spaces under its direct control—in its halls of residence, or in the shared housing that it manages—so nine out of 10 students at APU are living in accommodation in the private rented sector. Although unreturned deposits are a major problem for APU students, they are much less of a problem for Cambridge university students who, for the most part, are accommodated in colleges, or in houses owned or rented by the colleges.
  The APU accommodation office has 650 landlords on its books, with whom there is an agreement to advertise accommodation within the campus, and to try to resolve any problems. APU students would expect to pay about £80 a week for a bed-sit or a room in a shared house. A standard deposit is about four times this amount: £320 per student. A shared house with four or five students will therefore collect a deposit of between £1,200 and £1,600—a sizeable sum. This money is usually very important to the students, because they may be relying on the return of their deposits to secure a deposit on the next rented accommodation.
  Another problem is that APU has a very high proportion of students from abroad—international students, as they are known. At the end of their studies, such students are usually keen to get back home as quickly as possible. They do not want to hang around to argue with their landlord about the return of their deposits. Many landlords therefore enjoy a windfall at the end of the tenancy, and there is a greater chance of that happening if they delay handing back the deposit.
  I would readily agree with those critics who say that an 18-year-old student living away from home for the first time may not be the ideal tenant, but many young people are responsible and will look after their accommodation well. I think it true that most tenants will respect the property, particularly if they have clear contracts that make specific mention of the standards of cleanliness expected on relinquishing their tenancy. However, the current system is weighted in favour of the landlord, and the non-return of deposits for no good reason is a problem to which the student or other tenant appears to have little redress.
  The most common reason given for keeping all or part of a deposit is for cleaning after students have vacated the premises. I was told of one student who, although he had repainted his room in the original
  1018
  colour, was charged for its being painted again. The student was of course outraged; he felt that that was a way for the landlord to make any claim that he liked, without providing proof that the work actually took place, or that it cost the amount specified. On being asked to produce invoices from the cleaning contractors, the landlord was unable to do so.
  An international student had part of her deposit kept back. The landlord had provided what the student felt was a magic number for the cost of cleaning that took place after the student had left the premises. In fact, the landlord listed all the cleaning that had taken the place, and how much it cost. When the student returned to visit the premises, she found that the landlord had done none of the cleaning or repair of fixtures that he said he had done, and for which she had paid.
  Such complaints are very common. My local citizens advice bureau receives an average of five complaints a week about non-returned deposits. Because of the high proportion of students in my constituency, the complaints tend to be clustered around the beginnings and ends of terms, when students change their accommodation. Those figures suggest the scale of the problem in Cambridge, but about 20 per cent. of tenants nationally have the same problem with deposits that are not returned for reasons that they do not consider to be completely fair.
  It is important to note that many reputable landlords run a professional and fair service in providing accommodation. One landlord was especially commended by my local CAB for putting deposits in a separate account and paying them back, with interest, on the day that tenancies ended. The three main professional bodies are the Association of Residential Letting Agents, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and the National Association of Estate Agents. They require members to hold deposit money in a separate client account. I am pleased to say that those bodies also e-mailed me to tell me that they all strongly support the tenancy deposit scheme.
  The tenancy deposit scheme was introduced as a pilot by the Government in 1999. When I applied for this debate, I did not know that the Government were on the point of publishing a consultation paper, but I have since found it extremely useful. It is called "Tenancy Money: Probity and Protection" and from it I learned that two schemes have been piloted.
  The first option is the custodial option, which requires landlords or agents acting on their behalf to place a tenancy deposit in a ring-fenced account operated by the Nationwide building society. When disputes occur, the independent housing ombudsman promptly decides who is entitled to what proportion, and instructs Nationwide to pay each party accordingly.
  The second option is the insured option, which enables landlords or agents to hold the deposit during the tenancy if they take out an insurance policy with an accredited insurance company. In the pilot scheme, that company was the CGU guarantee society. In a dispute, if the independent housing ombudsman determines that some or all of the deposit should be returned to the tenant, the scheme insurers are instructed to arrange speedy payment. The insurers then ask the landlord or agent to reimburse that sum within 10 working days. Both schemes seem very good, and there has been much satisfaction with their operation.

  1019
  The Government so far have spent £490,000 on the pilot schemes, and a further £300,000 has been allocated to extend them for a further two years. The tenancy deposit scheme has been quite expensive for the landlord and agents who have participated. Although the target was to attract 1,500 landlords and agents covering 30,000 tenancies, only 102 landlords and 74 agents had joined the tenancy deposit scheme by June 2002.
  I am sure that that has nothing to do with the quality of the scheme or the way in which it has been handled by the independent housing ombudsman. All the arrangements appear to have been made very satisfactorily, and the schemes have been greeted with a high degree of satisfaction from participants. However, it is probably not surprising that there has been a lower take-up than anticipated. The good landlords will join and are probably already operating a reasonable and fair system. Of the 650 landlords used by APU's accommodation office, around 250 operate some kind of tenancy deposit scheme. Those who do not join obviously do not like surrendering control of deposits and probably do not see the need for it—they are the landlords with whom students have the most difficulty. In many cases they probably deliberately use the deposits as a source of extra income to which they are not entitled.
  From the students' point of view there is a definite need for this scheme and I hope that Ministers will be brave and bold in moving it forward. I know that many of the professional organisations that advise tenants on their legal rights are disappointed that the Government feel that they have insufficient evidence to press ahead with a mandatory scheme at present. I was pleased to read that the Government are to encourage more landlords and agents to participate in the pilot scheme, but in my view a voluntary scheme will founder. I urge Ministers to come forward with some new legislation in this area. There is an excellent opportunity in that the forthcoming housing Bill would offer a perfect opportunity for a mandatory tenancy deposit scheme to be introduced.
  If the Government were to be sufficiently brave, the Minister would have the undying gratitude of many of the students who attend Anglia polytechnic university and many of the tenants in my constituency.
  10.41 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Tony McNulty): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) on raising this important issue and enabling the House to examine the new consultation paper, "Tenancy Money: Probity and Protection". The Government launched it less than a week ago, so I also congratulate my hon. Friend for her timeliness in getting the issue on the agenda. It is clearly a matter of particular concern, given the number of students in her constituency, but the problem goes way beyond constituencies that have many student tenants—it affects the entire private sector.
  The Government are determined to improve standards in the private rented sector. We see it as part of our plans and policies in terms of the wider housing
  1020
  agenda. A bigger, better private rented sector can help increase choice, flexibility and mobility in housing. Private renting should provide a safe, attractive and cost-effective alternative to owner-occupation or the social rented sector.
  Like my hon. Friend, I recognise that most private landlords are well intentioned and anxious to do a good and responsible job, but we need to encourage all private landlords to value their tenants and maintain their properties to a decent standard. Too often we get letters in our mailbags from constituents who feel, rightly or wrongly, that they have been ripped off by unscrupulous landlords. That is certainly the case in areas with a large student population.
  Tenants are often afraid that their landlord will retain a deposit unreasonably, and there have been a number of high-profile cases of letting agents misappropriating the moneys of their clients, both tenants and landlords. Many tenants respond to the fear of their deposits being withheld by withholding the final month's rent. That may mean landlords being left without a deposit sufficient to cover any arrears or damage that a tenant may leave behind. So this can lead to a far more widespread and damaging lack of trust and confidence between landlord and tenant than the actual numbers of deposits wrongfully withheld. My hon. Friend alluded to the recent survey of English housing data for 2001–02, which reveals that of households that had a private tenancy ending in the previous three years, 20 per cent. said that part or all of their deposit had been unreasonably withheld.
  Today's debate is an important chance to focus on these concerns. They relate to standards of management, especially at the lower end of the sector, and they have to be addressed if private renting is to become more a tenure of choice. The Government are determined to find the right solutions to this complex issue, but it is important that we do so with the full co-operation of landlords and tenants. As my hon. Friend said, for the past couple of years we have supported a pilot voluntary self-financing tenancy deposit scheme operated by the independent housing ombudsman, but, as my hon. Friend also said, it has been only a limited success.
  The scheme initially covered five areas: Brent and Camden in London; Brighton and Hove; Birmingham and the west midlands; Norwich and Norfolk; and Merseyside and west Lancashire. However, as larger groups of landlords and agents joined, coverage was extended beyond those areas.
  Landlords or their agents have been able to join either a custodial scheme or an alternative insured option—as described by my hon. Friend. Both involve the independent adjudication of disputes. A tenancy deposit may be placed in a ring-fenced account operated by a licensed deposit taker or safeguarded by insurance with an accredited company. The processes involved have worked and there has been a small but increasing number of adjudications, handled efficiently by the independent housing ombudsman.
  The pilot tenancy deposit scheme offers a model for safeguarding tenants' deposits. However, the pilot had achieved only one tenth of its target take-up of 30,000 tenancies by last March. That indicates, as my hon. Friend suggested, that if only a minority of the more professional

  1021
  landlords participate, there is little prospect of a national scheme that is voluntary and self-financing. A voluntary scheme will not cover the majority of tenants' deposits, let alone the minority of unprofessional landlords who misappropriate tenants' deposits.
  Earlier this year, my noble Friend Lord Falconer said that more time was needed to assess whether the pilot tenancy deposit scheme could operate as a self-financing scheme. He noted that its slow take-up so far had made a strong case for legislation on tenancy deposits. Government funding of the pilot has continued, but we need to reach a view soon on how effective any voluntary arrangement could ever be, and on whether the case for legislation is already proven.
  The most important benefit from continuing with the pilot has been that we have had more time and have obtained more evidence to use in producing the consultation paper that we published last Thursday. We have thus been able to combine a number of elements in the consultation paper. First, there is up-to-date statistical data from the survey of English housing. Secondly, we have incorporated the results of research into the pilot by York university. Thirdly, we took into account the conclusions reached by the Department's auditors on the funding and financial prospects of the pilot tenancy deposit scheme. Fourthly, we used our research of the operation of tenancy deposit schemes in other countries and of other voluntary schemes in the UK. Fifthly, we carried out an economic assessment of the costs and benefits of a mandatory scheme for the purpose of a substantial regulatory impact assessment. Finally, we took on board the views of a steering group that oversaw the operation of the pilot.
  The steering group was composed of representatives of landlords, tenants, local authorities and financial institutions. They have endorsed the thoroughness of our project and the way in which we achieved a balance of views based on factual evidence. The deadline for responses to the consultation is 28 February, and I should not like to prejudice its outcome.
  The paper addresses the following sets of options. First, there are voluntary custodial deposit protection schemes, linked to voluntary accreditation schemes, with deposit protection through the tenancy agreement. That approach would reflect to some extent the approach currently under consideration by the Law Commission in its reform of tenancy law.
  Secondly, there are statutory tenancy money protection schemes, along the same lines as the pilot, with various choices of types of scheme. The choices range from requiring landlords to safeguard tenants by being a member of schemes, such as the pilot, to schemes that are in effect state-run, such as the one operated in New South Wales, in Australia. Thirdly, we have also mentioned the possibility of a statutory bank guarantee scheme such as the one that operates in Belgium.
  The present consultation may lead to a mandatory requirement for landlords to be members of a scheme to safeguard tenants' deposits, but we would not, in the long run, expect such schemes to require Government funding. The views of Department's auditors, set out in an annexe to the consultation paper, criticised the administration of the pilot tenancy deposit scheme. More importantly, they could not see how the existing pilot could develop into a self-financing scheme, given its low level of take-up.
  1022
  Hitherto, membership of the pilot has been free, in essence. The independent housing ombudsman, who manages it, is now seeking the modest charge of £1.02 per tenancy. The Government will continue funding the pilot in the next financial year, as my hon. Friend said, and then, following a decision on the results of the consultation, we shall address the future of the pilot.
  As I pointed out earlier, the statistical data showing that 20 per cent. of tenants consider that their deposits were unreasonably withheld, at least in part, cannot be ignored. However, as a regulatory impact assessment included in the consultation paper suggests, the costs of imposing extra costs on the vast majority—as against the benefits for the minority—are finely balanced.
  Consultees need to consider whether the scale of the problem is such that legislation is required, and what the consequences of compulsory membership of a scheme to protect tenants' deposits might be. Would the costs, which are likely to be passed on to tenants, he justified? Could we be sure such a scheme would catch the landlords who are the worst offenders?
  The consultation paper also covers letting agents, although my hon. Friend did not have time to mention them. As I noted earlier, there have been some high-profile cases of agents misappropriating money belonging to clients, both landlords and tenants.
  An annexe to the consultation paper addresses the success of the national approved letting scheme. The government have supported that industry-run voluntary accreditation scheme by funding a free trial for agents who are not members of the professional bodies who set up the scheme. So far, the national approved letting scheme has been a qualified success, but it bears comparison to the pilot tenancy deposit scheme, particularly as it is a voluntary scheme, likely to reach only the more responsible agents. So we are consulting on the way in which letting agents treat landlords' and tenants' money.
  My hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not go into further detail, given that we have only just launched the consultation paper, but I certainly look forward to the results that emerge when the consultation ends on 28 February. As she has said, we need to balance the expectations of tenants and landlords and to move closer to our ultimate goal—a private rented sector that is more competently run and more capable of helping to meet housing need.
  I would simply add that, yes, we should take cognisance of the concerns expressed by the communities, not just the students, in areas with a high student base, as well as the way in which landlords act in those areas. Again, I congratulate my hon. Friend on raising this important issue and in such a timely fashion. She will forgive me if I do not go into further detail and pre-empt the entire consultation process, but it is right to put those concerns before the House. I believe that the Government are making excellent progress on this important issue. I commend our policies to the House, and hope that all those who have any concerns about this issue will play a full part in the consultation process.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at eight minutes to Eleven o'clock.

  Deferred Divisions

    CONVENTION ON THE FUTURE OF EUROPE
    That this House endorses the strategy of Her Majesty's Government on the Convention of 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 12 June 2002 relating to the Standing Committee on the Convention be renewed for the current session of Parliament.
    The House divided: Ayes 282, Noes 12.

    Division No. 17]

    AYES

    Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

    Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

    Alexander, Douglas

    Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

    Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

    Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

    Dawson, Hilton

    Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    Atherton, Ms Candy

    Denham, rh John

    Atkins, Charlotte

    Dhanda, Parmjit

    Bailey, Adrian

    Dobson, rh Frank

    Banks, Tony

    Donohoe, Brian H.

    Battle, John

    Doran, Frank

    Bayley, Hugh

    Drew, David (Stroud)

    Beard, Nigel

    Drown, Ms Julia

    Beckett, rh Margaret

    Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

    Begg, Miss Anne

    Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

    Benn, Hilary

    Edwards, Huw

    Bennett, Andrew

    Efford, Clive

    Benton, Joe (Bootle)

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    Berry, Roger

    Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

    Best, Harold

    Farrelly, Paul

    Blackman, Liz

    Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

    Blair, rh Tony

    Fitzpatrick, Jim

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Flint, Caroline

    Blizzard, Bob

    Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

    Blunkett, rh David

    Follett, Barbara

    Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

    Foster, rh Derek

    Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

    Foster, Michael (Worcester)

    Bradshaw, Ben

    Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

    Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

    Bryant, Chris

    Francis, Dr. Hywel

    Buck, Ms Karen

    Galloway, George

    Burden, Richard

    Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

    Burgon, Colin

    Gardiner, Barry

    Byers, rh Stephen

    Gerrard, Neil

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Gibson, Dr. Ian

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Gilroy, Linda

    Caton, Martin

    Godsiff, Roger

    Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

    Goggins, Paul

    Challen, Colin

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

    Grogan, John

    Chaytor, David

    Hain, rh Peter

    Clapham, Michael

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

    Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

    Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

    Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

    Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

    Hancock, Mike

    Hanson, David

    Clelland, David

    Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

    Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

    Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Colman, Tony

    Healey, John

    Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

    Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

    Cooper, Yvette

    Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Hepburn, Stephen

    Corston, Jean

    Heppell, John

    Cousins, Jim

    Hesford, Stephen

    Cranston, hon. Ross

    Heyes, David

    Crausby, David

    Hill, Keith (Streatham)

    Cruddas, Jon

    Hoon, rh Geoffrey

    Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack (Copeland)

    Hope, Phil (Corby)

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

    Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

    1024

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

    Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

    Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

    Hoyle, Lindsay

    O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

    Hughes. Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

    O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

    Olner, Bill

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    Palmer, Dr. Nick

    Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

    Perham, Linda

    Hutton, rh John

    Pickthall, Colin

    Iddon, Dr. Brian

    Pike, Peter (Burnley)

    Illsley, Eric

    Plaskitt, James

    Irranca-Davies, Huw

    Pollard, Kerry

    Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

    Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

    Jamieson, David

    Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

    Jenkins, Brian

    Pound, Stephen

    Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

    Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

    Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

    Prosser, Gwyn

    Jowell, rh Tessa

    Purchase, Ken

    Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

    Quin, rh Joyce

    Keen, Alan (Feltham)

    Quinn, Lawrie

    Kelly, Ruth (Bolton W)

    Rammell, Bill

    Kemp, Fraser

    Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

    Khabra, Piara S.

    Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

    Kidney, David

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

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    King, Andy (Rugby)

    Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

    Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

    Kumar, Dr. Ashok

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    Lammy, David

    Rooney, Terry

    Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Lazarowicz, Mark

    Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

    Leslie, Christopher

    Ruane, Chris

    Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

    Ruddock, Joan

    Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

    Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

    Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

    Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

    Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

    Linton, Martin

    Salter, Martin

    Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

    Sarwar, Mohammad

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Savidge, Malcolm

    Love, Andrew

    Sawford, Phil

    Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

    Shaw, Jonathan

    McCabe, Stephen

    Sheridan, Jim

    McCartney, rh Ian

    Shipley, Ms Debra

    McFall, John

    Singh, Marsha

    McGuire, Mrs Anne

    Skinner, Dennis

    McIsaac, Shona

    Smith, Angela (Basildon)

    McKechin, Ann

    Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    McNulty, Tony

    Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Smith, John (Glamorgan)

    McWalter, Tony

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    McWilliam, John

    Soley, Clive

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Squire, Rachel

    Mallaber, Judy

    Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

    Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

    Stevenson, George

    Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

    Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

    Martlew, Eric

    Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

    Merron, Gillian

    Stoate, Dr. Howard

    Michael, rh Alun

    Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

    Miliband, David

    Stringer, Graham

    Miller, Andrew

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Mole, Chris

    Tami, Mark (Alyn)

    Moonie, Dr. Lewis

    Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

    Moran, Margaret

    Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

    Morgan, Julie

    Taylor, David (NW Leics)

    Mountford, Kali

    Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

    Mudie, George

    Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

    Mullin, Chris

    Tipping, Paddy

    Munn, Ms Meg

    Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

    Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

    Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

    1025

    Trickett, Jon

    Whitehead, Dr. Alan

    Truswell, Paul

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

    Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

    Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

    Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

    Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

    Turner, Neil (Wigan)

    Winnick, David

    Twigg, Derek (Halton)

    Woolas, Phil

    Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

    Worthington, Tony

    Walley, Ms Joan

    Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

    Ward, Claire

    Watts, David

    Wright, David (Telford)

    Weir, Michael

    Wright, Tony (Cannock)

    White, Brian

    Wyatt Derek

    NOES

    Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

    Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

    Burnside, David

    Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

    Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

    Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

    Dodds, Nigel

    Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

    Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

    Taylor, Sir Teddy

    Hermon, Lady

    Tyrie, Andrew

    Question accordingly agreed to.

    ESTIMATES, 2001–02
    That the limits on non-operating appropriations in aid set for the purposes of section 2 of the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000 for the year that ended on 31 March 2002 he modified in accordance with HC 121.
    The House divided: Ayes 412, Noes 39.

    Division No. 18]

    AYES

    Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

    Brazier, Julian

    Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

    Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

    Alexander, Douglas

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Ancram, rh Michael

    Bryant, Chris

    Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

    Buck, Ms Karen

    Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

    Burden, Richard

    Burgon, Colin

    Arbuthnot, rh James

    Burnside, David

    Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

    Burt, Alistair

    Atherton, Ms Candy

    Butterfill, John

    Atkins, Charlotte

    Byers, rh Stephen

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Bacon, Richard

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Bailey, Adrian

    Cash, William

    Baldry, Tony

    Caton, Martin

    Banks, Tony

    Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

    Barker, Gregory

    Challen, Colin

    Baron, John (Billericay)

    Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

    Battle, John

    Chaytor, David

    Bayley, Hugh

    Clapham, Michael

    Beard, Nigel

    Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

    Beckett, rh Margaret

    Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

    Begg, Miss Anne

    Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

    Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

    Bellingham, Henry

    Clelland, David

    Benn, Hilary

    Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

    Bennett, Andrew

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Benton, Joe (Bootle)

    Collins, Tim

    Bercow, John

    Colman, Tony

    Berry, Roger

    Conway, Derek

    Best, Harold

    Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

    Blackman, Liz

    Cooper, Yvette

    Blair, rh Tony

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Cormack, Sir Patrick

    Blizzard, Bob

    Corston, Jean

    Blunkett, rh David

    Cousins, Jim

    Boswell, Tim

    Cran, James (Beverley)

    Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

    Cranston, hon. Ross

    Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

    Crausby, David

    Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

    Cruddas, Jon

    Bradshaw, Ben

    Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack (Copeland)

    Brady, Graham

    1026

    Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

    Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

    Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

    Curry, rh David

    Hawkins, Nick

    Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

    Heald, Oliver

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Healey, John

    Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

    Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

    Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

    Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

    Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

    Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

    Hendry, Charles

    Dawson, Hilton

    Hepburn, Stephen

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    Heppell, John

    Denham, rh John

    Hermon, Lady

    Dhanda, Parmjit

    Hesford, Stephen

    Djanogly, Jonathan

    Heyes, David

    Dobson, rh Frank

    Hill, Keith (Streatham)

    Dodds, Nigel

    Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

    Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

    Donohoe, Brian H.

    Hoon, rh Geoffrey

    Doran, Frank

    Hope, Phil (Corby)

    Drew, David (Stroud)

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    Drown, Ms Julia

    Horam, John (Orpington)

    Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

    Howard, rh Michael

    Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

    Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

    Duncan Smith, rh Iain

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

    Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

    Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

    Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

    Edwards, Huw

    Hoyle, Lindsay

    Efford, Clive

    Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Evans, Nigel

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    Ewing, Annabelle

    Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

    Fabricant, Michael

    Hutton, rh John

    Fallon, Michael

    Iddon, Dr. Brian

    Farrelly, Paul

    Illsley, Eric

    Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

    Irranca-Davies, Huw

    Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

    Jack, rh Michael

    Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

    Fitzpatrick, Jim

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Flight, Howard

    Jamieson, David

    Flint, Caroline

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

    Jenkins, Brian

    Follett, Barbara

    Johnson, Boris (Henley)

    Foster, rh Derek

    Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Foster, Michael (Worcester)

    Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

    Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Fox, Dr. Liam

    Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

    Francis, Dr. Hywel

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

    Francois, Mark

    Jowell, rh Tessa

    Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

    Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

    Galloway, George

    Keen, Alan (Feltham)

    Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

    Kelly, Ruth (Bolton W)

    Gardiner, Barry

    Kemp, Fraser

    Gerrard, Neil

    Key, Robert (Salisbury)

    Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

    Khabra, Piara S.

    Gibson, Dr. Ian

    Kidney, David

    Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Gilroy, Linda

    Godsiff, Roger

    King, Andy (Rugby)

    Goggins Paul

    Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

    Goodman, Paul

    Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

    Gray, James (N Wilts)

    Kumar, Dr. Ashok

    Green, Damian (Ashford)

    Laing, Mrs Eleanor

    Greenway, John

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Grieve, Dominic

    Lammy, David

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Lansley, Andrew

    Grogan, John

    Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

    Gummer, rh John

    Lazarowicz, Mark

    Hain, rh Peter

    Leslie, Christopher

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    Letwin, rh Oliver

    Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

    Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

    Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

    Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

    Hammond, Philip

    Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

    Hanson, David

    Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

    Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

    Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

    1027

    Liddell-Grainger, Ian

    Palmer, Dr. Nick

    Lidington, David

    Paterson, Owen

    Lilley, rh Peter

    Perham, Linda

    Linton, Martin

    Pickles, Eric

    Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

    Pickthall, Colin

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Pike, Peter (Burnley)

    Loughton, Tim

    Plaskitt, James

    Love, Andrew

    Pollard, Kerry

    Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

    Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

    Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

    Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Pound, Stephen

    McCabe, Stephen

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

    McCartney, rh Ian

    McFall, John

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    McGuire, Mrs Anne

    Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

    McIntosh, Miss Anne

    McIsaac, Shona

    Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

    MacKay, rh Andrew

    Prosser, Gwyn

    McKechin, Ann

    Purchase, Ken

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Quin, rh Joyce

    Maclean, rh David

    Quinn, Lawrie

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Rammell, Bill

    McNulty, Tony

    Randall, John

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

    McWalter, Tony

    Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

    McWilliam, John

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

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Malins, Humfrey

    Robathan, Andrew

    Mallaber, Judy

    Robertson, Angus (Moray)

    Maples, John

    Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

    Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

    Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

    Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

    Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

    Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

    Martlew, Eric

    Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

    May, Mrs Theresa

    Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

    Mercer, Patrick

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    Merron, Gillian

    Roe, Mrs Marion

    Michael, rh Alun

    Rooney, Terry

    Miliband, David

    Rosindell, Andrew

    Miller, Andrew

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

    Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

    Ruane, Chris

    Mole, Chris

    Ruddock, Joan

    Moonie, Dr. Lewis

    Ruffley, David

    Moran, Margaret

    Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

    Morgan, Julie

    Moss, Malcolm

    Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

    Mountford, Kali

    Salter, Martin

    Mudie, George

    Sarwar, Mohammad

    Mullin, Chris

    Savidge, Malcolm

    Munn, Ms Meg

    Sawford, Phil

    Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

    Selous, Andrew

    Murrison, Dr. Andrew

    Shaw, Jonathan

    Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

    Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

    O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

    Sheridan, Jim

    O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

    Shipley, Ms Debra

    O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

    Simmonds, Mark

    Olner, Bill

    Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

    Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

    Singh, Marsha

    Ottaway, Richard

    Skinner, Dennis

    1028

    Smith, Angela (Basildon)

    Trickett, Jon

    Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

    Truswell, Paul

    Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

    Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

    Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

    Smith, John (Glamorgan)

    Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

    Turner, Neil (Wigan)

    Soley, Clive

    Twigg, Derek (Halton)

    Spelman, Mrs Caroline

    Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

    Spicer, Sir Michael

    Tyrie, Andrew

    Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

    Viggers, Peter

    Spring, Richard

    Walley, Ms Joan

    Squire, Rachel

    Ward, Claire

    Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

    Watkinson, Angela

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Watts, David

    Stevenson, George

    Weir, Michael

    Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

    White, Brian

    Whitehead, Dr. Alan

    Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

    Whittingdale, John

    Stoate, Dr. Howard

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

    Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

    Streeter, Gary

    Wiggin, Bill

    Stringer, Graham

    Willetts, David

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

    Swayne, Desmond

    Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

    Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

    Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

    Tami, Mark (Alyn)

    Wilshire, David

    Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

    Winnick, David

    Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

    Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

    Taylor, David (NW Leics)

    Wishart, Pete

    Taylor, John (Solihull)

    Woolas, Phil

    Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

    Worthington, Tony

    Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

    Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

    Tipping, Paddy

    Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

    Wright David (Telford)

    Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

    Wright, Tony (Cannock)

    Tredinnick, David

    Wyatt, Derek

    Trend, Michael

    Young, rh Sir George

    NOES

    Baker, Norman

    Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness)

    Barrett, John

    Beith, rh A. J.

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

    Lamb, Norman

    Breed, Colin

    Laws, David (Yeovil)

    Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

    Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury & Atcham)

    Burnett, John

    Mates, Michael

    Burstow, Paul

    Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

    Carmichael, Alistair

    Öpik, Lembit

    Cotter, Brian

    Pugh, Dr. John

    Davey, Edward (Kingston)

    Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

    Rendel, David

    Doughty, Sue

    Russell. Bob (Colchester)

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Sanders, Adrian

    George, Andrew (St. Ives)

    Stunell, Andrew

    Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

    Thurso, John

    Hancock Mike

    Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

    Webb, Steve (Northavon)

    Heath, David

    Williams, Roger (Brecon)

    Holmes, Paul

    Willis, Phil

    Keetch, Paul

    Younger-Ross, Richard

    Question accordingly agreed to.

Preamble
[SIR ALAN HASELHURST in the Chair]

Nuclear Test Veterans (Compensation)
Motion made and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Caplin.]
9.30 am
Mr. Mark Todd: The opportunity to hold such a debate is fairly rare. I shall not give an account of the illnesses suffered by people who attended, witnessed and took part in the preparations for nuclear tests on behalf of this country. Instead, I shall focus on some of the ways in which we can remedy grievances. Those who took part in the tests as well as their children and grandchildren feel that the men who had often risked their lives in war prior to the tests—in which they took part at the behest of the Government—have been poorly treated in the past 50 or so years.
I do not intend to criticise the present Government heavily. Successive Governments have taken the same stance towards claims for compensation or improved pensions on behalf of the service men who took part in the tests. It has been argued throughout that there is no overwhelming medical evidence—it is only marginal—of a link between participation in the tests and particular illnesses. Such matters were revealed in the analysis of the test outcomes by the National Radiological Protection Board and, in some cases of leukaemia, a war pension was granted when a link to the tests was demonstrated. That is based on a slightly increased likelihood demonstrated in the data that have been analysed to date. The Government have taken that position throughout.
We need to create an atmosphere of greater objectivity and consensus building. Research has demonstrated that many of those who took part in the tests have since suffered terrible illnesses; there have also been cases of illness among their offspring. We must consider how to attribute that information to the circumstances of their lives; what they did in their lives when they were service men and later. So far the Government have commissioned work through the NRPB, which is currently undertaking its third study of the data produced by the examination of the records of 20,000-plus service men who attended the tests at various times during the 1950s and early 1960s.
I am worried that there is no proper consensus on whether that is the correct basis for research into illnesses. I note in particular the approach to similar circumstances taken by other countries. We are not alone in having carried out nuclear tests involving our service men. At that time we had a Commonwealth on which we could call, and some Commonwealth countries provided men. I draw attention to the example of the New Zealand Government, who have grant-aided the New Zealand Nuclear Test Veterans Association to provide a basis for that organisation's own research. That is a positive idea for two reasons.
244WH
First, the test veterans argue that they are overwhelmed by the scale of a large and understandably secretive Department—the Ministry of Defence—and the weight of the scientific establishment, against which they must contend purely with voluntary funds. The New Zealand Government have set a good example in choosing to grant-aid their veterans so that they can buy their own research. That provides a proper balance with the science of the matter. Secondly, we should genuinely consider whether there are different ways of looking at how to research the issue.
Thus far, our approach has been to take account of the scale of the issue—more than 20,000 people were involved in tests—without, perhaps, always recognising the different circumstances of individual test veterans. Some people were clearly exposed to a greater risk than others. The Sunday Mirror has carried many stories about the issue. By simply taking the group as one swathe, without sufficient differentiation of either the test or the circumstances of the military operation in which a person was involved, the precise circumstances will be concealed by the sheer scale of the data which the NRPB will be examining.
At the end of my speech I will call for far finer slicing of the data, to attribute the data to individual operational circumstances and particular tests. If we did that, we would be able to identify whether pockets of occurrences might be concealed in the overwhelming evidence of a large number of people who may have had little exposure to danger during an operation.
The United States has had an extensive programme of tests and it operates a policy for veterans for whom there is a presumed cause for one of 15 illnesses from which they may suffer. If a person can demonstrate that they were involved in a particular test and developed one of those illnesses, there is a presumption, which does not require a test in court, that they should be compensated for that experience. I do not understand why we choose not to follow a similar path to the one taken by the United States; that great Government are prepared to take such a step.
The Australian Government have also, to a lesser extent, adopted a presumed cause approach. In my correspondence with the Minister—I always appreciate the courtesy and the length of the answers that he has given to me on the various questions that I have asked—he hints at one possible reason, which is that factors such as the small size of the nuclear test participant group appear to be relevant. That suggests that we can take a straightforward approach to the issue because some countries say that only a relatively small number of people were affected. It also suggests that the British Government are apprehensive about a large number of claimants and, therefore, the substantial cost associated with dealing with the problem. That does not reflect well on our integrity and honesty. Surely, damage is the same whether it is done to a citizen of New Zealand, Australia or America, or to one of our own citizens. We should be prepared to take the experience of other countries into account.
Some of the New Zealand Nuclear Test Veterans Association's research has been commissioned in this country. We welcome that because it provides us with greater opportunities to examine different dimensions of the problem. Research is being undertaken in Dundee and I am aware that the MOD has taken a particular

245WH
view of the work of Sue Rabbit-Roff. It has also been commissioned in the university of St. Andrews. The other research that I am aware of is that at Massey university in New Zealand.
I should hope that we are fully engaged with the New Zealand Government on what they have set off through their approach, although I have not been reassured by the answers that the Minister has given me. I have asked whether we have made representations to the New Zealand Government and the answer was no. I have asked whether there has been any substantial engagement with the issue, and was told that there has not. I hope that we are aware of the research activity, and that we are engaged sympathetically in trying to understand what that research is seeking to achieve and in liaising with those who commissioned it.
I come to the rather legalistic way in which the issue has been addressed. I represent a former mining constituency, in which miners had to fight for many years to demonstrate the damage caused to their health by coal dust in their lungs and the use of vibrating tools. That culminated in a successful action in 1997, and gradually and painfully, in the drawing down of compensation for the people involved.
I am well aware of the lengthy civil process that can be involved in pursuing such claims, and I would not wish that on anyone, particularly not on a voluntary organisation. The one advantage that mine workers had was a well resourced trade union to fight the case on their behalf and to commission the best possible legal advice. I note that civil cases are being considered at the moment, and I would not wish that process on those pursuing them; it would be long, painful, and might, if the case is eventually proved, lead to a large class action.
There are far better ways of pursuing such issues, and one can see that even in the mining industry. In the early 1970s, the Government correctly understood that pneumoconiosis was a major disease in mining, and that there should be a straightforward compensation scheme available to people who could demonstrate that they had experienced it in their lives. I recommend a simple process, and the presumed cause approach that I have suggested would provide that simplicity.
If a case went to court, one would have to demonstrate negligence, and consider the advice that was available. We must recognise that our knowledge is much greater than it was then, and some of the precautions that, frankly, we ridicule now may well have seemed to be the best ways of protecting people. We would also have to show whether there was intent, and that causes concern. I have received correspondence from the Minister that says that there was no intent to test the effect that the weapons had on human beings. In a quotation from the Sunday Mirror, there is a reference to a declassified document, dated 20 May 1953. The article says:
"A report to the Chiefs of Staff, headed 'Atomic Weapons Trials' states: 'The Army must discover the detailed effects of various types of explosion on equipment, stores and men with and without various types of protection.'"
I do not know whether that approach was adopted.
I ask the Minister to consider whether we can release the full public record of those tests now for proper scrutiny. The bits that have crept out show that part of
246WH
the purpose was indeed to understand what happened when nuclear weapons were exploded and a person was in reasonably close proximity to them. Certainly, the evidence shows that there was the intention to understand how equipment reacted to weapons, and human beings then had to clean down that equipment. They were exposed to the risk partly through that. If that was part of the purpose of the tests, there should now be candour about it.
I have talked to my father—who was a career naval officer—and my mother about that time, and it is clear that their generation's attitude towards risk was very different from ours. People had lived through a world war in which they had seen friends die in violent ways, and many of them were trained to say, "Well, it is our job to take risks." That might have been the case, but people who are placed in harm's way deserve to know something about what that harm might be and what the exercise that they are involved in might achieve.
I see no evidence of such candour towards service men at that time. It appears that advice and information were minimal and perfunctory. It is worth reflecting on the culture of the time, which is evidenced by the recent disclosures at Porton Down that service men could be used legitimately as guinea pigs; they were given minimal information, and sometimes—one hopes in extreme cases—they were deceived. That that was the concept of a service man's role at that time in our country's history should be addressed honestly.
It is easy to make judgments now about attitudes then, and I am not seeking to do that. I merely think that we should be honest about what might have happened, and about the contexts of these tests. Therefore, I hope that as part of this exercise, we can be open with people about the purpose and meaning of these tests, and about how we communicated what they were about to those who participated in them.
First, we should consider the basis of presumed cause in dealing with certain kinds of illnesses where they occur among nuclear test veterans. Secondly, we should re-examine the test data and seek to differentiate it with regard to the circumstances of the operation in which people were involved and the individual test in which they participated. Thirdly, we should look at empowering the test veterans associations by providing them with resources so that they can commission their own research and vigorously question the science of all of this. The Minister will almost certainly respond by discussing the science as it is perceived by the Ministry of Defence. I want there to be proper engagement with that subject; we should debate that science in a fully informed way and with a greater degree of consensus than has been achieved until now. Fourthly, I want a proper disclosure of the purpose of these tests and how we communicated what they were about to the service men of that time.
We should give respect to those who participated in these tests and followed the orders that they were given. They did their duty. We have a duty to act with integrity towards them and their families.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I plan to start the winding-up speeches at 10.25 am. Five hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye. I wish them to think of their

247WH
colleagues; if each of them were to speak for roughly seven minutes, that would enable everyone to contribute to the debate.
9.48 am
Mr. Francis Maude: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd), and I congratulate him on securing the debate. The matter is of great importance to a relatively small number of people, but the issues that the debate raises are of wide importance. He has done the House and the public a service by raising this subject.
I want to centre my remarks on the case of my constituent, Mr. Derek Fiddaman. He was serving on the guard ship HMS Cossack as part of Operation Grapple X when the fourth British nuclear test at Christmas Island was carried out on 8 November 1957. The ship sailed to the west of the island after the explosion, and it is argued that it became contaminated as the wind carried radiation from the site of the explosion to where it had sailed to. Eighteen years later, in 1975, the first symptoms appeared of the basal cell carcinomas from which Mr. Fiddaman still suffers today.
After the contamination of nuclear test veterans came publicly to light in 1980, Mr. Fiddaman contacted a radiologist in Guildford. He was diagnosed as suffering as a result of over-exposure to radiation. He had been undergoing a course in radiotherapy for the basal cell condition; but that course was ceased immediately. Since 1980, he has undergone more than 100 operations to remove malignant tumours. He will attend a further clinic tomorrow.
Mr. Fiddaman has stressed that his case is by no means the worst. He is not whingeing or complaining; he says that many others are much worse off than he is. However, he has suffered enormously from his condition for more than 27 years. In 1980, when the source of his illness was first properly diagnosed, he applied for a war pension. Two years later—the process was not rapid—an initial decision was reached and he was offered £2,000. On appeal, that was upgraded to a 20 per cent. pension entitlement. Eventually, after a series of grudging decisions to upgrade the entitlement, he was awarded a 60 per cent. war pension. Getting that level of pension sounds like a long and painful process, but Mr. Fiddaman, again, is comparatively one of the lucky ones. Out of 1,228 claims for war pensions from the test veterans up to March 2000, only 467 resulted in awards.
As we know, until 1987, service personnel were prevented from pursuing claims for compensation from the Ministry of Defence by the Crown Proceedings Act 1947—now, happily, repealed. Between then and May 2000, 144 claims for compensation were made; none has been settled. In other words, fewer than 500 of the perhaps 20,000 veterans who witnessed the tests have received any kind of recompense. In no case has it been recognised that people suffered as a result of inadequate precautions when the tests were carried out. The onus for proving entitlement to a war pension is placed entirely on the veterans. As Mr. Fiddaman's case illustrates, the process is long and tortuous. More than half of the cases have resulted in outright failure; in many other cases, only a partial award has been made.
248WH
In the meantime, the continuing struggle to establish a right to compensation has left the veterans in a state of great uncertainty. It is now 45 years or more since the tests took place and many people were—arguably; this is the issue that must be resolved—exposed to the radiation that has harmed them.
This is not a partisan issue. I am conscious that it is the kind of issue that parliamentarians tend to take up in opposition and then drop when in government. I hope that the tone of this debate will be non-partisan. I understand why Government Ministers and the MOD take a slightly different view today from that taken by the Labour party when it was in Opposition. The MOD has a history of being very reluctant to accept liability; I am not talking only about this issue but about other issues as well. As we saw with Gulf war syndrome, when any such suggestion is made, the MOD tends immediately to deny any possible connection between what was done and the illnesses that transpired. The issue is then obscured and even obstructed. That is very unfortunate and very bad for the reputation of the MOD. The House will appreciate that I am not one of those who routinely attacks the MOD. I am a huge admirer of our armed forces, which are the finest in the world. I have no animus at all against the Ministry of Defence. However, its Ministers and officials must understand that a lack of straightforwardness has caused distrust of the MOD. People do not feel that they have been treated fairly, openly and straightforwardly on this issue and, indeed, others. I urge a different approach most strongly.
I was a Treasury Minister many years ago. I am very conscious of concerns that are raised in the Treasury on any issue of this sort. The same old phrases always emerge: "Floodgates opening"; "The thin end of the wedge"; and "If we accept liability in one case, the whole thing will be opened up." I am one of nature's Treasury Ministers. I am not an enthusiast of the reckless spending of public money. However, an injustice has been done and people have been subjected to danger and suffering as a result of what the Government asked them to do.
That is especially true of our armed service men, who were national service men who had no option about what they did or where they went because they were under military orders. They were subjected to danger as a result of the Government's actions. If it is probable—it does not need to be established beyond peradventure—that what they went through caused the pain and illness that many have suffered, the Government should pay up because that is required for justice.
There has been a lack of openness and straightforwardness. In 2000, the Government said that test veterans would have the right to request access to their official service records, including their medical records. It was said that they would be entitled to have access to any information held relating to their exposure to radiation while participating in the nuclear test programme. The situation has not quite worked out like that. Despite repeated attempts, Mr. Fiddaman has still not been able to view his service records. During a meeting with an MOD official, it transpired that radiation readings carried out among servicemen at the time of the tests appeared not to have been properly logged in several cases. That puts people at a major

249WH
disadvantage. Some information seems to have been withheld, some seems to have been destroyed and some was never recorded.
Indeed, it was left to Mr. Fiddaman to prove the positioning of the HMS Cossack on the day of the test. Using his training in navigation, he reconstructed the ship's course on charts held in the Public Record Office. It is fair to say that he was a bit offended by the justification that the MOD eventually used for awarding him his 60 per cent. war pension. The MOD said that it was offered to him on the basis of his "over-exposure to brilliant sunlight" while on active duty. We all know about the risks of skin cancer due to sunlight, but that way of denying liability for something that seems increasingly likely is mildly offensive. Mr. Fiddaman continues to campaign despite the fact that his position is better than that of many others.
I am following on from what the hon. Member for South Derbyshire said. I urge the Government to be very open, to lay the records bare and to allow completely open scrutiny of everything that happened. The Government and the Ministry of Defence should not fear such openness and scrutiny. If there is nothing to hide, there is, by definition, nothing to fear from the most open scrutiny that can be imagined. If there is something to hide, simple, straightforward equity and justice require the course that I urge the Government to take.
9.59 am
Dr. Ian Gibson: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) on securing this debate on an issue that will, clearly, not go away. I am pleased to be here to support him and the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude). They clearly elaborated the issue from the veterans' point of view.
I wish to discuss an issue raised in a letter from my hon. Friend the Minister to a member of the veterans association in which he describes the Ministry of Defence view being established and supported by "sound scientific analysis". I am slightly sceptical whenever I see phrases such as that one or "evidence-based medicine". It is not that I do not want to achieve that, but there is always another view. A view is only as good as the evidence that is available today. Further research often shows that there is another explanation.
Indeed, science is based on quarrelsome individuals who hardly ever agree with each other. There are still people who do not believe that prions cause BSE and some who believe that AIDS is not caused by a virus. There are others who, with little scientific evidence, believe that telecommunication masts cause childhood leukaemia. Such issues are concerned with more than just straightforward, scientific and medical evidence. The public must also be convinced that the expertise and knowledge is convincing and can be supported.
We live in a world that is rapidly changing. On the issue of genetically modified crops, for example, people do not necessarily believe the evidence of experts. We should be sceptical about whether the sun will rise tomorrow morning in the east. I am 99 per cent. sure, but part of me says, "Well, it might not." Our views and legislation should operate on that basis.
250WH
Much evidence has been produced that will no doubt be disparaged, such as the work of Dr. Rabbit-Roff, or by John Urquhart, who addressed a meeting of MPs and veterans in Westminster Hall last week. The Sunday Mirror contacted the 350 families from the original study and 300 responded. Among those, the number of cases of Down's syndrome was significantly greater than the national average.
Mr. Urquhart is a brilliant statistician. I know that, in epidemiology, statistics are all—with chi-squares and T-tests and so forth. However, it is not necessarily an exact science. It is hard to get the evidence, but it is based on good statistics. Mr. Urquhart has researched child leukaemia and has found that, in the families studied—although it could be argued that the study is selective—there are above average rates of cancer and Down's syndrome.
Dr. Rabbit-Roff and others claim that the incidence of multiple myelomas—a type of blood cancer arising in the bone marrow—is way above national levels among veterans. When I looked it up in the medical books that I occasionally pull off the shelf, I found that one cause of multiple myeloma is exposure to nuclear explosions. That is what young medical students are now told. When one looks at death certificates, such sophisticated knowledge is not always there. Any analysis based on a death certificate that says "heart failure" must be absolutely right because everybody's heart fails when they die. Death certificates can be filled in quite easily. They are not a good parameter for examining the issue.
There are tests available that veterans could now use, such as cytogenetic tests that examine chromosomes, the deoxyribonucleic acid and so forth. They would clearly show that there had been minor damage to chromosomes in the genetic material that had been caused by radiation. Nobody would deny that radiation causes genetic damage. The subject is crying out for new research to examine the whole process of what has happened. There are individuals who are prepared to play a part in that, and I hope that the Government will, now take a good solid look at all the evidence available, pull it together and give us the final judgment.
10.4 am
Siobhain McDonagh: As I am conscious of the time, I shall concentrate on the case of a constituent. I am not someone who is necessarily drawn to the work of the Ministry of Defence or to defence matters, but I was particularly shaken by a meeting with my constituent, Shirley Denson of Morden. It was towards the end of 1998 when I first heard from her and became aware of the tragic life of her late husband, Squadron Leader Eric Denson, who committed suicide in 1976 after a long struggle with health problems.
Some 40 years before my first meeting with his widow, the 26-year-old Flight Lieutenant Denson captained one of the three Canberra aircraft deployed to fly a nuclear cloud-sampling mission through the mushroom cloud created by the three-megaton Grapple Y air drop detonation on 28 April 1958.
The planes were collecting samples while in the cloud. In the process, Flight Lieutenant Denson and his crew would each have collected 13,000 rads, which is the equivalent of 6,500 full body X-rays. Flying into the

251WH
cloud 49 minutes after detonation, Flight Lieutenant Denson was ordered to keep the plane inside for six minutes; four minutes longer than the aircraft should have been inside because of a fault on one of the dosimeters. When the plane landed, the ground crew said that it was the hottest aircraft they had ever handled. As well as receiving massive radiation in the air, the crews would have been exposed to the radiation fallout on the ground, as they drank water, ate shellfish and caught fish in the sea around them. I understand that Eric Denson's eventual dosage could have been the equivalent of 40,000 X-rays.
Eric Denson was sent home after that flight and told that his dosage exceeded the legal limit, thus excluding him from participating in further tests. His vomiting started almost immediately, and became so severe that he was forced to delay in Fiji for a further three days. Great emphasis was placed on the imposition of strict orders of secrecy concerning any discussion of events going on in the south Pacific. Be that as it may, after Eric Denson's return in obvious ill health, no medical checks or follow-up—in fact, no duty of care of any reasonable kind—were provided that could have alerted him to the probable cause of his progressive medical problems. Significantly, no mention was made in his medical records of his activities in the south Pacific in 1958.
Squadron Leader Denson ended his life in 1976 at the age of 44, after 18 years of breathing difficulties, acute sinusitis, mood swings, anxieties and depressions. He was the father of four children. His widow had no idea at the time of his high dosage of ionising radiation, which he acquired through his participation in nuclear tests almost two decades earlier. Another 20 years passed, during which Shirley Denson brought up four daughters on her own, three of whom were born after 28 April 1958. All three have experienced lasting health problems.
In 1997, Shirley was alerted to the latest scientific evidence about the Christmas island tests, and started her own investigations into the events there, with a growing realisation of the true effect of radiation poisoning on her husband. Such is the case of my constituent, and I pay tribute to her energy and tenacity. It has been strongly suggested to her during meetings with officials that her late husband was sickly and unbalanced from boyhood, and that his suicide was somehow inevitable and nothing to do with Christmas island. That is not an image of Eric Denson that squares with the fit Yorkshireman who joined the RAF to serve his country, and who was pronounced among the fittest of his peers, an expert pilot and a credit to the squadron that he would eventually lead.

There are several questions concerning that case, and there are many scientists here today who know a great deal more than I do. In the couple of minutes that I have left, I should like to ask the Minister some questions. I should be grateful if he explained why UK pilots such as Eric Denson and his peers were ordered to fly into experimental thermonuclear detonations without radiation protection. Will the Minister also explain whether the Government have any intention of following the lead taken by the Labour Government of New Zealand and instituting a medal—posthumous in too many cases—to commemorate the sacrifice of British test veterans?
252WH
Successive Governments have kept up a studied policy of denial, which today is clearly at odds with those of most western and NATO countries. Will the Minister explain why Britain persists in pursuing such a strange strategy? In doing so, the Minister might also explain why that policy of denial relies on a 1993 National Radiological Protection Board study that clearly found that UK test veterans had an excess of four major types of leukaemia, as well as excesses of bladder and liver cancers compared to a similar control group of veterans who did not participate in the tests.
I have many more questions, but I do not want to take up any more time. I want to allow everybody to have their chance to speak. Many people have questions that they want answered, and they deserve answers. Those responsible should be more straightforward than they have been.
10.9 am
Mr. Brian Jenkins: First, I should like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) on securing the debate. I should also like to welcome my hon. Friend the Minister. He is a gentleman, and we can expect him to take copious notes and not just to read out the carefully crafted brief from his Department. If he is unable to answer some of our questions, no doubt he will write to us.
I am going to tell a story, which some people may not appreciate. The issue is shrouded in deceit, deception and duplicity—the stuff of politics. Many people do not know that Britain never developed an independent H-bomb. The Minister and his Department will know that the first time we tested a bomb it was unsuccessful. In the middle of the cold war, however, the Government's policy was to sit at the top table with the H-bomb countries. They wanted parity with America and an independent deterrent, and they wanted to defend certain colonies and ex-colonies.
The Government concocted the biggest hoax in this country's history. They exploded an atom bomb that contained so much uranium that it caused a 750,000 tonnes explosion, which made the Americans think that we had an H-bomb. The Americans admitted us to the top table and gave us access to their secrets. Later, Britain managed to clone an American bomb, but we had, of course, created some difficulties. An atom bomb is dirtier, more dangerous to personnel and more radioactive than a hydrogen bomb. We could not allow that fact to be revealed in the form of extra protection for our service men. We therefore sailed our service men close to the explosion, and did not give them the protection that they needed.
Worse than that, the British did not record the radiation readings in case they fell into the hands of a clever American observer who would have noticed that the radiation levels did not coincide with the explosion of an atomic bomb. All the readings were faked and fixed in the interests of national security. However, we need not have bothered because the Americans knew that the dosimeters did not work. Once we had started our great lie, however, we had to continue it.
One incidence of the great lie concerns a friend and constituent, Ron Coates. He was told that he could not have been issued with a dosimeter because his duties did not concern radiation. Unfortunately for the

253WH
Department, Mr. Coates has a photograph of himself wearing a dosimeter. The Department claimed that the dosimeter must have been issued in a simulation or exercise, but Mr. Coates has a photograph of the exercise. It shows four young men standing on the deck of a ship and there is a giant mushroom cloud behind them; some simulation!
What were the duties for which Mr. Coates did not need to be issued with a dosimeter? He was a member of the Fleet Air Arm, and his job was to maintain aircraft and, in particular, helicopters. Britain might not have had an H-bomb, but we must have had a world lead in helicopters. Apparently, we had a helicopter that could land on an island one hour after an atomic blast without raising any dust or having any dust sticking to it. Apparently, it flew back to its ship and was perfectly clean. Supposedly, Mr. Coates was not exposed to radiation and his meter showed no radiation. The fact that after handling the helicopter, he had to go through the scrubbers and down the dirty trail has been totally forgotten.
I shall tell hon. Members the history of the four men in that photograph. Pete Cutforth has cancer; John Carr has diabetes, plus several other ailments; and Ron Coates has cancer. They have lost touch with the fourth man, a Mr. Rowlands, so they do not know what happened to him. That is some record. At least two of the four have certified cancer, despite the claim that they were not exposed to a sufficient level of radiation.
Mr. Coates, after many struggles—and having gone through all the hoops to gain the war pension for which he thought he was eligible—was told, believe it or not, that he had to prove that he would not have contracted cancer had he not been exposed to the radiation. How can anyone prove that? A person would have to go back to a point prior to the explosion, create two of themselves, and allow one to go through the explosion and one not to do so in order to see whether the one who had not gone through it developed cancer. What a stupid thing to say. It is as bad as asking a service man who has been shot on active service to prove that he would not have been shot while walking the dangerous streets of Britain. Anyone who did that would be laughed out of the tribunal, but that is what was said, in effect, to that group of servicemen.
All they are asking for is fair treatment. I know that it is difficult for the Department, but the cat is out of the bag. The Americans now know that it was a con and a hoax. We do not have to keep up the pretence any longer. All we need to do is to quantify the cost to us. The first part of the claim is to secure a recognition of what these people went through; what we put them through. After that, we should ensure, like the Americans, that there is an easier trail for such people to claim war pensions and thus compensation. They were there when their country needed them; please let their country be there when they need it.
10.16 am
Mrs. Janet Dean: I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) on securing this important debate. I want to raise the concerns of my constituent, Mr. Prescott, who
254WH
served on Christmas island in 1962. Mr. Prescott has suffered from ill health for many years and, five years ago, at the age of 57, he was diagnosed with diffuse ideopathic skeletal hyperostosis; a disease that is usually found in very old people. He told me that changes were first noticed on X-rays that he had in the early 1970s. He also has other conditions, including diabetes. My constituent served on Christmas island at the time of operation Brigadoon. One of his concerns is that although the 1993 report by the National Radiological Protection Board stated that there were 350 participants in operation Brigadoon who were mentioned in the health physics records with non-zero doses of radiation, operation Brigadoon is not included in the analysis of the results of that report. It appears that the NRPB did not include the veterans of Brigadoon in its study because the Ministry of Defence did not believe that those involved had been liable to exposure to radiation.
Whatever the results of the NRPB studies in 1988 and 1993, since 1998 an increasing number of pensions have been awarded to UK veterans for conditions recognised by the United States as radiogenic. Sadly, those pensions are not being granted by the Veterans Agency, but are being won on appeal to pensions appeals tribunals. The British Nuclear Test Veterans Association estimates that the Veterans Agency regularly spends £50,000 on trying to reject such awards—10 times the amount that non-officer ranks could expect per year for a 100 per cent. war pension. It will always be difficult—in fact, probably impossible—for test veterans to prove conclusively that their medical conditions are caused by their service.
Many veterans have had many years of ill health. Indeed, as we have heard, some have already died. They feel a strong sense of injustice that they were used as guinea pigs. They have lived in fear for the past 40 to 50 years. Is it not time for the United Kingdom to adopt a formula based on a presumptive principle similar to that of the United States? If what we asked our servicemen to do was so harmless, my constituent, Mr. Prescott, asks,
"Would Ministers be happy to see thousands of service men witnessing nuclear explosions today in the way they did in the 50's and 60's? Would they watch the footage of young men with their bones lit up in front of each other through the x ray effect caused by such a detonation on the burning of the skin, loss of eyebrows, the panic and fear spread amongst the men as the heat from the blast passes through their bodies?"
I hope that we will reconsider the way in which we treat our veterans and recognise that we owe them a debt of gratitude for the service they have given to this country.
10.20 am
Mr. Colin Breed: I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) on securing the debate, not least because of my constituent, Mr. Tom Clarke, who lives in Blunts. I shall not repeat what Mr. Clarke has been telling me, because we have heard so many good accounts of veterans' stories. I shall instead concentrate on a few extra questions. The Minister has already heard many questions, so if he does not get around to answering all of them, I hope that he will respond in writing, as it is important that our constituents hear as many answers as possible.
On medical issues, I understand that the National Radiological Protection Board has launched a further study. We hope that its results will be available next

255WH
year. What contributions are the Government making to the study, and does the Minister have any idea when it will be available?
How, if there were insufficient records on veterans—we have heard much about the way in which data were or were not taken—could the 1998 and 1993 studies claim any accuracy? Why do the Government continue to ignore the medical conclusions reached in other countries, such as America and Australia, and maintain such a distinct position?
I shall consider some legal aspects. The Minister will be aware that the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights criticised the Government's reluctance to provide comprehensive information about tests and medical details, and concluded that it constituted a breach of human rights. What is the Government's response to that? Have they given an official response, or will they respond today?
I have written to the Minister on other issues, such as asbestos, relating to the effect of the repeal of section 10 of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947, which bars retrospective claims by law. Does he intend to continue to invoke that, so that legally, even if the Government are persuaded that there are compensation requirements, they will be barred from seeing them through?
In today's state of heightened tension over Iraq and so on, the public are looking to the armed forces as they do not usually do. Surely it is of paramount importance that we are seen to treat them in the very best way. We have seen not only how successive Governments have treated the veterans under discussion but how they have decided to treat Gulf war syndrome, unlike America, which has accepted that the syndrome may exist. It is important for the Government to recognise that if we want men and women to join the armed forces and put their lives on the line, we should show them some respect if things go wrong and unintended consequences come back to haunt us.
There seems to be a prevailing ethos in the Government of closing down any thought of proper investigation and introducing new regulations to ensure that they do not have to meet legal responsibilities. If we are asking people once again to go and fight for their country, the background of how the armed forces are being treated will have an effect. In today's climate, we need to give tangible assurances of the real commitment to treat service personnel as they ought to be treated.
Valid and transparent research, which is required for monitoring veterans' conditions, is crucial to past and present members of the armed forces and to the public, who are beginning to be uneasy. They think that the Government are continuing to absolve themselves from any responsibility towards them—in relation not only to the armed forces but to other areas, such as mining—and that they are trying to avoid paying compensation. That is in stark contrast to the way in which other countries have been prepared to accept certain responsibilities. Is it not now time for the Government to consider presumptive principles? It would be a matter not of blame but of recognising that many people who have served their country now need the Government's support.
10.26 am
Mr. Gerald Howarth: I join everyone else in congratulating the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) on having secured this important debate, in which many interesting contributions have been made.
I echo the words of the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed). This country owes a great debt of gratitude to its service men. The issue is particularly apposite at present because so few citizens of this country are members of the armed forces. It is not like during the second world war and its aftermath, when the entire nation was involved. From time to time, we call on a tiny proportion of society to lay down their lives for their country. I have just returned from the Falkland islands, where acts of great heroism were carried out. Sometimes the warfare in which the armed forces are engaged is similar to the warfare that was seen during the first world war, yet the rest of the nation is watching television, going to the pub and playing football. We owe a great debt of gratitude to those who serve and have served in Her Majesty's armed forces and we should take their concerns and concerns about them seriously.
The independent nuclear deterrent provided security for the peoples of these islands for a generation. If it had not been for that deterrent, who knows what might have happened? These people were involved in testing the weapon that went on to keep the peace in Europe. My right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude), who said that he was ever a Treasury man, commented that even if the tests were the probable cause, Her Majesty's Government should pay up. I have to tell him that even as an Opposition spokesman I am not in a position to write a blank cheque, and if he were in the position of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), as he previously was, he would certainly slap me down if I were to do so. I recognise the difficulties.
We need to take a new look at how we treat veterans in the United Kingdom. When I went to the United States with the Select Committee on Defence in February, I noted how different the approach was there.
I know that the Government have set up a Veterans Agency, but it is a fairly limited operation. The time has come to examine where the burden of proof should lie. However, if there is to be an increase in public expenditure arising from such a change, it is perhaps not fair that that burden should fall on the Ministry of Defence. The crux of the issue is whether there is a causal link between participation in the nuclear test programme and any subsequent illness. As hon. Members said, successive Governments have commissioned scientific investigations to establish whether such a link exists.
The 1983 National Radiological Protection Board report was mentioned. That study compared the rate of mortality and the incidence of cancer in more than 22,000 men who took part in the tests with those in a similar group of men and civilians who were not involved. The results were published in the British Medical Journal and concluded that participation in the tests had no detectable effect on the participants' life expectancy. The study also failed to establish a causal relationship between the incidence of cancer and

257WH
participation in the nuclear test programme. In particular, there was no evidence linking an increased incidence of any cancer with an increase in radiation dose, contrary to what might have been expected if the cancers were radiation-induced.
The 1983 report recommended that there should be further observations on groups of participants, that controls should be maintained for a further 10 years, and that a further report should be commissioned in 1992. The Conservative Government kept their word and commissioned that report. In December 1993 the then Minister, Jeremy Hanley—now quite rightly Sir Jeremy Hanley—confirmed in an answer to a parliamentary question that the follow-up report had reinforced the original report's conclusions. It had established that no case had yet been found that proved a causal link.
In May 1995, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames), then Minister of State for the Armed Forces, reaffirmed the Government's position when he said:
"Over a period of more than 40 years from the atmospheric nuclear tests in the 1950s and early 1960s, up to the end of 1990, there has been no overall excess of death and malignant disease among British nuclear test veterans. Out of over 20,000 veterans studied by the National Radiological Protection Board, more than 3.000 would have died, over 900 of them from cancer, if the veterans had suffered the same death and cancer rates as members of the public in the same age groups. In fact, fewer than 2,800 veterans died, fewer than 800 of them from cancer, these figures being no higher than for the matched control group in the NRPB study. These facts do not sustain a case for compensation."
When the Conservatives left office in 1997, we were committed to offering compensation to anyone who could be
"shown to have suffered injury or illness as a result of radiation from the nuclear tests."
No causal link had been proved, although independent scientists had recommended that further studies be undertaken, and we were bound to abide by their findings. The Conservative Government had made all decisions strictly in accordance with the recommendations of the independent scientists at the NRPB.
Recently, the debate has been enlivened by a newspaper campaign. The hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson), who I believe presided over a meeting here with the veterans, said that the veterans had no confidence in the NRPB. Indeed, he told us this morning that people were sceptical about scientists and, by implication, that he tended to agree with them. However, he holds a bachelor of science degree in genetics and I hope that he would feel that the public had some confidence in his views on genetics.
The NRPB has consistently found no causal link. We are making a serious charge when we say that we do not trust those scientists. Applying that distrust across the board undermines any study that the Government commission, and by extension undermines the evidence that others submit. It would be a grave crime against the people of this country if the NRPB had systematically
258WH
engaged in a cover-up or a deceit that was not a cover-up but more a manipulation of the statistics to achieve a desired outcome.
Dr. Gibson: The hon. Gentleman is over-egging the pudding. That was not what was being said, which was that different people can assess scientific evidence in different ways. It depends on the questions asked. I made the point that it is a very difficult field in which to acquire hard evidence. It is difficult to determine that one factor in the environment is causing a problem when people are subjected to all sorts of assaults from their environment. No one is saying that the matter debases science itself. The argument is about the interpretation of scientific results.
Mr. Howarth: I am sure that everyone will be grateful to the hon. Gentleman for expanding his point. I have a great deal of time for him, as he knows.
It would be easy for the Opposition to jump on the bandwagon in support of a newspaper campaign, but I do not intend to do that. I will, however, have a little fun at the expense of the Minister, if I may. In 1986, a Mr. Neil Kinnock, whom some hon. Members in the Labour party might remember, wrote to Ken McGinley—then chairman of the British Nuclear Test Veterans Association—saying:
"The next Labour Government, as a matter of urgency and priority, will set up a full judicial inquiry."
Four years later, Bob Clay—a Labour MP—promoted a private Member's Bill calling for compensation for the veterans. The Bill had the support of the current Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister, Foreign Secretary, Home Secretary, Leader of the House, the former Secretary of State for Scotland—the late Donald Dewar— the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the current Secretary-General of NATO, and others. That was a strong supporting cast, yet the Government have not offered a judicial inquiry.
I stand by the pledge that my predecessors gave when the Conservatives were in office. The Ministry of Defence owes a duty of care to everyone serving in the armed forces and a duty to compensate those injured in the course of service. If the Sunday Mirror has produced evidence that strongly asserts a causal link between participation in the test programme and any form of injury or illness, the Government should properly assess the validity of the new claims. I understand that the Legal Services Commission recently awarded the veterans funding to undertake a further review. I hope that that will be forthcoming and that the MOD will approach it in the spirit that both Government and Opposition Members would like it to have.
I have spelt out the Opposition's principled position, but add a qualification: despite the conclusions of many rigorous scientific investigations, anecdotal evidence remains to suggest at least the possibility of a link between participation in the programme and various examples of long-term injury. Anyone who has seen pictures on the television of the mushroom cloud and men standing there with their hands covering their eyes must feel discomfort at the apparent lack of protection that those men were given.
No matter how strong the statistical evidence to the contrary, we must be absolutely certain of it before we dismiss the claims of ex-servicemen who believe that

259WH
they have suffered terribly as a result of the tests. I therefore draw hon. Members' attention to a speech made some years ago by the now Minister for Transport, then a Defence Minister, in which he said:
"The vast majority of personnel who were present during tests were mustered in areas that were known to be safe from the effects of blast, heat and any prompt or residual radiation. At Christmas Island, for example, the muster points were in the areas of the main camp and the port, each of which was some 25 miles from the detonations."—[Official Report, 4 February 1998; Vol. 305, c. 1009.]
I do not doubt the truth of that statement, but I emphasise the first three words: "The vast majority" of personnel were in safe areas. Will the Minister assure us that all personnel were safe, or is there a chance that some were not? Although the vast majority undoubtedly were safe, reports from a number of veterans suggest that a very small minority may not have been. Is there a chance that some veterans are suffering as a result of their participation, but that their numbers are too small to show up in a survey that encompasses all 22,000 personnel who took part? If the vast majority were safe, that raises a question about why all the personnel were included in a survey that was intended to show up any differences between the mortality rates of the veterans and of the civilian population.
If it is possible to separate out those veterans who may have been exposed to a higher risk during the programme of tests, that group should be analysed relative to the control group. Obviously, it cannot be a self-selected group of veterans who took part in the tests and subsequently fell ill. As I mentioned, from a group of 20,000 veterans, more than 3,000 would have been expected to die in any case. However, I remind the Minister that even if only a handful of veterans have suffered as a result of their participation, we owe it to them to find that out and compensate them if possible.
I was very touched by the case mentioned by the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh). To the layman, it must seem almost an open-and-shut case that a pilot flew through a mushroom cloud and subsequently developed various ailments. That also points to a new development: the genetic effect on subsequent families since the tests of 1983 and 1992. The Minister might like to address that. I shall conclude my speech now to give him a chance to respond to the many points that have been made.
10.41 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie): I am grateful that my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) has secured the debate. I cannot answer today all the detailed questions that were asked, but I promise that every hon. Member who asked a question will receive a full response as soon as possible.
Nuclear testing is a deeply emotive subject. Recent articles in the Sunday Mirror that coincided with the 50th anniversary of the first test conducted by the United Kingdom, which took place on 3 October 1952 at Monte Bello island off the north-western coast of Australia, have once again provoked much debate, some of which is clearly ill informed. I therefore welcome this opportunity to restate the position of the Ministry of Defence on this important matter.
260WH
The UK conducted a total of 21 atmospheric nuclear tests in Australia and at Malden island and Christmas island in the 1950s. Some 28,000 UK service personnel were involved in the test programmes, the majority in logistic support. Service personnel from Australia and New Zealand also took part.
For some years, a number of veterans of the test programme have claimed that their health was damaged by deliberate or accidental exposure to ionising radiation. However, my Department has consistently rejected those claims, on the basis that stringent safety precautions were in place at all times. Film badges were issued as necessary to some personnel to record radiation dosage, and environmental monitoring was undertaken. The majority of the service men involved were mustered at safe locations and advised as to what precautions they should take. Obviously, that means that some who took part in the tests were mustered at less safe locations. I think that they made up some 8 per cent. of the 1,800 in total who were issued with film badges. Obviously, there were degrees of exposure. No one, certainly in modern times, has denied that.
In response to concerns about the health of British service personnel who participated in the UK's test programme, my Department commissioned a comprehensive and independent epidemiological study by the National Radiological Protection Board and staff from the Imperial Cancer Research Fund in the early 1980s. The study—based on death certificate information and data from the national cancer registration scheme—cost £540,000 and an additional £160,000 was spent on a subsequent follow-up study. A variety of sources were consulted and, in order to secure accuracy. more than 100,000 records were examined.
The studies involved tracing the service records of 22,000 participants and identifying an equal number of servicemen matched for age and experience but who had no involvement in the test programme—the control group. The results of the study were published in 1988 and a follow-up study was later conducted and its findings published in 1993. Both studies showed conclusively that participation in the test programme had no detectable effect on the participants' expectation of life or on the risk of developing cancer or other fatal diseases.
Leukaemia and multiple myeloma were particular concerns. The 1993 report stated that the possibility that participants in the tests experienced a small risk of developing leukaemia in the first 25 years could not be ruled out. The same report also stated that the possible multiple myeloma noted in the previous 1988 report was not confirmed. A third analysis by the NRPB into the incidence of multiple myeloma, other cancers and other causes of death among test veterans was commissioned by my Department. The results of that study, which has undergone peer review, are expected to published next year. Funding of £30,000 per annum is also being provided for the maintenance of the database of veterans, which has been used during the compilation of these three studies.
I should point out that the earlier studies were reported in the British Medical Journal in January 1988 and December 1993.
Mr. Todd: Can the Minister provide more detail about how the studies examined individual

261WH
circumstances and the particular tests in which the service men participated? I raised the issue, and the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) confirmed that examining 22,000 individuals might conceal a significantly greater degree of exposure among smaller groups who conducted particular operations in a particular test environment.
Dr. Moonie: Without having the substantial study in front of me, I cannot reply now other than to say that we would be prepared to consider the possibility of examining the health experience of a sub-group that received slightly higher than average doses. One has to be careful not to bias epidemiological studies; the greater proportion of the group that is separated out, the more likely the bias. The studies were paid for by the Ministry of Defence, but were constructed on the most rigorous scientific methodology available. People who know what they are talking about have held them up as models of how epidemiological studies should be carried out. When we are debating scientific research, it is important to recognise that, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) would agree.
Informed criticism and debate of scientific studies is always welcome. Having been responsible for a programme of work on Gulf veterans, I know that procedures have changed over the years and that further studies are carried out in the light of criticisms of previous ones. We maintain an open mind and want to people to be as well informed as possible about what is going on. We recognise that the over-secrecy of the past is counter-productive to honest debate.
Mr. Jenkins: Is the Minister saying that the 1,800 servicemen who were issued with film badges were not separated out and did not become part of the population to which the tests were directed? Were they lost in the greater number of 22,000, so that the figures were subsumed in a greater population than the one that we should have been assessing?
Dr. Moonie: No, that is not the case. If my hon. Friend were to examine the records of the people claiming to have suffered effects, he would find that they are not all members of that sub-group. If we want to study the effects on the group as a whole, we must study the group as a whole and not select out and bias the results. If the results are biased, the research is valueless. Frankly, speaking as a scientist and someone who was an epidemiologist in the past—if not a terribly good one in comparison with Sir Richard Doll or other such luminaries—I know that we have to be careful when constructing the population from which we draw inferences about the incidence of diseases.
There is no doubt that those who are complaining of being ill are ill. They have our greatest sympathy. After all, they are people who have served us. Sad to say, illness comes to us all with increasing age. However, where people are attributing an illness to a particular condition, we must be able to show that it is reasonable to do so.
I will return to my brief because I have a lot to cover in a short time. The British Nuclear Test Veterans Association has recently submitted a dossier to my
262WH
Department, which includes the Sunday Mirror study of the health of the grandchildren of test participants. Clarification of the methods used has been sought. Because the study has not been published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, my Department will look for a source of independent review. However, it is doubtful whether such studies can be regarded as scientifically valid epidemiology. That is because they are generally based on a self-selected sample of a few hundred families with medical problems—out of more than 20,000 participants—and because there are no controls.
Obviously, we are sympathetic to those with health problems, but the seventh report of the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment, which was published in August this year, has dismissed ideas of a general link between preconceptional exposure to radiation and cancer in offspring. The report states:
"A number of epidemiological studies have failed to find evidence for a general PPI"—
parental preconceptional irradiation—
"effect either among … survivors of the atomic bombs in Japan or of workforces exposed to radiation."
Current information on radiation health effects suggests that studies of cancer among people who have been exposed to radiation are likely to provide a more sensitive means of detecting such effects than studies of their children.
There is no current scientific or medical evidence to show that the health problems, or other physical problems, suffered by the children or grandchildren of test veterans could be attributed to the veterans' participation in the test programme. If the nuclear test veterans have further new evidence that supports their case, I invite them to present it for independent scientific review.
Mr. Todd: Confidence in the science has been part of this debate. That confidence would increase if sufficient resources were provided to the nuclear test veterans so that they could commission their own scientific advice to input to the debate. What is the Minister's reaction to that proposal, bearing in mind the fact that the New Zealand Government have adopted such an approach?
Dr. Moonie: That is a matter for the New Zealand Government. I have studied this matter both as a Minister and as a professional in the field and I am confident that rigorous standards have been applied to the work that has been done and that no back-up is required in the form of further studies. Such studies would use essentially the same test base.
I want to comment on other studies and, in particular, on the work of Sue Rabbit-Roff, who is a medical sociologist at the University of Dundee. My Department is fully aware of her work, which is supported by the British Nuclear Test Veterans Association, an organisation that covers about 10 per cent. of the known test participants. Her study is mainly descriptive and is based on the death notifications of 608 test participants, provided by the BNTVA. That figure, of course, has to be compared with the figure of more than 21,000 in the National Radiological Protection Board studies. Her study is therefore of a self-selected

263WH
population. We do not consider it to be fully representative. As her study does not use a matched control group, its methodology is open to question. She makes no attempt to compare the figures in her study with national statistics. That is in contrast with the NRPB studies, which have been fully independently reviewed and have stood up to scientific scrutiny. I should point out in passing that her work has not yet been published in a peer-reviewed journal, as is the case with the NRPB studies.
Two test cases against the United Kingdom Government were brought before the European Court of Human Rights by the BNTVA in November 1997. The first concerned allegations that veterans were being prevented from obtaining documents required for applications for pensions. The second involved the daughter of a test veteran who was diagnosed as having leukaemia at the age of four.
The court ruled in favour of the UK Government on both occasions. In the first case, it decided that the Government had neither denied access to documents nor falsely denied the existence of related evidence. In the second case, the court found that there was no reason to suppose that the veteran in question had been exposed to dangerous levels of radiation and that there were no grounds on which the Government should have taken positive action by warning of or monitoring a risk to his daughter's health.
Those veterans appealed against the findings on the grounds of alleged new evidence. However, the European Court of Human Rights rejected their request for a revision of the judgments.
Mr. Todd: Will the Minister give way?
Dr. Moonie: No, I do not have sufficient time.
Turning to the matter in hand—and to repeat what I said at the outset of my speech—there is no evidence to support the test veterans' claim that their participation in the tests has had a detectable effect on their life expectancy or their risk of developing cancer or other fatal diseases. Consequently, grounds do not exist for compensation to be paid.
However, my Department's Veterans Agency makes provision in the form of war pensions and associated benefits for ex-service personnel who suffer from an illness or injury that is attributable to their service. Over the years, many war pensions claims have been made by ex-service men who participated in the nuclear test programme.
Based on the first National Radiological Protection Board report of 1988, the normal policy was to award war pensions for claims for leukaemia—other than chronic lymphatic leukaemia—and multiple myeloma, as well as for some other illnesses such as polycythaemia. The second NRPB report led to a revision of that policy. Since its publication, on the basis of presence at atmospheric nuclear test sites, new claims for multiple myeloma are not accepted, but awards continue to be made for leukaemia—other than chronic lymphatic leukaemia—and for primary polycythaemia rubra vera that has clinical onset within 25 years of first presence at the test sites.
The reports did not causally link development of those conditions to ionising radiation exposure. Therefore, the policy is not an acknowledgment that
264WH
those present at the sites were exposed to harmful levels of ionising radiation. The accepted service link is purely presence at the test sites.
The reports do not provide reliable evidence to raise a reasonable doubt that other cancers—such as liver and bladder cancer—might be attributable to service in the armed forces because of presence at the sites. Consequently, awards are not made for solid cancers on the basis of presence at atmospheric nuclear test detonations or clean-up operations alone. However, an award of a war pension for cancer may be made in any case where there is reliable evidence of service exposure to a sufficient level of ionising radiation and a recognised causal link between the claimed condition and such accepted exposure.
Compensation to service personnel of other states who participated in the UK nuclear tests has been the subject of some debate, particularly with regard to the Governments of Australia and New Zealand. In 1983, the results of a study commissioned by the Australian Government into the health of Australian participants in the UK tests that were conducted on Australian territory indicated no increase in adverse health outcomes.
It has often been claimed that, in 1993, the UK Government were prepared to pay £20 million in compensation to Australian nuclear test veterans at the expense of their own test veterans; although that claim has not been made today. That sum was paid to the Australian Government, but it was a contribution towards the clean-up operation at the Maralinga range in South Australia, which is now complete.
In Australia, military nuclear test veterans can apply for an award through the military compensation and rehabilitation scheme in respect of injury and disease resulting from their participation in the British nuclear tests. Where it is confirmed that a claimant has been exposed to ionising radiation and they present with a disease that is characteristic of such exposure, claims are accepted without further investigation and compensation is paid. That is similar to the process that is followed in the UK.
I understand that nine payments have so far been made to Australian service men, and that several other cases are under consideration, with each case being decided on the basis of available evidence. The health disorders for which payments have been made include malignant neoplasms and skin conditions.
In New Zealand, veterans who participated in the British nuclear tests are eligible for full coverage under the Pensions Act 1954. A veteran may lodge a claim for any disability. Acceptance of the claim is subject to medical verification of the disability and acceptance that the condition is attributable to the veteran's service. Benefit of the doubt is exercised in favour of the veteran if there is any uncertainty as to whether a disability is attributable.
As in the United Kingdom, the war disablement pension is tax-free and, once awarded, paid for life in weekly payments. There are no known cases of nuclear test veterans having been paid compensation by the New Zealand Government. Four nuclear test veterans

265WH
have lodged claims for damages against that Government in the High Court. The claims are current, so obviously I cannot comment on them.
Mr. John Cummings (in the Chair): Order. We must now move to the next business.

Scottish Fishing Industry
11 am
Mr. Alan Reid: I would like to thank the Speaker for choosing Scotland's fishing industry as the matter for debate today, at this critical time for the industry.
There is absolutely no doubt that our fish and fish processing industries are facing a crisis. If the European Union's current recommendations were put into effect, there would be devastating job losses, not only in fishing communities but in the fish processing industry, and those industries are often scattered throughout the country.
Angus Robertson: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. Is he as surprised as I am by the article written by the Prime Minister in this morning's Daily Record, in which he estimates that more than 14,000 jobs are connected to the industry? Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that there are far more than 14,000 jobs at stake in the current crisis?
Mr. Reid: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. Yes, certainly the figures that I have seen show that there would be far more than 14,000 jobs at stake. The Prime Minister, in those comments this morning, underestimates the scale of the crisis that the Scottish economy faces.
Although fish processing factories throughout the country would suffer losses, the weight of the losses would mainly fall on fishing communities where the bulk of fishing is for white fish. Such communities are, by their very nature, isolated, and there is therefore little prospect of replacing the jobs lost in fishing with jobs in other sectors. Make no mistake: the loss of the way of life in those fishing communities and the destruction of jobs would be for ever. The 80 per cent. cut that the European Commission is proposing in the white fish fleet would bankrupt the industry. The loss of the infrastructure would mean that even if quotas were restored in several years, there would be no vessels left, no processing industry, and no skills left to restart the industries.
The Commission's reason for the shutdown is supposedly to save cod, but its proposals are based on dubious science. For a start, the scientific data on which the proposals are based are a year out of date. The International Council for the Exploration of the Sea report does not take into account many things that have happened in the past 12 months, such as the 2002 decommissioning schemes, under which 100 vessels in Scotland, and 70 each in Denmark and England, were decommissioned. As well as that decommissioning, licences have been sold to the pelagic fleet, and boats have often been sold to other countries. That would take the real reduction in fishing effort in Scotland to well over the 100 vessels decommissioned.
The effect of decommissioning was a reduction in effort of 8.6 million kW days in Scotland alone. We have to add to that the extra losses because of vessels sold elsewhere. Also, the ICES report does not take into account the technical measures introduced at the beginning of the year, such as the increase in mesh size in the EU sector of the North sea north of Newcastle.

267WH
Scientific research commissioned by the Scottish Executive shows that those technical measures are working. They are allowing the small fish to escape. However, the best evidence that the cod recovery plan is working comes from the ICES report and I quote its figures. In the North sea in 2001, the spawning stock biomass for cod was 30,200 tonnes. In 2002, that went up to 37,600 tonnes. That increase is not far short of the 30 per cent. target set for the current cod recovery plan. There are even larger increases in the Irish sea and off the west coast of Scotland. That is hardly evidence of a species in decline and it is absolutely no justification for the draconian action that Franz Fischler is proposing.
I shall summarise the scientific position. During the past year, Scottish fishermen have implemented decommissioning and technical measures. Cod stocks have risen during the same period. That is surely evidence that the present cod recovery plan is working and it does not support bringing the plan to an end and wiping out the industry.
The ICES report that recommended the draconian action was published only at the end of October. However, the European Union Fisheries Council will meet in a couple of weeks, in the middle of December, to discuss shutting down the industry. The six-week period between publication of the report and the meeting is not nearly sufficient time to discuss the evidence and to reach a proper and considered conclusion.
Ann Winterton: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has thought that the conservation issue is being used as an excuse for integration within Europe? That is the reason why so many Scottish fishermen, in particular, have to go—to accommodate others who are coming in.
Mr. Reid: I have no evidence to support conspiracy theories; I would rather stick to the facts.
The cod recovery plan is working, but discussions will be held soon to shut down the whole industry without proper consideration. The sensible course of action would be to continue discussing the measures while allowing a proper assessment of the situation and a discussion of proper alternatives. It is important that the fishing industry is properly involved in the discussions because the livelihood of people in that industry is at stake.
Most of the fishing off my west-coast constituency is for nephrops—or prawns, as they are more generally known. The way in which the nephrops quota for next year has been handled is another example of just how confused the EU Commission is. I suspect that there is more confusion than conspiracy.
Everyone agrees that nephrop stocks are strong, but European Commissioner Franz Fischler threatened nephrop fishermen with extinction, all in the name of saving the cod, because he believed from the report that there was significant cod by-catch due to nephrop fishing. When the ICES report was published, Franz Fischler said in a press release:
"Our own scientific and economic committee is currently evaluating the ICES advice and will give its own opinion on II November. Unless it says anything different, which is very unlikely, I can see no other solution in the short term than to propose for 2003 … substantial reductions for … nephrops."
268WH
Two weeks later, he did not propose what he said that he intended. Instead of proposing substantial cuts for nephrops, he proposed a 5 per cent. cut. We can assume only that his scientific advisers advised him that the ICES report was wrong about nephrops.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Elliot Morley): From the UK position, we can claim some credit for that. We sent detailed scientific advice to demonstrate to the Commission that cod by-catch in the nephrop sector was minimal. That shows the advantage of making a case based on a good, logical and scientific background. It also demonstrates that change can occur if a good case is made.
Mr. Reid: I am grateful to the Minister. I was planning to deal with that later. I agree that UK scientists did a good job on nephrops and that the Minister did a good job when he argued the case at the Council.
Mr. Alex Salmond: Given that encouragement, would it not be a good idea for the Commission to have scientific assessments of the changes with regard to 110 mm nets, square mesh panels and the impact of 20 per cent. of decommissioning during the past year? If it had received that timeously, it would not have had only the past few days, as it said this week, to look at the substantial body of evidence that was ignored in the ICES assessment.
Mr. Reid: Yes, it is important that everything is taken into account. I believe that that scientific analysis had not been prepared at the time of the ICES report. Now that that information has been published, it is important that it is fully taken into account by the Fisheries Council before it makes a decision.
That the Commission got it badly wrong over nephrops and United Kingdom scientists got it exactly right—something that the Commission has now accepted—shows the fallibility of the ICES report. If it was fallible with regard to nephrops, there is a good chance that it was fallible about cod. I am grateful to the Minister for sending me the graph that shows that reducing catches of nephrops may be bad, not good, news, for cod. The figures show that there is a negative correlation between landings of nephrops and landings of cod, whereas the Commission was arguing the opposite. They show just how little scientists understand how different species of fish inter-react with one another.
Published scientific data give us a reasonably good estimate of the size of stocks at a particular time, but not what is happening regarding the interrelation between the different stocks and why such changes are occurring. However, we can speculate about that and one reason for the reduction in cod stocks in the southern part of the North sea could be global warming. Scientific data show that cod are far healthier in the northern part of the North sea than in the southern part.
Prawns eat cod spawn. It is possible therefore that cutting prawn catches could be bad for cod—the opposite of the Commission's original proposals. We all agree that the cod by-catch from prawn fishing is

269WH
insignificant and that the Commission's 5 per cent. cut should be resisted. The United Kingdom was successful in resisting the 25 per cent. cut last year and I hope that it will be successful in resisting the 5 per cent. cut this year.
Although the nephrops fishery is not threatened with anywhere near the same disaster as the white fish industry, prawn fishermen on the west coast of Scotland are worried that if Franz Fischler's draconian measures are put through, their livelihoods could be threatened due to displaced effort of the white fish fleet fishing instead for cod. I hope that the Government will put in place measures to stop that displaced effort and that small, local prawn fisheries will be protected from the threats posed by larger boats.
The Clyde Fishermen's Association already operates conservation measures. For example, a box is closed between February and April to protect the cod and there is a 70-ft limit on white fish vessels in the Clyde. The association has proposed further conservation measures. It suggests, for example, that the 70-ft limit should apply to all fishing vessels and that an engine size limit would be a better guide than the 70-ft limit.
Local fishermen's observations are also important and should be taken into account. They have told me that the area of seabed in the Clyde that is covered with mud has increased over the years and that the area covered with sand and gravel has decreased. Given that prawns favour a mud bottom and that cod favour sand and gravel, that could be another explanation for the fall in cod stocks. The Clyde Fishermen's Association has commissioned research into that phenomenon. There should be conservation measures, and scientific research with fishermen, scientists and Governments working together is how the whole fishing industry should be managed—by regional management committees, not by panic-stricken draconian edicts from the Commission with which we have been threatened recently.
Andrew George: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making a sound case. He responsibly emphasised the importance of sticking to sound science and the responsible approach taken unilaterally by fishermen in Scotland to attempt to manage their fish stocks themselves. Does he agree that the United Kingdom must make a strong case to the European Commission not to have regional advisory committees, but to have strong, regional management committees with real teeth so that fish stocks can be managed more effectively within fishing regions?
Mr. Reid: My hon. Friend is right. That is how the common fisheries policy should progress. The regional advisory committees that are proposed by the Commission certainly provide a step in the right direction, but they do not go far enough. They should be given real teeth and real management powers.
Another area of concern to fishermen on the west coast is the proposal to change the scallop-testing regime. It is important that the Food Standards Agency works with the fishing industry to devise a scheme that is viable for the fishing industry and ensures safety for consumers.
In two weeks, the European Fisheries Council will discuss the reform of the CFP and the total allowable catches for next year. There is little, if anything, that I
270WH
would disagree with in the Government's proposals regarding CFP reform. Many of the Commission's proposals provide steps in the right direction and it is important that many of them go through. What is most important of all is that the present six and 12-mile limits should be made permanent. It is vital that that is agreed in December.
The Minister has a good case to put to the European Fisheries Council against the Commission's proposal for an 80 per cent. cut. We all know, however, that when it comes to meetings of the Council of Ministers science often goes out of the window and horse trading is the name of the game. Britain lost out during the horse trading earlier this year on the allocation of deep sea quotas off the west coast of Scotland. The original scientific proposal had recommended effort control and specifically rejected TACs. At the Council of Ministers meeting, however, that recommendation was overturned. We do not know exactly what happened at that meeting, since one of the many ways in which the Council is wrong is that it meets in secret. It certainly appeared that a political fix was proposed by the Spanish presidency and that the Dutch and the Irish, who originally opposed the Spanish proposal, were bought off by the promise of increased quotas. At the last minute the Spanish proposal was accepted. That meant that the Fisheries Council adopted a proposal that flew in the face of scientific advice and which also gave a miserably low quota to Scottish fisherman, who are based the closest to the fishing grounds. That example shows what is wrong with the way in which the CFP operates at present. It appears that the United Kingdom was outmanoeuvred in the negotiations. I hope that that will not happen at the December Council meeting, because the stakes will be much higher.
It is vital that the United Kingdom succeeds this time. The Government must make it clear to other countries that we are serious and that we are determined to win the argument and save the fishing industry. It is not good enough to huff and puff, bang the table, make a lot of noise about sticking up for the industry and then lose the argument. It is vital that we negotiate seriously and win. It is important that the Government send a high-powered delegation. Other countries will send Cabinet Ministers—the Scottish Executive will send one. I have every regard for the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), but, unfortunately, he is not in the Cabinet. In order to send the right signal a Cabinet Minister should attend. A solution would be for the Prime Minister to promote the Under-Secretary of State to the Cabinet—[Horn. MEMBERS: "Hear, Hear!"] I see that that has widespread support. I hope that the Prime Minister is listening. It is important that we send the right signals and a high-level delegation.
The Government must do all that they can to resist Franz Fischler's draconian cuts. The scientific evidence that I outlined earlier indicated that the present cod recovery plan is working and that should be allowed to continue. The Government must enter the negotiations determined to succeed and they must succeed, otherwise our fishing communities will be devastated for no reason.
11. 18 am
Miss Anne Begg: I congratulate the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. Reid) on securing the debate. It will give us all a chance to contribute to the debate on what is happening in the Scottish fishing industry. This time of year is always a worrying time, although this year seems to be even more worrying than past years. I get a sense of having been here before. This is like "Groundhog Day". Each year, the same crisis and the same problems seem to arise. Here we are again.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister is present when the Government send their delegation to the European Commission to argue on behalf of the Scottish fishermen and United Kingdom fishing industry. I do not want to be too sooky to him, but he knows more than any other Minister in Westminster or the Scottish Parliament—or the rest of Europe—about the needs of the UK fishing industry and the importance of the Scottish fishing industry to the Scottish economy. He is extremely well versed in all of the arguments about that. I do not want to put pressure on him, but I will do so; it is now up to him to speak up on behalf of the Scottish fishermen and to ensure that there is a resolution to this crisis.
The fishing industry is very important in my constituency; there are still some fishermen who live in it. Although the port is just outside it in the neighbouring constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, Central (Mr. Doran), most of the fish houses are in my constituency. In Aberdeen alone, at least 2,000 people work in the fish processing industry and half of them are my constituents. I say that despite the fact that I am sitting with my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Savidge). Because of the geography of my constituency, a lot of the workers in the food processing industry are my constituents and more than half of the workers in that industry work in my constituency—they travel to it every day. Therefore, it is an important industry.
I appreciate the fact that Scottish fishermen have strong feelings about the fact that their livelihood could be decimated if the proposals from the EU Commission are implemented. However, there are onshore repercussions too and I hope that hon. Members will not mind if I concentrate on them, as I am sure that many contributors will talk about the offshore side of the industry.
As they stand, the Commission's proposals are unacceptable—I think that everyone agrees that that is the case. Any attempt to ensure that the cod stocks recover—or to prevent any cut in the cod stocks—will result in the closure of the white fish fisheries. All hon. Members who are present know—because they constitute a more knowledgeable audience than most in this House—that if fishermen are not allowed to fish for cod they will not be able to fish for haddock or whiting either because we are discussing mixed fisheries.
In effect, what is being proposed is closure; that is unacceptable. Even if it were possible to fish for some cod, the amount of haddock and whiting that could be caught would not sustain the industry. Any major cut in the amount of white fish that can be fished would have a devastating effect on all of the communities on the north-east coast of Scotland.
272WH
Sometimes it is said that that would be all right for the fish processors because they could import white fish—frozen or not—from around the world. That might be true for some of the bigger fish processors, but I recently heard an estimate that if no white fish was fished in the North sea we would be lucky if two or three of the very large processors in Aberdeen survived. Moreover, most of the fish houses are fairly small businesses and it would be devastating to them if no local fish could be landed and processed.
Therefore, the key issue is not just the amount of fish that is available for processing; it must be local fresh fish, as any dependence on imports would be devastating to the community. In most fish houses in Aberdeen, less than 40 per cent. of the fish that is processed is imported. No company could survive the loss of 60 per cent. of its production. Many fish processors operate on narrow margins as things are. As I said, we have been here before—we have had crises upon crises and therefore several of the processors are already highly indebted to the banks. Obviously, they are concerned that any reduction in their throughput could be the final straw that will lead to their closure.
I would be concerned even if there were to be a short-term closure. The proposal states that if cod stocks recover, we can return to fishing for cod, haddock and whiting. That was tried with herring in the 1970s, and the skills that were needed to process herring were lost. Such jobs are highly skilled. I know that people do not think of fish processors as particularly highly skilled, but they are. It takes several years to become a skilled gutter. It is not the most glamorous of jobs, or popular, but it is a job in which many take great pride. If we find that there is not enough haddock and cod to be processed and if the fish houses close, even temporarily, people will find other jobs. One young girl told me recently that she was going to become a care worker, for a lot less money than she would receive working as a fish processor. She did not want to smell of fish any more. For some people that is quite a nice thing, but she thought that she was not going to get a boyfriend while she smelled of fish, and becoming a care worker was attractive to her.
Fortunately, most people who work in the fish processing industry do not think like that, but if opportunities come up, and they find themselves out of work, they will find other jobs. They will not sit and twiddle their thumbs waiting for the fish industry to recover.
Mr. Peter Duncan: Does the hon. Lady share my concern that not only is there a possibility that people will leave the industry, but there is a specific risk that they will leave rural Scotland? That is one of the most substantial risks in the whole process.
Miss Begg: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. Being an Aberdeen Member of Parliament, I suppose that I tend to look at things from an urban perspective. I would hope that because people like living in Aberdeen, they will continue to live and work there. He is absolutely right. If one considers the smaller communities throughout the north-east of Scotland, whether it is Johnshaven, Gourdon or those further north, there are no other jobs for people to take. I appreciate that in Aberdeen, where there are other jobs

273WH
available, we are in a slightly better position than that of many fishing communities. The hon. Members who represent those communities will put their cases forward this morning, and the sense of crisis and fear is much greater in those communities than in Aberdeen.
That is not to say that that feeling is not present in Aberdeen, as is the fear that an industry could be lost as the result of even a temporary closure. My appeal to the Minister is to ensure that that does not happen. We must retain the skills, and the people working in the industry, to ensure that they are not lost. During a temporary closure, the infrastructure is lost, and markets can be lost, which happened to herring in the 1970s. The public taste for herring disappeared and that market has never properly recovered. It is not as simple as saying, "If we do not fish for cod, the cod stocks will recover." What is the point of their recovering if the taste for cod has gone and the processing skills and fishermen have gone as well?
There has been much argument about the reliability of the science. I am not going to get into an argument today about how reliable the science is. If the Commission is proposing any action, it has to be convinced that that action will work. If the proposal is to ensure that the cod stocks recover, the Commission has to be sure that that will happen. I have it on good authority that when there was a moratorium on cod fishing off the coast of Canada, the cod stocks did not recover because cod is one of the fish that is preyed upon. The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute mentioned that prawn feed on cod spawn. The very action that the Commission is proposing may decimate the cod stocks further, rather than leading to their recovery. Hopefully, one of the arguments that the Minister will take to the Commission is that its proposal will not have the end result for which it is hoping. Apart from the devastating effect on the communities, it will not help the cod to recover.
When we discuss what we do not want the Commission to do, we also need to come up with solutions. I accept the point made by the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute that the cod recovery plan has been working because cod stocks have, to some extent, recovered. Measures that Scottish fishermen have already taken, such as decommissioning—there has been a great deal of decommissioning—increased mesh sizes and the introduction of square mesh panels, are beginning to show results. I appreciate that the results are fairly new, but I hope that the Minister will take them to the Commission to ensure that the measures that Scottish fishermen have introduced are taken into account. Progress may have been slow, but it has been made. The proposed draconian measures would set that progress back and would not achieve the Commission's objective.
Ultimately, we have to look at the reform of the common fisheries policy. It seems like "Groundhog Day" as we lurch from crisis to crisis, which is not the way to maintain a sustainable, long-term industry. We cannot have a yearly round in which the Commission makes a proposal to which everybody in the Scottish fishing industry reacts adversely. Since I was elected, I seem to have delivered almost the same speech every year about the need for sustainable fisheries. The
274WH
solution is the reform of the CFP and zonal management, which would make people responsible for the areas in which they fish. That would turn fishermen into harvesters rather than hunters, as they are at the moment. There would be an incentive to ensure that stocks were kept high because they would be the fishermen's future, their children's future and the Scottish fishing industry's future.
I thank the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute for giving me the chance to speak this morning. I hope that the Minister is taking seriously the plight of not only Scottish fishermen but the onshore, industry. I hope that he delivers a tough talk to the Commission to ensure that it changes its plans.
11.32 am
Mr. Michael Weir: I also congratulate the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. Reid) on securing the debate, which is important. It is particularly timely because tomorrow there will be a mass lobby of the Scottish Parliament in which a petition against the European Union proposals will be presented to the Public Petitions Committee. Make no mistake, the issue is causing great alarm and fear in north and east Scotland.
Unfortunately, there is little fishing left in my constituency, although there was once a busy fishing port in Arbroath. There is, however, a large fish processing industry, which the proposals from Europe would destroy along with many jobs. In the town of Arbroath, we have collected some 4.000 signatures to the petition to the Scottish Parliament in just a few days, which amply demonstrates the concerns felt for the future of the fishing industry in one small town.
The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute also highlighted the problems facing the prawn fishery in his area. Boats from Arbroath, which is in my constituency, mainly fish for prawns. They used to fish for haddock, but earlier cuts have all but destroyed that fishery. They changed to prawns to survive and if the EU proposal goes ahead we have to ask whether many more boats will try to move into the prawn fishery, which would cause problems for it. In the future, we may be back here discussing European Union proposals for drastic reductions in the prawn fishery.
Perhaps the greatest irony is that the recommendations have come about because of the alleged state of the cod stocks. The vast majority of Scottish boats target other stocks, with which it is generally agreed that there is not such a problem. However, the Scottish fleet will be destroyed by the proposal. The International Council for the Exploration of the Sea recommends the closure of all fisheries where cod may be caught, even as a by-catch, which would obviously result in the complete closure of the haddock and whiting fisheries. Such a move would immediately result in a drastic reduction in Scottish fisheries. Even the alternative proposals from the Commission for an 80 per cent. reduction in the total allowable catch for white fish would be little better than total closure because the industry could not survive such a reduction.
Much has been said about fishermen's attitude to the matter. Indeed, during the previous debate on this subject accusations were made that many fishermen

275WH
were trying to get round measures to conserve fish. Specifically, it was alleged that higher mesh sizes would have no effect because some fishermen were using their nets upside down. I want to quote from a letter from a fisherman, John Clark of Macduff, which appeared in this Monday's edition of The Press and Journal, in which he describes fishing in such a way. He says:
"on top of a net there are normally an average of around 60 floats to keep the net open. On the bottom of these nets are heavy rock hopper discs which weigh around one or two tonnes, so letting a net out upside down would mean the heavy rock hopper discs would have to be at the top of the net. I have been a skipper … for nine years and I can assure"—
you—
"that if you were to do this you would not catch one single fish, and probably your net would be torn to shreds."
Why do some people believe all ill of our fishermen and their efforts to conserve stocks in the North sea, yet remain unwilling to tackle some of the real problems with the North sea fishery—especially the impact of industrial fishing on fish stocks?
Some of the Minister's colleagues have been attacking fishermen, but he seems to have united them—if only, for the moment—against himself. I stress to him that Scottish fishermen have accepted many measures to deal voluntarily with stocks in the North sea. They have accepted larger net sizes and used them properly. They have accepted voluntary tie-ups. Boats have been decommissioned. Yet they are not given credit for that; they are attacked in the manner that I described. As the Minister well knows, the original proposal made to the Commission did not take into account those measures taken by Scottish fishermen, and the Commission had not even received the research commissioned by the Scottish Executive. Can he assure us that all that information has been put forcibly to the Commission and that it will be taken into account in the discussions at the Council? When Scottish fishermen visited Brussels, they were given the impression that the Commission was not in the least bit interested in the measures that they had taken.
Despite what has been said about them and what happened at the Commission, Scottish fishermen by and large accept that to do nothing is not an option. However, they believe, as I do, that any action plan should look to maintain the integrity of the industry, with the long-term objective of developing and maintaining a sustainable and viable industry for catching and for processing. The Scottish Fish Merchants Federation has put forward proposals including zonal management, central to which would be the establishment of exclusive zones favouring cod. In other areas, fishing would be permitted, including, for example, a haddock quota—although we would have to accept that that might be reduced in the circumstances—and a cod by-catch.
The federation's information is based on research by Professor McIntyre of Aberdeen university. It believes that it may be possible to achieve a two-thirds reduction in cod catch, combined with only a one-third reduction in haddock and whiting catch. Other sensible measures such as real-time closures have been proposed as practical ways for the industry and the Commission to work together. The fishermen are willing to work on this, but are the Government and the Commission willing to show the same commitment to the North sea?
276WH
Why are we rushing into this disaster? Given the seriousness of the situation for the Scottish fishing and fish processing industries, it is not unreasonable to ask that we stop and draw breath—that we have a short moratorium on a decision before condemning whole industries and communities around the north and east of Scotland.
The EU Commissioner has stated that the industry will not be expected to bear the burden alone. Fishermen and companies directly disadvantaged by the primary cuts in the cod quota should expect appropriate compensation. Indeed, to be fair, the Minister has hinted that in the event of a closure or a very substantial reduction there may be decommissioning schemes. That is all very well, and it would help to some extent those engaged in fishing and fish processing—although in Scotland the bulk of the cost would probably be borne by the Executive, not the UK Government—but it will not protect jobs for the future in the rural communities of north and east Scotland. Boats that are decommissioned or a plant that is shut cannot employ people in the future. Inevitably that will lead to further, perhaps drastic, economic decline in many fishing communities in Scotland.
Today, we heard about the article in the Daily Record by the Prime Minister, which said that some 14,000 jobs are dependent on fishing. That is a gross underestimate of the total. The Scottish Executive figures refer to 44,000 jobs being directly or indirectly dependent. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) noted that in the town of Fraserburgh in his constituency some 55 per cent. of those in work depend on the fishing industry. It is a huge industry in Scotland and it is despicable that the Prime Minister does not seem to understand the scale of the problem that is facing north and east Scotland.
Mr. Morley: No one underestimates the scale of the problem for the Scottish industry, but it is important not to talk it up to sections of the industry, such as those dealing with nephrops or the pelagic fishing and other sectors that are not facing as severe a situation as the white fish fleet. The figures are taken on the basis of those people who are directly involved. No one is being complacent about the situation or underestimating its impact, but we must try to be as accurate as possible about everything.
Mr. Weir: The 44,000 figure comes from the Scottish Executive and a large percentage of those people are directly involved in the white fish industry. We are not being alarmist: there is a serious problem. Scottish fishing has for many decades been sold out in European negotiations. We seem to have reached an impasse. If that happens again, it may mean the death of the white fish industry.
Mr. Salmond: I happen to have the Prime Minister's article here. It clearly states:
"More than 14,000 jobs are connected to this industry",

277WH
meaning the fishing industry in Scotland. The article is absolutely clear. If the Prime Minister, six weeks into this crisis, realised the scale of the industry—44,000 jobs throughout Scotland—perhaps he would be three times as concerned as he seems to be.
Mr. Weir: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend.
Ann Winterton: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way and for supporting the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) in his attack on the Prime Minister. The fact is that the Prime Minister has only influence, not power. The Scottish National party however stands for an independent Scotland and it believes that if Scotland had true independence it would have the power to control Scottish fishing policy. It is sadly mistaken. The leader of the SNP has said that such policy would be part of the EU—the acquis communautaire would be signed and Scotland would be in exactly the same position that it is in today.
Mr. John Cummings (in the Chair): Order. Interventions should be brief.
Mr. Weir: I do not agree with the hon. Lady at all.
Ann Winterton: Of course the hon. Gentleman does not.
Mr. Weir: Tory conspiracy theories about the EU abound, but when the Tory party was in power, it sold out the Scottish fishing industry on successive occasions —[Interruption.]
Mr. John Cummings (in the Chair): Order. Hon. Members must obey the Chair.
Mr. Weir: All the blame cannot be put on this Government, although they are not blameless.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) mentioned the herring industry. That is a measure of what could happen. Although herring stocks are now increasing according to the ICES report, little expertise exists for dealing with herring, nor is there much of a market for it, because of the previous closure of the fishery. If the white fishery were closed, is it not the case that the same would happen to the Scottish fleet and the processing industry? Even if stocks were to recover, Scotland would not receive the benefit and our fleet and industry would have long gone.
As the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South said, the fish processing industry is irrevocably linked to the fate of the fishing industry. If the white fish fishery is closed or severely restricted, it will devastate the fish processing industry. The large processors—the Young's of this world—may well survive, because they will have the economic power to import fish from overseas. Indeed, I suspect that some of them already do so. The small producers do not have that option; they rely exclusively on fish landed at Scottish ports. Small fish processors in Arbroath in my constituency buy their fish from the fish markets in Aberdeen and Peterhead. They do not have
278WH
access to fish from overseas. They do not require the quantities and therefore do not have the economic leverage to import fish.
Arbroath has a specific problem because it requires haddock. There are many small family processors in the town and they produce the world-famous Arbroath smokie, which relies on a steady and reliable supply of haddock. You cannot make smokies from other types of fish. The supply is now in doubt and the future of the smokie hangs in the balance. Make no mistake, if the haddock goes, the smokie goes with it and the smokie is part not only of Arbroath's heritage but of its potential future. Only a few months ago, there was an Adjournment debate on attempts to have the smokie protected under European regulations. Now it appears that we have to try to protect it from the European Commission. There were high hopes that the smokie could find new markets and help the economic recovery in Arbroath, but all that could now go.
Processors and fishermen cannot understand why only last year there was an increase in the haddock quota and smokie production was able to increase. For a short time, the Minister was even a hero among those in the fishing industry. Yet this year we are talking about complete closure and the devastation of an industry as a result of what appear to be panic measures to protect cod. Fish processors cannot make plans because they do not know from one year to the next what fish they can have. One processor told me that he did not know whether to buy a new van to go to the fish market in Aberdeen because he did not know whether there would be a fish market to go to by January.
I do not question the science, but I question the way in which the European Commission has interpreted it. If the science was wrong last year in relation to the quotas, can we be sure that it is correct this year, without taking into account all the matters that have been referred to? Are we on the point of destroying a major industry and bringing untold misery to the north and east of Scotland for nothing? The Minister should be in no doubt that the issue is vital in Scotland. A poll by System Three showed that 73 per cent. of Scots consider the future of the fishing industry to be very important and a further 21 per cent. consider it to be quite important. I hope that Ministers will give the matter the same priority when they go to Brussels.
11.47 am
Mr. Malcolm Savidge: I also congratulate the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. Reid), not only on securing this debate but on giving a balanced speech. This has generally been a well-balanced discussion.
At the last Scottish Office questions, I raised two important points. It is important that the science is accurate. That point was well made by the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute and by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) and I think that it has also been raised by the industry. Questions about the science relate to the fact that the mathematical model is new and it is untested at present. We need to be certain that our decisions are made on a sound and accurate basis.
At Scottish Office questions, I also raised the importance of conserving not only the fish but the catching and processing sides of the fishing industry. My

279WH
right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland gave a very satisfactory answer to my question. I reiterate the compliment that has already been paid both to the Secretary of State for Scotland and to the Minister. I agree that he is well worthy of Cabinet rank. There is a general recognition that we are well represented not only by Ministers here but in the Scottish Executive.
On the whole, the debate has shown that there is good all-party co-operation on the issue. I was a little sorry that, in an otherwise good speech by the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir), we entered into a rather sterile debate about whether the words in a newspaper article referred to the most directly affected—
Mr. Weir: Does not the hon. Gentleman think it important that the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom knows the full extent of the damage to Scotland? There is a huge difference between 14,000 and 44,000.
Mr. Savidge: The difference lies in whether one is talking about people involved in part of the fishing industry or in the fishing industry as a whole. We know that tabloid articles simplify things, so it is silly for us to get involved in sterile party political point scoring when the parties share similar feelings about the matter and the industry wants us to work together on its behalf.
Mr. Alistair Carmichael: Let us leave the job figures aside for a moment. I must tell the hon. Gentleman that the Prime Minister gives another so-called fact in the same article. He says:
"North Sea haddock is well down too."
The Prime Minister should be aware, as the hon. Gentleman is, that the spawning stock biomass for haddock is at its highest level since 1971. Will the hon. Gentleman explain that?
Mr. Savidge: I agree that haddock stocks are well up. I am not prepared to analyse the text of the article in the Daily Record, which I have not read.
I want to move on from party political point scoring to the importance of the industry. Global warming has been a contributory factor in the reduction of cod stocks for two main reasons: it is believed to have an effect on breeding patterns, and cold water fish tend to swim further north. I have been told that the fish used to be full of roe, but now they appear to lack it. We must also recognise that over-fishing has contributed to the problem. In part, we can blame foreign and factory fishing, and it is reasonable for us to say that factory fishing should be curtailed. Fishing for sand eels also affects the food chain for cod.
There is also the problem of the by-catch of small fish. It would be reasonable for us to ask for far stricter inspection of factory ships and for them to be banned from sensitive areas. There is also a strong argument for the total decommissioning of fishing for Norwegian pout, which is largely a mixed catch of fish containing a large amount of small fish. Scotland has had to accept a great deal of decommissioning, so we may reasonably ask Denmark—Norwegian pout is caught mostly by Danish fishing—to decommission its vessels.
Mr. Salmond: I very much agree, but the question of industrial fishery relates not only to the white fish that
280WH
get caught up in it but to the removal of the food source from the sea. There is anecdotal evidence of a substantial recovery in certain stocks in areas such as the Wee Bankie after they were closed. Does not the hon. Gentleman find it remarkable that we have not scientifically analysed and made the connection between allowing more food in an area and having more fish?
Mr. Savidge: I have disagreed with the hon. Gentleman's party in the past, but I am glad to agree with him now. His point was exactly the one that I was making. If sand eel fishing is to continue, we should be able to say that certain sensitive areas should not be fished, because fishing removes a basic food resource from the food chain, as the hon. Gentleman says.
In Scotland, we have already taken action on decommissioning, as I said. It should also be recognised that we have taken action on mesh size and square panels. If we are facing a crisis, we should insist on the early introduction of the appropriate mesh size and square panels for fishing in sensitive areas.
As we said, cod stocks are down. Most of the fish that tend to be part of the same mixed fishery are haddock, whiting and saithe, stocks of which are currently up, as far as we can tell. Incidentally, because of their life-cycle, cod tend to predate on nephrops and herring, which are both up at present. The cycle is counter-balancing because, at different stages, they, in turn, predate on cod. An excessive reduction in the domestic fishing catch would certainly have a devastating effect not only on the catching but on the processing industry.
To back up my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South, representatives of the processing industry recently told us that many firms in Aberdeen—it is even worse in other north-eastern areas—are between 40 and 90 per cent. dependent on domestic fish. It is untrue to claim that they can rely solely on imports: some can, but others would go to the wall. Knock-on effects would also harm employment outwith the fishing industry.
We should continue to examine decommissioning throughout Europe. I prefer long-term to short-term solutions such as tie-up, though there might be a case for considering days at sea again. On decommissioning, we should consider not only owners but trawlermen and workers within the industry. The Government's recent action on compensation in respect of the Icelandic cod wars provides a good example of assessing impacts on everyone in the industry—not just those at the top. It is vital to recognise common interests and the industry needs to co-operate. We must encourage co-operation between organisations representing the catching side of the industry, those on the processing side and the trade unions. We need more dialogue and co-operation across the industry during this crisis.
Finally, we must cut out cheating. Arguments about others cheating—whether in other parts of Europe or other parts of the industry—can always be heard. At a time of crisis, the temptation to cheat is always greater, but it is vital to eliminate it. It is in the interests of all to have improved surveillance and enforcement. Satellite surveillance is already present, but it is in the industry's own interest to increase it. We need greater stringency of inspection and the registration of buyers and sellers.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South said, in citing one of the processors, we need to move from a hunter-gatherer industry with a plentiful supply

281WH
to one based on a farmed and harvested resource that must be conserved for the long-term interests of the industry. I repeat that we often end up in a panic at this time of year, so it must be possible to work towards longer-term planning in Europe.
11.58 am
Mr. Alistair Carmichael: I, too, join in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. Reid) on securing this debate. It has often struck me as a parliamentary curiosity that we congratulate each other on winning a raffle, but on this occasion I congratulate my hon. Friend not just on securing the debate but on delivering a well balanced and thoughtful speech, which was commendable for its detail and handling of the issues. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Savidge) knows that I was born and brought up in his constituency and it is satisfying to see that my own family's concerns remain in good hands.
The other great cliché of Westminster Hall debates is that the debate is timely. It is difficult to imagine a more timely debate in view of the present position of the Fisheries Council. However, I did not realise just how timely it was until I picked up my copy of the Daily Record this morning over what became a rather spoiled breakfast in the Tea Room. I do not know whether that is your paper of choice, Mr. Benton, but if it is not, I commend it to you. I certainly commend its, "Save our Supper" campaign. That is an excellent example of how a responsible tabloid can campaign for an industry that is crucial to parts of Scotland beyond those that are represented here today.
Unfortunately, like other hon. Members, I have been less than impressed by the Prime Minister's article in that paper. Reference has been made to the 14,000 jobs and I find that situation difficult to explain. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North was asked to explain the Prime Minister's assertion that haddock stocks were down, given that the spawning stock biomass, which is the important indicator for fish stocks, is manifestly up.
Mr. Morley: I gave those hon. Members who met with me the clear figures relating to the North sea. We have had one of the best spawning years for haddock for a long time, which means that there is a lot of haddock in the sea, but recruitment in the past few years has been poor, so there will be a decline in the overall haddock stocks. That cannot be ignored.
Mr. Carmichael: I certainly do not ignore that issue, any more than the Minister or the Prime Minister should ignore the fact that the SSB is at an all-time high. Having read the Prime Minister's article, I am afraid that I am left with the image of a world war one general sending his infantry men over the top, while carefully crafting a plan to blast them with their own heavy artillery, machine guns and tanks from behind.
The Minister may be able to assist us on one point. Incidentally, I presume that the Prime Minister wrote the article because it says that he did. I am sure that he would not have let anyone else write it for him. I did wonder whether someone from a school on work experience at No. 10 Downing street had written it for him, but no. The Prime Minister says:
282WH
"I met with Mr Fischler. We—"
whoever that is: it was the Prime Minister who met him—
"made it clear any EU emergency plan must take into account steps already made by Scots fishermen."
Will the Minister tell us more about the Prime Minister's meeting when he sums up the debate? What did he tell Commissioner Fischler and what response did he receive?
As I have found and others have said, the response from Brussels has been rather less than encouraging. The Prime Minister need not take my word for that; others have corresponded with me on the issue. The local branch of the Federation of Small Businesses in Shetland recently wrote to me to express its concern. It identifies the fishing industry as one of the main drivers of the Shetland economy. Picking up earlier points from the debate, it said that implementing the closure plan would have the serious effect of speeding up the train towards population decline, thus killing off our communities.
If the Prime Minister is looking for useful information for future articles, I will be more than happy to send him a copy of the document from the Shetland Oceans Alliance—SHOAL—which is a partnership between Shetland Islands council and the Shetland fishing industry. The document's title refers to the future of Shetland's white fish fleet. I do not know whether the Minister has seen a copy of it; I have only one. It has what we used to call marginal annotations when I was a solicitor, and is an excellent piece of work.
I place on the record the document's estimate, based on a fair amount of local research and calculation, that the loss to the local economy in Shetland in the event of the closure of the white fish sector will be some £43 million. That is considerably larger than the figure of £28 million, which was simply taken from multipliers. I am talking about some 25 per cent. of Shetland's productive economy and a loss of 531 jobs, representing 17 per cent. of full-time employment in the productive economy and 7 per cent. of the total full-time employment in the wider economy. Over four years, it is expected that the loss of the demersal fleet would remove approximately £170 million from the Shetland economy.
In the past, others have suggested that I tend to be emotional in dealing with this issue. I make no apology for being emotional when I see the potential effect on the communities that I represent. Further to the point made by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg), there is nothing else to keep people in Shetland. If the white fish fleet goes, the people will follow. Once the critical mass of the population in a community such as Shetland goes, it is gone for ever. There will be no return.
There are various other management measures for the North sea fisheries promoted in the SHOAL document. In the short time that remains to me, because I am keen to allow the Minister as long as possible to respond. I will ask for some consideration to be given to those measures.
The question of tie-up would have to come with funding, but would have to be part of measures related to the reduction of fishing effort. The Shetland industry believes that it is preferable to have a limit on the number of days at sea and an extended tie-up.

283WH
The industry in Shetland, and throughout the rest of Scotland, is concerned that the innovative measures that it has taken—not particularly welcome in Brussels, for some reason—including the use of larger mesh cod-ends and square mesh panels, should now be implemented in other areas. Although the white fish industry is located predominantly in Scotland, those measures should also be implemented south of the border. Will the Minister comment on that?
In connection with the implementation of new technical conservation measures to reduce the capture of cod and juvenile fish in mixed fisheries, a great deal can be done with measures such as separator trawlers. I hope that something along those lines is being devised in the Minister's Department in conjunction with the Scottish Executive.
I have spoken for nine minutes—
Ann Winterton: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Carmichael: I am reluctant to give way to the hon. Lady at this stage. I will cheerfully speak to her later, as she knows, but I am anxious to allow the Minister as long as possible.
12.07 pm
Mr. Peter Duncan: With my slightly croaky voice, I congratulate the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. Reid) on his good fortune in securing the debate at such a critical moment for Scotland's rural communities.
During the debate on 21 November, I said that it was unfortunate that Members such as the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute and I, who had a critical interest in the future of Scottish fishing, were restricted to brief remarks at the end of the debate, because of its nature. The debate today has provided a useful additional means of raising the pressure.
I should say to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) that I am a supporter of the "Save our Supper" campaign.
Mr. Carmichael: We can both claim that.
Mr. Duncan: Yes, we can.
This debate cannot be understated. Several hon. Members on both sides of the House pointed out that it requires passion. Without exaggeration, the debate is about the future of substantial areas of rural Scotland. It is not about a small factory closure in one area, but about significant rural employment. It is several Ravenscraigs. Even on the figures given by the Prime Minister, who has substantially torn the rug from underneath much of the case that has been made on both sides of the House in the past couple of weeks, this is two Ravenscraigs. We all know that the real figures from the Scottish Executive demonstrate that 44,000 jobs are at risk in Scotland.
It is worth examining some of the other factors that have not been considered. This is not purely a fishing issue. Only 8 per cent. of fish mortality is due to fishing for human consumption. The effects of the discharge from the Ruhr valley in Germany and of global
284WH
warming are well known, and I know that the Minister understands them. Those factors have a major impact on fish stocks: indeed, it is as big as, if not bigger than that of all North sea fishermen. There is substantial resistance and resentment because the industry is being threatened with the imposition of control measures when fishermen are responsible for only a small proportion of the impact on fish stocks.
On factory fishing, the Danish fleet is hoovering up much of the fish in the North sea in a very inefficient process, which, as the Minister knows, requires 8 lb of raw soup from the ocean floor to provide 1 lb of farmed salmon. In many respects, that process is insane, yet it accounts for much of what we are discussing. The issue has not been explored as widely as it could have been.
The scale of the problem cannot be underestimated. We are talking about the future of 800 vessels, out of a Scottish fleet of 2,500. Those vessels represent the most substantial part, or the core, of the fleet. For every offshore job that is threatened, four or five onshore jobs are put at risk. In that respect, I would slightly chastise the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir), who concentrated on north-east Scotland. The problem affects the whole of Scotland. As the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Brown) mentioned in the debate on the Floor of the House on 21 November, Annan is one of the communities that is critically affected. Who would have thought that a rural community in Dumfriesshire would be one of those most at risk? The present proposal could sound the death knell of communities the length and breadth of Scotland—in the south-west as much as in the north-east.
Mr. Salmond: It emerged from that debate that Scottish Executive research showed that 35 per cent. of employment in Annan was fishery related because of the two major fish-processing factories there. That demonstrates that the problem's impact is being felt from the Shetlands, through the north-east and right down the west coast to south-west Scotland.
Mr. Duncan: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's clarification. What is more, the processing industry in Scotland is geared to a great extent towards a domestic catch. On average, 80 per cent. of the fish is Scottish caught, but the figure in England is regularly as low as 40 per cent. That implies that the industry will be incapable of adjusting in the short time that remains. I repeat that that is madness. We are contemplating the end of an industry between 26 October and the end of the year. That is no way to go about things. We all know that it is crazy, but we are going ahead with things yet again. I take the Government's point that this has happened under successive Governments, but the common fisheries policy has presided over the industry's decline and it will continue to do so. It is failing our fishermen.
Although the science is regularly quoted, the fact is that this is about politics. We need only look at the settlement in the west coast deep-sea sector. Scotland has an historic claim to that area, but it now faces an allowable catch of only 2 per cent. Eighty per cent. will go to the French, while the rest will be split between the Irish and the Spanish. The Minister knows that because he corrected me in the Chamber when I got the figures the wrong way round. What makes the situation totally

285WH
crazy is that the Scottish are expected to police the arrangement. That is madness, and any pretence that the present approach revolves around the science flies in the face of our experience of the CFP over many years. Such claims also ignore fishermen's real, justified concerns about deals being done behind closed doors and about the fact that they know little about them until they happen.
To conclude, I share the concern of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland that the Minister should have as long as possible to respond to the debate, because many questions need to be answered.
We cannot leave the Minister in any doubt on this matter. One of the most depressing aspects of the article in today's Daily Record is the implication that the Government are doing what they can to minimise the spin on the problem. That is an appalling travesty. The Secretary of State for Scotland regularly accuses us of talking down Scotland whenever we present a critical analysis of what is happening. Now we are accused of talking up the problem in Scottish fishing. That is crazy. The figures are the Scottish Executive's own. There are 44,000 families in Scotland facing oblivion.
We want distinct action from the Minister in the next couple of weeks. We also want the Prime Minister to take up the invitation that has come from both sides of the House, and to act with the same determination that he has shown in other matters. In other areas of foreign policy he has been the most determined person. He has access to the top, around the world. Now is the time for him to act, and not to let down Scotland's communities, because we shall not stand for it.
12.15 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Elliot Morley): I congratulate the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. Reid) on securing the debate and on a balanced and reasoned speech. He made some good points.
I also welcome the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan) on what, I think, is his first outing on the Opposition Front Bench. I also greatly appreciate being joined by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. Her presence is an indication of how united we are, at all levels of the Government, in our approach to and concern about the problem in Scotland.
I do not think that it would be helpful to dwell on the figures, but the Sea Fish Industry Authority figures for employment in Scotland give the number of people employed on the catching side as about 6,650 and the number employed in processing as 7,900. There are, of course, associated onshore jobs. I might also mention the shellfish, nephrops and pelagic sectors, as well as those processing sectors that import fish for processing—which, I accept, is not all. Of course, many of them depend on the haddock fishery in particular and face problems. However, it is important to try to be accurate. There are many jobs at stake in Scotland and
286WH
the rest of the United Kingdom and we should focus on how to tackle that issue in relation to the proposals that have been made.
Mr. Salmond: The text of the Prime Minister's article speaks for itself, and people will draw their own conclusions from that. The point that hon. Members were trying to make was that an appreciation of the Scottish Executive figures, showing that the entire industry employs at least 40,000 people in direct, indirect and related jobs, might concentrate minds at the highest level in Government. That is why we find it difficult when we see figures that minimise the industry's importance. All we want is Government understanding that a huge industry, with 40,000-plus jobs connected with sea fishing, is involved.
Mr. Morley: The hon. Gentleman knows that I exactly understand the implications for the Scottish industry and that there is an important regional dimension to the issue. As we have heard, there are parts of Scotland, in particular, with very high levels of unemployment connected with the fishing industry. In Orkney and Shetland, of course, there are often few other opportunities. I understand that. I have met representatives of SHOAL several times and I congratulate them because they have tried to deal in a thoughtful and pragmatic way with the current circumstances. Not all of the suggestions are practical, but some are worthy of consideration and SHOAL sets a good example in recognising the problem. That is the point: we have a real problem with the state that the stocks are in and we cannot ignore that or wish it away.
As hon. Members have said, we need careful and critical analysis and interpretation of what the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea and the Commission say. The Commission recommendations must be justified. My Scottish Executive colleagues, my right hon. Friend and I have made it clear that we do not think that it is realistic to close down the North sea. I made it clear at the Fisheries Council last week that the suggested alternative of an 80 per cent. reduction is not very different from complete closure. It is not a realistic option.
Mr. Peter Duncan: Has the Minister reflected on the experience in Canada, where the Newfoundland Grand banks were closed 10 years ago to restore cod stocks, but nothing happened to regenerate them. Fishermen are now, I understand, fishing for plentiful snow crab and shrimps, but there are no cod there after 10 years of closure.
Mr. Morley: The Canadian situation is at the back of all of our minds. I met with the Canadian Fisheries Minister not long ago, and have spoken to Canadian scientists. They have told me two things. First, both the industry and politicians were denying the scientific assessments right up to the bitter end until the cod fishery collapsed. That is worth remembering. Secondly, while the Canadian cod situation is not fully understood, there is a scientific theory that the stock was fished below a crucial, critical level, which meant that its

287WH
spawning biomass was not in a position to recover. Those issues are debatable in relation to the results, but we cannot ignore them.
Mr. Salmond rose—
Mr. Morley: I have only nine minutes left, but I shall give way briefly.
Mr. Salmond: The hon. Gentleman is very generous. He will accept that the aim is not to preserve one species of fish but to preserve an industry. If he had total control and could make a decision without going to the Commission, what would be his policy and approach? Secondly, given that anything that comes out of this effort is likely to be a disaster, is there not an overwhelming argument for trying to delegate it to the states concerned—rolling over? Is he aware that Commission officials said this week that they are waiting for such an option to be proposed by a member state?
Mr. Morley: I shall certainly go through what I think should be done. I shall talk about the issues that I have discussed with the industry, for which I shall argue in the Council. They are measures that, if we had complete control in UK waters, I would apply within UK waters—perhaps in different ways and at different times. However, I believe that the principal measures represent the right way forward.
Ann Winterton: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Morley: I cannot give way as I have many points to get through in eight minutes, but I apologise to the hon. Lady because I respect the interest that she takes in the issue.
I should like to stress what the industry has done to reduce effort—that is important. ICES will not take that into account in its brief, because it looks at the present state of the stocks and makes recommendations to the Commission accordingly. The Commission has to decide how to respond to that.
The scientific measure of the reduction in effort necessary to have an effect on stocks must be considered. We can debate what is realistic, what is reasonable and what will have an effect. Once a credible level is identified, we can also consider what the industry has done in the past two years in terms of decommissioning, bigger mesh sizes and the move of licences from the white fish fleet to the pelagic fleet. Those points constitute a strong case. I have discussed them with the Commissioner and with the presidency and I assure the House that we will ensure that they are taken into account, in the same way that we have already succeeded in having account taken of the work that we have done on nephrops and the fact that the original proposals were entirely unjustified. We have made progress in that respect and I have every confidence that we shall do so in relation to the industry's effort reductions. That will move us a long way from where we are at present with the Commission's suggestions, but more work is to be done. Although our scientists made a case—we could back it up with justification—to exclude nephrops, they are not challenging the thrust of the ICES findings on present fish stocks.
288WH
The news is clearly bad for the industry, but it is not in anyone's interests to ignore it. Nor would it be in anyone's interests, and it would be impossible, for me to take a populist position that was not credible given the science and the terms of the case. Our position has to be seen to be credible. That does not mean that we will not support the industry, or that we underestimate the impact of the recommendations on it. Everyone—me, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, the Scottish Executive, right up to the Prime Minister in No. 10—is committed to making the case.
When I go to the Council, I will be joined by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. My discussions and negotiations have the authority of the full Government and the devolved Administrations. There is a team approach. In that way, I speak with some authority, with the full clout of the full machinery of Government behind me, including up to the level of the Prime Minister. I have talked to No. 10 almost daily since the most recent Council about the problem and the issues that we want to raise. It is important to stress that.
Ross Finnie and I have been attacked by some sections of the Scottish fishing industry, but we cannot take a fundamental decision by denying that there is a problem. I have had responsibility for fisheries for some time and the job is not for the faint hearted. On occasion, Fisheries Ministers have to act as a lightning rod for the industry, especially when it is under stress. However, some of the attacks—they have tried to exploit divisions and play petty politics—have not been in the interests of the industry at the moment. It would betray the industry if we were distracted from the need to unite on the impact on catching, processing and onshore jobs. We must think about what we need to do to mitigate the problem and ensure that the industry is not destroyed in the way hon. Members have described.
We recognise the severe short-term problem, but we must consider longer-term issues as well. I do not want to stagger from crisis to crisis. We have done so, partly because choices on reductions in fishing efforts have been ducked by the Council of Ministers as they were difficult for the fishing industry, which was against it, and unpalatable for Fisheries Ministers from various countries. That is one reason why we find ourselves where we are at present. We must take short-term action. I do not disagree with the idea that it will be painful and we must think about the consequences. However, the action need not be what the Commission proposes, as we can make a credible case for changing that.
We need to consider closer relationships between fishermen and scientists, reform of the common fisheries policy, and research into long-term environmental change such as global warming. The rise in sea temperatures cannot be ignored, especially in relation to cod. We need effective control and enforcement, as misreporting and misinformation helps no one. It certainly does not help scientists in their assessments. Control of effort, gear, technical measures and closed areas are also important.
We must acknowledge the role that the industry has had. On Friday, there were discussions about some of the issues that have been mentioned today—how we could argue for certain measures and how we could apply them to benefit fish stocks and the long-term

289WH
sustainable management of fisheries. The work of the industry was also recognised. There is an alternative case to put to the Commission about its proposals, and we can make that case.
We must tackle short-term and long-term issues. We as a Government are committed to defending the interests of the whole United Kingdom industry. The debate is on Scotland, and rightly so. As a result of the scale of its involvement, the implications for the Scottish white fish fleet are severe. It is right to focus on that, but I emphasise that all levels of Government are committed to defending the industry's interests in a credible and effective way to minimise the impact of the proposals and ensure long-term sustainable management.

Transco
12.30 pm
Mr. Barry Gardiner: There is a joke currently doing the rounds in one of the synagogues in my constituency: what is the difference between a Rottweiler and a Jewish mother? The answer is that the Rottweiler eventually lets go. I do not know whether I more closely resemble a Rottweiler or a Jewish mother—[Interruption.]
Mr. Joe Benton (in the Chair): Order. Would hon. Members leaving the Chamber please do so quietly?
Mr. Gardiner: Thank you, Mr. Benton.
For more than four years, I have refused to let go of the issue of regulation of the gas industry, in particular the risk posed to public safety by the actions and failures of Transco. I am confident that, in preparing a response to the debate, the officials of my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Construction will have taken the prudent step of checking whether any questions remain unanswered following my Adjournment debates in June 1998 and July 1999. They may even have checked my examination of the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets regulator at the Public Accounts Committee hearing three years ago. Let me start, however, with those easy questions to which the Minister will no doubt have the answer.
Before the establishment of Transco in 1994, British Gas responded to more than 99.9 per cent. of uncontrolled gas escapes in one hour. The response rate varied during the following five years, but dropped to as low as 92 per cent at one time. Given that there were more than 1 million calls each year to attend uncontrolled escapes, that means that, in some years, 80,000 uncontrolled escapes were not responded to within the target response time. Can the Minister tell us the current target rate and the actual percentage for attendance at uncontrolled escapes within one hour? Furthermore, can he assure the House that nothing has been done to modify the smell of gas so that the incidence of emergency call-outs, rather than the incidence of leaks, is reduced?
In Feburary 1999, in response to repeated representations by, and on behalf of, my constituent, Mr. Andrew Duffield, Ofgem took the unprecedented step of making an order against Transco. The background to that order is as follows. The Gas Act 1986, as amended in 1995, introduced competition into the business of connecting premises to the mains gas network. Before that, the market had been a monopoly controlled by British Gas Transco. In January 1997, my constituent, who had been a senior engineering manager at Transco, left to set up a specialist gas connection company known as EGS, which competes directly against Transco for business under the Gas Act. However, Transco is charged with custodianship of the gas mains network and all competitors such as EGS must apply to Transco for a quotation for the final connection to the mains when laying the pipe system for any new scheme or development.
Until it has obtained that costing for the final connection from Transco, EGS cannot provide its customer with an accurate quotation for the total cost of

291WH
the work. Clearly, if Transco were to abuse its position and delay the provision of that information or inflate the price of final connection, it could make EGS look inefficient and expensive by comparison with its own connections team, competing for the same business. For that reason, Transco has a statutory obligation not to abuse its position as final connector to the mains. Transco broke that statutory obligation four years ago. I am sorry to tell the Minister that it continues to break it now, and that
"there have been unacceptable delays in Transco's quotations for connections, that there has been overcharging and that Transco's behaviour is anti-competitive".
Those words are not mine; or, at least, not mine alone. I use them to refer to the current anti-competitive practices adopted by Transco against EGS. They are taken directly from a decision document issued by the Office of Gas Supply when it investigated Transco's behaviour four years ago. It concluded:
"There is a likelihood of continuing breaches, if action is not taken".
Most damningly, it stated that
"information provided by Transco in the course of the investigation has proved to be untrue".
Hon. Members must always seek to use most carefully the privilege that speaking in the House gives, and must not make reckless statements under the protection that they are afforded. I therefore assure you, Mr. Benton, that I do not lightly say that those speaking on Transco's behalf were found then to be liars, and that Transco was found to be acting illegally and anti-competitively to try to bully a small competitor out of business. Transco has not changed: it is still acting illegally and anti-competitively, and it is still lying and bullying.
One thing has changed, however—Ofgem, the regulator. In 1999, it was never dynamic or proactive in its enforcement of the regulations, or in its interpretation of them. Now it is positively spineless, failing to act when there is a clear track history of anticompetitive behaviour, and seeking to hide behind any legalistic cover, rather than perform its duties to regulate the market properly and to stamp out anticompetitive behaviour. Worse than that, it has maintained a stunning silence since 24 April this year over fundamental issues of public safety. If Ofgem is the guardian of the gas industry, I ask the Minister, "Quis custodiet custodes?"—who will regulate the regulator?
I have made some serious allegations, and I must now back them up. On 7 November 2001, Transco wrote to EGS with calculations purporting to show its performance in response to EGS's connection inquiries during September 2001. That was the result of the order made against Transco in 1999. That order required Transco to introduce a scheme of liability payments that were payable whenever Transco failed to meet its own published standard response times to requests for connection quotations, or where it supplied false information.
Hon. Members may find it strange that Transco is charged with monitoring its own compliance. They may find it even stranger that attachment 2, paragraph 7, subsection (ii) of the order provides that
"If, before the expiry of five working days from the submission of the claim the quotation is adjusted by Transco so that the reason why it was thought to be excessive has been addressed to the reasonable satisfaction of the person who submitted the claim, no compensation shall be payable by Transco".
292WH
The effect of that provision is to provide a perverse incentive to Transco to continue overcharging, secure in the knowledge that if it is challenged, it has five days in which to amend the price to the proper level before any penalty or compensation becomes payable to its victim.
So much for the robustness of the order. On the basis of that order Transco wrote to EGS, explaining that of the 43 quotations that EGS had requested in September 2001, 34 had been provided within Transco's agreed time and price standards. As a result of its 79 per cent. compliance, and in accordance with the order, it offered EGS compensation of £790.
That was a pretty normal month—or so Transco thought. In fact, EGS had long suspected that Transco was substantially overestimating its own performance. Put more accurately, it was substantially underestimating its service failures; hence, it was substantially under-compensating EGS. Despite repeatedly challenging Transco on that point, EGS was not able to persuade it to deal with the problem. During September 2001, therefore, EGS took the highly unusual step of logging and analysing all its dealings with the company. I need hardly mention that it was an extremely costly exercise.
EGS's analysis showed that there had been 47 quotations, not 43, during that September, and that only 57 per cent. rather than the 79 per cent. claimed by Transco had been provided within Transco's agreed time and price standards. The analysis showed that Transco had failed to record four quotations for which compensation was due to be paid, and that Transco had stated that a further seven quotations had met the standards when they had not and should have generated substantial compensation.
Transco now accepts that EGS's analysis was substantially correct and that almost twice as much compensation as it first offered is in fact due. EGS has extensively documented similar failings and passed them to Ofgem. Ofgem accepts that Transco has over-quoted by 78 per cent. at a development called La Formair; by 900 per cent. at Ossington buildings; and by a staggering 1,683 per cent. at Pennyfan road.
Given the scale of overcharging, and given that it was precisely to stop such anti-competitive practice that Ofgem put the order in place against Transco three years ago, it seems reasonable to expect Ofgem to take positive enforcement action against Transco. In its response of 2 October to EGS's complaints, however, Ofgem concludes that Transco is not in breach of the 1999 order. Again, it tries to hide behind a legalistic loophole. It states:
"The 1999 Order was made in relation to Transco's connections operations. The 1999 Order was made following a finding that Transco was in breach of Section 9(2)(a) of the Act and standard condition 11 of its licence condition 4D".
It goes on:
"Transco has introduced the systems and compensation schemes provided for in the 1999 Order. In each case, the scheme introduced covered at least those matters set out in attachments to the 1999 Order. Ofgem does not consider that on a strict interpretation the 1999 Order requires Transco to update or amend the schemes made to comply with the 1999 Order."
Ofgem's conclusion that there had been no breach of the order is based on the fact that the order required Transco merely to introduce systems and compensation

293WH
schemes. Ofgem's position is that those systems have been set up, that that is therefore the end of the matter, and accordingly that there is no breach. It cannot be sensible to interpret the order as meaning that, as long as a system is set up, it does not matter whether Transco in fact operates that system or the schemes, or whether such systems or schemes work at all. On that basis, Transco would not fall foul of the order in circumstances where none of its quotations within a given month is within standard. The order must be construed against the factual background that gave rise to its making in 1999 and of the mischief that it was designed to prevent.
The Transco connections investigations document from Ofgas, which accompanied the original order in February 1999, stated that the order was made because of Transco's appalling performance in relation to connections. The document states:
"The responses to the consultation confirmed the findings of the investigation that there have been unacceptable delays in Transco's quotations for connections, that there has been overcharging, and that Transco's behaviour is anti-competitive in effect."
It added that
"the proposed order should have the effect of securing compliance".
In its interpretation of the order, Transco has patently failed to secure compliance.
Even if that were the sum total of my complaint against Transco, I am sure that the Minister would take it seriously. However, it is not. On 24 April this year, EGS sat down with Miss Karen Briggen of Ofgem and explained not simply the problems of anti-competitive behaviour but fundamental problems affecting public safety. Transco is required to notify EGS of the pressure of the connection valves that it uses. As hon. Members will appreciate, it is absolutely vital that the correct pressure of those valves is notified to EGS. They can be high, medium or low-level pressure valves.
Problems have arisen when Transco notifies EGS that a pressure valve at the connection point to the system is at a different pressure to the true one. I know of three cases in the past two weeks involving incorrect notification, and I will refer them to the Minister so that they can be investigated. Problems were found at the IMEX Spaces business centre, unit 77, Station lane, Birtley, County Durham; at plot B, Twelvetrees crescent, Bromley-by-Bow; and at the Academy of Light at Whitburn moor in Sunderland.
On each occasion, EGS was notified that there was a low-pressure connection valve connecting to the mains network when in fact all three valves were of medium pressure. If an incorrect valve is fitted at that point, it may function for a while before eventually having a catastrophic failure. The consequences of such failure are clear.
On 24 April, EGS outlined to Ofgem other problems that it had experienced. All self-lay providers must give Transco a copy of the as-laid drawings showing the new mains network that Transco then adopts. However, Transco's system of recording digitised plans is a catastrophic list of errors. On one particular development—the Brook Street business park in
294WH
Tipton—six months after Transco was contracted to lay a service pipe, it provided a digital version of the plans that EGS had submitted to Transco. Half the network that EGS had laid was not shown on Transco's digitised plans. The other half bore little relation to that which had actually been laid. EGS gave Transco a further copy of the plans so that it could adapt its plans and get it right. Still later, that had not happened.
Mr. Joe Benton (in the Chair): Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the debate is to conclude at 1 o'clock, and there will not be much time for the Minister to reply.
Mr. Gardiner: I appreciate your guidance, Mr. Benton. I am just bringing my remarks to a close. However, it is absolutely critical that the Minister should appreciate that this is not simply a commercial spat between two companies. This is a grave issue of public safety. If Transco does not properly record the as-laid drawings, cases will occur such as that at Larkhall in Lanarkshire, in which a family was tragically killed. It is suspected that the drawing that covered the part of the network responsible incorrectly showed a pipe of cast iron as being made of polyurethane.
I shall not go into the details of the case; the Minister will know that it is subject to a court case that is yet to be heard, so it would be improper for me to do so. However, I believe that a family of four was killed in that explosion as a direct result of the sort of incompetence that Transco is showing in the recording of the gas mains system. It is vital that Ofgem, as the regulator of the industry, takes firm and swift action to put Transco's house in order.
12.51 pm
The Minister for Energy and Construction (Mr. Brian Wilson): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) on securing the debate. He has pursued the matter tenaciously and acquired a lot of information on it. On this occasion, it is quite useful that he took up more time than I will because, as he will appreciate, I cannot give a detailed response to many of the issues that he raised.
My hon. Friend made extremely serious charges, which is a legitimate use of such debates as long as the charges are backed up with hard and specific evidence. He has certainly set out to do that. I am sure that Ofgem, Transco and others will read what he has said with the greatest interest. For my part, I shall want an equally detailed rebuttal—or acceptance—of the charges that he has made and the actions that flowed from them.
The public safety issues are of great importance. If there are concerns on safety grounds, it is completely proper that they should be raised in Parliament. On the other hand, no one wants to start scare stories about the general nature of the gas infrastructure, because the subject can cause some alarm. We must get that balance right. It is important in such a case—my hon. Friend has been specific in the charges that he has made—that evidence is pinned down for every example given, particularly those that affect safety. I give him an assurance that that will be done, and that I will pursue the matter.

295WH
Much of what my hon. Friend said related to a company in his constituency, Exoteric Gas Solutions, and that company's complaints against Transco. For the benefit of other hon. Members, EGS is an engineering company that, among other activities, designs and installs, or oversees and procures the design and installation of gas pipes and arranges for connection to a local distribution zone owned and operated by Transco. I understand that the company recently moved into the metering market, and that it installs meters that are supplied by Transco and oversees meter installation. My hon. Friend has vigorously championed the company's cause for several years and I commend him for that. I recently corresponded with him in response to his latest concerns expressed in his letter dated 14 November. I have offered to meet him to discuss those concerns, along with a representative of the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets. I am sure that he will wish to take advantage of that meeting and to ensure that EGS's concerns are fully represented to Ofgem, preferably in advance of the meeting.
I understand that inspectors from the Health and Safety Executive's hazardous installations directorate have recently investigated a series of complaints made by Andrew Duffield of EGS to Ofgem on 8 July. The complaints concern six premises—I guess that they are the same ones to which my hon. Friend referred—and include a list of alleged deficiencies at each. I am told that Transco has taken corrective action and that HSE has sent Ofgem a detailed response to the complaints. Mr. Duffield has raised further unrelated safety issues with Ofgem, which will also be followed up by HSE.
The director general of HSE, Timothy Walker, wrote to Mr. Duffield as recently as 18 November emphasising the seriousness that HSE attaches to Transco's safe operation. The letter explained that a further inspection visit to examine Transco's record keeping for newly
296WH
installed plant and to consider specific complaints about operating pressure errors would take place on 21 November. The visit did take place and, as a result, Transco has been asked to commission an independent audit of its systems to ensure that it better manages safety-related information in future. HSE has promised to write to Mr. Duffield to let him know the outcome of the meeting on 21 November. I hope that that illustrates the thorough and professional approach that we would all expect when safety complaints are made to the regulator. My hon. Friend might see that as evidence that what reaches us is taken seriously and acted upon.
I shall address briefly the day-to-day handling of safety responsibilities for gas transportation. The responsibilities rest with the gas transporter—in this case, Transco—but regulation is carried out by the Health and Safety Commission and the Health and Safety Executive. Ofgem's health and safety function is dealt with under section 4A of the Gas Act 1986, as amended. In order to meet those requirements, a memorandum of understanding has been agreed with HSC and HSE, which are responsible for the regulation of most of the risks to health and safety that arise from work activities in Britain, including the regulation of the gas supply network. Structures are in place to deal with safety issues, and Ofgem handles complaints. It recently reviewed all the complaints that were raised and how they were dealt with. My lion. Friend raised serious points about how Ofgem's complaint-handling procedures have operated and the effectiveness of its responses.
I do not want to pretend that what I am saying responds to the detail of my hon. Friend's speech, which was unusual in the sense that it was very specific and included serious charges. I have no doubt that he believes that he has evidence to back up the charges and that it is in the public interest for them to be investigated transparently to reveal the justification for what he said.

Police Funding (Bromley)
12.59 pm
Mr. John Horam: Antisocial behaviour and crime are important issues for my constituents, and I welcome the opportunity to air their concerns and to bring the situation in Bromley to the Government's attention.
The exact figures on the funds for policing in the London borough of Bromley were given to me in a written answer. In 1997–98 funding was £27 million; in 1998–99 it was £26.4 million; in 1999–2000 it was £22.9 million; in 2000–01 it was £23.7 million; and this year it was £24.6 million. Tomorrow, we will know next year's figures, although we are just ahead of the point at which they are traditionally announced. The Minister will recognise that his figures show a decline over the past five years, although I agree that there has been a small upturn in the past two or three years.
The decline in funding has been reflected in the number of police in the London borough of Bromley. In December 1996, for example, there were 471 police officers in the borough. That figure declined steadily to 432 in December 1999 and fell further to 412 in December 2000. In January 2002, the figure rose to 424, and I believe the current figure to be about 427, a figure with which my local police officers would agree.
A comparison with nearby boroughs is interesting, and shows the unfairness to Bromley. Bromley's official crime rate is 29,196 crimes per year. The figure for Lewisham, 29,173 crimes per year, is almost exactly the same. Whereas Bromley has approximately 427 police officers, however, the London borough of Lewisham has 615 police officers. The number of officially recorded crimes in Greenwich, which has 588 police officers, is similar to the figures for Bromley and Lewisham. Given the number of crimes committed, Bromley is clearly disadvantaged by the present arrangements.
In terms of numbers of residents, Bromley is equally disadvantaged. There is one officer per 696 residents in Bromley; one officer per 366 residents in Greenwich, which is twice as many officers per resident as in Bromley; and one officer per 393 residents in Lewisham. Bromley records more burglary, criminal damage and theft than Greenwich or Lewisham, so it is not surprising that the people of Bromley feel hard done to by the existing arrangement.
It may interest the Minister to know that at a recent local residents association meeting, a gentleman who had moved from Catford in Lewisham to Biggin Hill said that he felt safer in Catford than he does in Biggin Hill, which is part of the alleged leafy suburbs of south London, because he observed more policing in Catford than in Biggin Hill. That is a consequence of the disparity in the number of police from which we suffer in Bromley by comparison with neighbouring London boroughs and the decline in police numbers over the past five years—I accept that there has been a small increase in the past couple of years.
The Mayor of London pledged that there would be another 1,000 policemen on the streets of London, but Bromley has seen none of them. Bromley is a fairly affluent borough that gives a huge amount through its
298WH
precept to finance the Mayor, the Greater London Authority and the Metropolitan police authority. We have got nothing back in terms of police numbers, which the Mayor indicated that he would increase.
Bromley put in for 10 community safety officers in the first tranche of requests and was turned down. Even a small request has been rejected by the Mayor's Office or the Metropolitan police authority—I am not sure which. To add insult to injury, the Liberal Democrat peer, Lord Tope, undertook about a year ago to revise the formula used by the Metropolitan police to allocate funds among the boroughs. The result would, unbelievably, have further disadvantaged Bromley. I understand that it has now been tweaked and the disadvantage might not be as great as was originally foreseen. None the less, that indicates how much Bromley has been disadvantaged.
Conservative councillors in the borough are, therefore, organising a petition. My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) and I will join them in Bromley high street on Saturday morning when they will ask people to sign a petition to Lord Toby Harris, chairman of the Metropolitan police authority, which reads:
"We the undersigned, note with concern that Bromley with a higher crime rate and a larger population has only 427 police officers compared with Lewisham's 615. We call upon the Metropolitan Police Authority to review its current unfair funding policy and increase the number of police on Bromley streets."
It is not only a question of fewer police officers; there are fewer police stations. When I became the Member of Parliament for Orpington in 1992, there were three police stations in my constituency—St. Mary Cray, Biggin Hill and Orpington. Two of those have been closed to the public since then. The one in St. Mary Cray was only opened—by a Conservative Government—six months after I became the MP, and it is now closed to the public. We have only one operating police station. I accept the argument that it is sometimes a mistake to put the money into bricks and mortar rather than into people. I am sure that the Minister will make that point. Nevertheless, all the evidence suggests that the presence of a local police station diminishes crime in the surrounding area, and it is a means of getting a quicker response than might otherwise be the case.
Unsurprisingly, as a result of the declining support for funding in Bromley, declining numbers of police officers and fewer police stations, crime has increased. I shall quote briefly from the report that I received in September from the Bromley police community consultative group, which I attend as often as I can and certainly when it is in my constituency—it rotates between the three constituencies in the borough. It is a worthwhile organisation because it enables ordinary people to ventilate their concerns. The figures show that last year saw a 10 per cent. increase in burglary in the borough; the target for this year is a 2 per cent. reduction. In street crime—the number one target of the Metropolitan police service at the moment—Bromley saw a 49 per cent. increase. Disorder—measured by calls from the public about such things as disturbances, drunkenness in the streets and youths hanging around on estates and intimidating people—increased by 14 per cent. last year. Three problems that are of great concern to my constituents—disorder, street crime and burglary—have increased, some by substantial amounts.

299WH
I understand from my local chief superintendent that the trend has got better in the past two or three months. I welcome that and am delighted to hear it. I am very impressed by my local officers. Chief Superintendent Dillnutt, who looks after the whole of Bromley, and Inspector Tullett, who looks after Orpington, are excellent officers. I am impressed by their performance and that of all the Metropolitan police officers I have met. I went out on night duty with a patrol earlier this year and I was fascinated to see how they operate. Chief Superintendent Dillnutt rightly says that his job is to do the best that he can with the available resources and I fully respect that.
Relations between the police and my local council are good, partly because the cabinet member responsible for community safety is a former policeman and understands the problems very well. In addition, an active local newspaper, the News Shopper, has run a good campaign called, "Shop a yob", whereby CCTV pictures of youths involved in crime or antisocial behaviour are splashed across the pages of the newspaper. The campaign has led to arrests and charges and I am delighted that it recently won the Newspaper Society's community award.
As well as the "Shop a yob" campaign, the newspaper has run an airgun control campaign. Like me, a number of hon. Members from south London and north Kent—I am thinking in particular of the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Jonathan Shaw)—have supported measures to bring airguns under stricter control, particularly when they are being used by young people and teenagers. All too often, the guns are used for target practice not only on property but on people and pets.
I do not want to go down what I call the Dunblane route of heavy-handed control on such guns because that would disadvantage legitimate shooters. None the less, controls on that sort of activity by young people must be tightened. The Minister may be interested to hear that Bromley police and Bexley police have run a surrender policy over the past two weeks and that has led to young people surrendering a substantial number of airguns.
Despite efforts by the council, the police and my local newspaper, the figures are as I quoted. They have become worse. There is a slight trend showing improvements over the past two months, but the figures are still unacceptable to local people. In case the Minister regales me with official statistics, I point out that, as he will know from recent reports, the official statistics underestimate the amount of crime. Recent estimates by Civitas show that crime is running four times higher than official figures show. Mr. Simmons, the head of the Home Office crime statistics unit, has seen the figures used by Civitas, confirmed that they are accurate and said that he is content with the report's findings.
Often people are afraid to report crimes or do not report them because they believe that nothing will be done. Sometimes they try to report crimes but give up because of the difficulty of getting through to anyone who will respond sensibly to their concerns. In view of that, I was surprised that when Lord Toby Harris came to Bromley he made the following remark in a report that he gave to the council:
300WH
"Local surveys and crime audits regularly show that the fear of crime and the perception that crime is increasing are at odds with reality."
He is looking at the official statistics, but the people of Bromley are looking at what is happening on their doorstep and in their streets and they know that the situation is bad. Saying that all is well because the official figures do not show it to be too bad means that he is not facing reality. My residents are the people who are facing reality. I also notice that Lord Tope said at one stage during his investigation of the allocation formula that there could be too many police. Again, who is living in the real world? I suggest neither the Liberal Democrat nor the Labour peer.
The situation is well encapsulated by a series of letters that I received from a public-spirited resident in Biggin Hill—one part of the constituency, but it is representative of what is felt in other areas, which all report the same things. He was a victim of an assault in August when he tried to prevent some youths forcing a young mother with a child in a push-chair off a public path. He was beaten up and the youths said, "We do as we like. There is not enough of them"—that is, the police—"to do anything about it." Swear words accompanied that fusillade, which amounted to saying "I do not give tuppence for you." The Minister can well imagine the scene.

In September, there was another incident in the same area, which the resident gave me extensive notes about. On that occasion, nine homes were attacked by a gang of youths, who said the same things: "You can't touch us, the police will take ages to get here." They moved off. The police did come, after umpteen phone calls, but no one would give any evidence for fear of reprisals. That is the vicious circle in which people find themselves.
I cite the letter that I recently received from that resident about Hallowe'en and fireworks night, in which he reported an increase in police activity. The area was specially targeted by Bromley police, and as a result things were a lot better than they were on previous Hallowe'ens or fireworks nights. He is grateful for that, and asks me to record his gratitude for what Orpington police did. Of course, once fireworks night was over, the police presence was relaxed, and as a consequence the situation has become bad again, although it is not as bad as in previous years. He writes in the final paragraph of his letter:
"Surely this only goes to prove that a permanent higher level of policing in Biggin Hill"—
as I have said, for Biggin Hill, write the whole of Bromley—
"is warranted and I trust this information may assist you in your efforts to bring this about."
We all know that there are many causes of crime and antisocial behaviour, such as the role of parents, schools and television, but we have to start somewhere. In the case of Bromley and Orpington, I believe that it is necessary to have a fairer deal on resources so that more police are deployed on the beat in order to significantly reduce the level of antisocial behaviour and crime.
1.17 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Bob Ainsworth): I congratulate the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam) on

301WH
applying for and securing the debate, so that he could raise some of the issues that concern his constituents in the Bromley area. Similar issues could be raised by many other hon. Members throughout England and Wales. Despite the issues he raised, I am sure that he would not want the impression to go out that Bromley is anything other than one of the safest boroughs in which to live in the London area.
The Government are determined that the police service will have the resources it needs to provide the first-rate service that our communities deserve. We have already put significant levels of investment into the police service to bring about record numbers of police officers, and to underpin the programme of police reform that was taken through the House of Commons last year. The first ever national policing plan was recently unveiled by the Home Secretary. That set out the strategic direction for the police service and our priorities for policing during the next three years. Those include tackling antisocial behaviour and disorder, and reducing volume crime and street, drug-related, violent and gun crime, which is a particular problem in parts of the capital. We also need to concentrate on serious and organised crime, which operates behind the scenes and feeds so much of the front-line crime from which our communities suffer.
The policing plan crosses boundaries while leaving infrastructure in place to tackle crime effectively. It provides a national framework for raising the performance of all forces, and will form the basis of local plans to be drawn up by chief officers and police authorities to improve standards in their localities.
We recognise the continuing blight of antisocial behaviour. We are working across Government to address it. We recently announced our intention to introduce an antisocial behaviour Bill in this Session. The hon. Gentleman referred to a specific area of antisocial behaviour—the misuse of airguns. I do not know whether he was in the House the other day when my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made it clear that we were looking in exactly the direction that the hon. Gentleman indicated he would support. We want to clamp down on the abuse of guns, particularly that by under-age users, in a way that does not impose a huge bureaucracy on the police, move resources from other things that they should be tackling, or impinge on the lawful use of air weapons in sport and elsewhere. We seek a satisfactory route whereby effective measures are taken and the police are given appropriate powers to deal with abuse without unnecessarily burdening lawful users. If we do that, I hope that we will receive the hon. Gentleman's support.
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman appreciates that I cannot announce any of the figures for this year's spending before tomorrow. However, I can tell him that we will continue to build on the already significant investment in the police service over the past few years. Spending on policing, supported by the Government, rose by 10.1 per cent. in 2001–02, and this year it has increased by a further 7.3 per cent. to £9.117 billion.
There is a problem between some of what the hon. Gentleman says here, with which his colleagues agree, and what is said, quite rightly, in other forums. It is the Government's job to provide the money necessary to
302WH
fund the police force. However, it is not necessarily our job to get involved in the micromanagement of allocating resources. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not want us to do that.
Much of the hon. Gentleman's anger was directed at the formulae that were being applied in the Metropolitan police force area. He has had the opportunity to have those arguments: the resource allocation formula governing the distribution of resources in the Metropolitan area was open for consultation. Everyone had an opportunity to have their say. The adjustments that were made to that formula following the review by Lord Tope made a positive difference for Bromley. There was not the fall in Bromley's allocation that there would have been with a pure allocation of figures.
Although the hon. Gentleman complains about the lack of an allocation of community safety officers in Bromley, I am sure that he accepts that the Metropolitan police have been at the forefront of using the powers and new staffing arrangements introduced by the Police Reform Act 2002. The use by that force of community safety officers to provide visibility in central London does not mean that there is no knock-on benefit for Bromley, as those people are doing jobs that would otherwise have to be done by constables employed by the Metropolitan police.
Mr. Horam: I accept that, but we too would like some community support officers, which have been provided in central London. The problem always seems to be that the suburbs get nothing, while central London gets it all. As regards Lord Tope, his initial views were disadvantageous to Bromley, and only the fact that some pressure was put on him created a situation that was at least no worse.
Mr. Ainsworth: I think that the hon. Gentleman accepts the thrust of what I said—that an alteration in the formula led to a better allocation for Bromley than that which was originally intended at one point in the consultation.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned Lord Toby Harris's comments about recorded crime. Like hon. Members of all parties, I accept that there is considerable under-recording of certain categories of crime. However, no one would dissent from the proposition that, broadly speaking, whether measured by recorded crime over the years or by the British crime survey, most categories of crime are falling. The hon. Gentleman's Front-Bench learn does not argue with that, but he appears to be doing so. There is a discrepancy between what he says and what others generally accept. There are problems involved in getting people to report crime, in giving them the necessary confidence and in reducing the fear of crime in line with the falls that are taking place in recorded crime, but broadly speaking crime in most categories is falling.
Mr. Horam: One can argue about statistics endlessly and come to different conclusions, but the fact is that in

303WH
my area the fear of crime is now greater than I have ever known it to be during my time as Member of Parliament for Orpington.
Mr. Ainsworth: I understand that. Certainly, the fear of crime is not falling—that is a problem throughout the country that we need to address by building on confidence in policing within communities.
The Metropolitan police service revenue budget is £2.038 billion for 2002–03. That is an increase of £95 million, or 4.9 per cent., over last year. In addition to the £1.676 billion provided by central Government support from the principal police grant—including £197 million for the Metropolitan police service special payment to reflect the special position of the capital and the special responsibilities held by its police officers—we have provided many extra resources in the Metropolitan police area in the current financial year. Those include £62 million from the crime fighting fund to continue funding for crime fighting force officers recruited in 2000–01; £44.5 million in capital allocation for the Metropolitan police over the past year; £41 million in the capital for Airwave, the new radio communications system; and £1 million for two successful bids from the £20 million premises improvement fund. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware of the new police station that will open in Bromley in September 2003 as part of a private finance initiative that will also include new stations in Sutton and in Lewisham.
The hon. Gentleman said a great deal about comparisons with other boroughs. He mentioned Bromley's contribution to funding for the Metropolitan police service. This year, the borough will contribute £16.9 million, or 4.7 per cent. of police funding raised, through the police precept on the council tax. It comes as no surprise that Bromley, with a population of around 297,000, contributes more than the boroughs of Lewisham, whose population is 242,000. The population of Greenwich is 215,000. For a locally provided service, it is appropriate that police authorities should be allowed the flexibility to raise some funding locally. However, more than 80 per cent. of the funding comes from central Government. That will continue to be the case.

Post Office Services (Morden)
1.30 pm
Siobhain McDonagh: I am grateful to have secured the debate on an issue that is of great concern and worry to my constituents who live in and around Morden. I secured the debate to express as strongly as I can in this place the local anger that has been caused by the cavalier announcement by Safeway on London road in Morden that it will close its in-store post office. The closure threatens a vital public service in the centre of Morden.
The debate is not only about the future of postal services in Morden, although that is an important issue, especially on a day when the Communication Workers Union is lobbying the House. It is also about the future of Morden, its shops, services and civic identity, as well as the future quality of life for local residents, especially pensioners and those with limited mobility who rely on the services in Morden.
Post offices in town centres such as Morden provide an essential community service, and the council and local residents welcomed Safeway's request to include a post office in its in-store services when it opened in the mid-1990s. The in-store post office saved a postal service when the old Abbotsbury road post office closed. Incidentally, that building is still there and is empty.
One only has to look at the long queues that form whenever the post office is open to see how essential a post office is to Morden town centre. It is not slowness of service that causes the queues but the popularity of, and need for, a post office. People collect their pensions, pay bills, add to their savings, buy stamps and apply for licences. Each activity is essential to them; it is an essential part of a service that they have every right to expect. That service is in peril for no apparent reason other than Safeway's wish to maximise its floor space. The chain has given no rational justification for its decision, which appears to have been taken for national business reasons. It is blind to local need and its responsibility to a vulnerable town.
It is small wonder that people are cynical about big business and its so-called corporate social responsibility. I understand that a meeting is taking place this afternoon, during which the council intends to push for some answers. Morden's post office is being treated like redundant stock or a discontinued line. That is utterly unacceptable, and I would welcome the Minister's assurance that he will make strong representations to Safeway to change its decision. I have written to Safeway, and I urge him to do the same.
At a time when Merton council is striving hard to sustain shops and services in Morden and to attract new businesses to the area, it is totally counter-productive and shows a serious disregard for the needs of customers for a major trader such as Safeway to decide that it no longer needs to house a post office. I have received many calls, letters and e-mails from local people who have heard that the post office is to close. They tell me anxiously that they have heard that other shops in the town centre will soon follow suit. They ask me what will be left if such and such a shop goes, and what the Government are doing for Morden.
Rumours have a habit of starting when something as significant as a post office closes. That is understandable when people are worried for the future of their town

305WH
centre. In this case, I am confident that the rumoured closure of those other shops is just that—a rumour. However, as the Minister will doubtless agree, in high street after high street, in town or country, once a post office goes, that service vacuum sucks significant life out of the local economy. People start to go elsewhere, and the future of other shops begins to seem doubtful. As a sign displayed in the window of a furniture shop says, "Use us or lose us".
The rumour mill can have a damaging effect on the efforts of local authorities and other bodies seeking to regenerate an area and encourage new investment. It can have a demoralising effect on local people when they look around and see empty shops, pound shops or a proliferation of charity shops. Fantastic as the work of charity shops is, it must be said that they do not provide the sort of shopping opportunities that a town such as Morden needs to get back on its feet.
A domino effect starts when a post office closes—not an effect that the people of Morden want to see. They have enough to contend with. Antisocial behaviour and youth nuisance—graffiti, fly tipping, abandoned cars and the general lack of respect for the community—are giving the area, previously regarded as well-off suburbia, an undeserved bad name.
So far I have spoken about my local area. Many facts can be supplied to back up the emotion. I shall draw on the results of two surveys. The first, conducted by Merton council in 1999, comprised
"a strategic review of town centres in the Borough in order to inform the review of the Unitary Development Plan and to provide a robust basis for the preparation of new policies and development proposals to enhance their role in the future".
In seeking to define the catchment areas for Wimbledon, Mitcham, Morden and Colliers Wood, including the Savacentre based there, the study drew on earlier research into Wimbledon and a residents' survey of February and March 1999. The study reported a significantly high level of empty premises in Morden and showed that Mitcham and Morden displayed a relatively high number of convenience retailers, as opposed to comparison goods retailers, against the national average. It further demonstrated the limited investment in Mitcham and Morden, noted that shopping in those places was characterised by locally based comparison and discount retailers, and highlighted the lack of a critical mass and anchor store to support other multiple retailers.
Specifically focusing on Morden, the survey indicated that 20 per cent. of respondents had been using Morden town centre less often for shopping over the past five years. The main reasons provided by 52 per cent. of respondents for their declining use of shopping facilities were the quantity and quality of shops. The Savacentre in Colliers Wood, a huge pantechnicon of a hypermarket, opened some years before the five-year period started, drawing people away from Morden in the absence of much that would induce them to stay. We should not forget that that was before the other two local shopping centres in Colliers Wood—Tandem and Priory Park—were fully operational. The main destination for food shopping was Savacentre at Colliers Wood, used by 33 per cent. of respondents.
306WH
Twenty-eight per cent. used Safeway in Morden for their main food shopping. The majority of top-up food shopping was undertaken in Morden.
It was noted that the use of the town centre for shopping was declining and that the most desired additional facilities were better quality clothes shops, mentioned by 39 per cent. of respondents; shoe shops, mentioned by 33 per cent.; a cinema, mentioned by 22 per cent.; and a Marks and Spencer's, mentioned by 15 per cent. Interestingly, if we substitute the Co-op department store for Marks and Spencer's, those are the sort of shopping facilities that Morden used to boast of before its decline.
I have carried out my own survey in the Morden area since the beginning of autumn. From time to time, I carry out surveys in different areas of my constituency to ascertain what is concerning local people and to keep in touch with their worries. Hundreds of residents responded to my survey, either on the doorstep, on the phone or by freepost. I should take a moment to praise the valiant postman who delivers my mail to my constituency office. While he retains his job, there is hope for postal services in Morden.
Morden residents who responded named crime and environmental problems such as graffiti and fly tipping as their two major concerns, but almost without exception they were unsatisfied with the facilities and appearance of Morden town centre as well as the intimidating gangs of youths gathering outside the tube station. Though praising the excellent transport links that local residents have on their doorstep—the Northern line, the nearby tram, two Thameslink stations and the many buses running from outside the tube station—they virtually all commented on the unkempt nature of the town centre and the lack of adequate shops.
Merton council is working to cure the mismatch between excellent transport links and poor town centre services. As long as we protect essential services such as the post office, there is no earthly reason why Morden should not have a town centre to be proud of. I call on Safeway to live up to its much-vaunted corporate social responsibility by providing a post office service at least until a suitable new venue in the heart of Morden and a new postmaster can be found.
Given the strong local opposition to the proposed closure of the post office, I would be interested to hear the Minister's comments on the review of urban post offices, which has just begun. It has already caused disquiet in several corners of my constituency, and the visit by a local development manager was taken to be the death knell for the local post office. Given that all my constituents rely on urban post offices and that all the post offices in my constituency are to be reviewed, I would be grateful for my hon. Friend's assurance that the review will be carried out with due regard to residents' customer needs and to securing the future of communities. Can he tell me what safeguards are in place to ensure that the process is transparent and welcomes residents' views?
As I said, post offices are vital community services. The initial closure of Morden's purpose-built post office in Abbotsbury road and its transfer to under Safeway's roof, under the banner of Post Office modernisation, were greeted with scepticism, and it would appear that

307WH
local fears were justified. Once a corporate partner such as Safeway decides to operate a post office counter, it should not have the freedom simply to renege on its commitment, in the same way that it might randomly decide not to stock any more cans of beans. If there is such a thing as corporate responsibility—I presume that the Minister thinks there is, because it is part of his portfolio—it does not appear to have been worth more than a can of beans in this instance. I would welcome his comments on anything that he can do to encourage Safeway to take a more socially responsible look at its duty towards the people of Morden.
1.41 pm
The Minister for E-Commerce and Competitiveness (Mr. Stephen Timms): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhairi McDonagh) on securing the debate. She has a deep understanding of the issues that affect the quality of life of her constituents and, in particular, her elderly constituents. She also has a good understanding of the tough challenges facing the Royal Mail Group, and she has spoken about that on the Floor of the House.
I listened carefully to what my hon. Friend said about Safeway's behaviour and I well understand her concern. My understanding is that the post office franchise in the Safeway store formally came to an end on 1 November, and that the store originally proposed a closing date in January—that is to say, next month. I am told, however, that it subsequently moved the date to October 2003, not least in response to representations from my hon. Friend. She referred to a further meeting, which is due to take place this afternoon.
It is certainly the intention and the hope that Post Office Ltd., which is responsible for the post office network, will continue to provide a post office branch facility in my hon. Friend's area. It is continuing its search for suitable premises and for someone to run the business. I hope that delaying the closure until October will give it an opportunity satisfactorily to achieve that.
My hon. Friend asked me to comment on the process on which the Post Office is embarking in relation to the urban post office network. I assure her and the whole Chamber that we fully recognise the importance of the sub-post office network. We are committed to maintaining the network, because sub-post offices are very important. She made the point very effectively that they are important focal points for local communities That is well understood in the context of rural areas, but it needs to be understood equally in the context of urban areas. Post offices are very important for urban communities and, in particular, for the elderly and those who are less mobile.
The post office network serves 28 million people each week. It is the largest retail network in Europe. It has half as many branches again as all the banks and building societies in the country put together. It is precisely because it is so important that the Post Office needs to respond to the changing demands of its customers and to the opportunities arising from new technology. The truth is that people are not using post offices as often as they used to, and that presents challenges to Post Office Ltd., to the individuals who run post office branches and to us in government, too. Some 42 per cent. of benefit recipients now access their benefit
308WH
payments via bank accounts rather than by order books, compared with 26 per cent. in 1996. There has been a sharp drop in the number of people using giros and order books for reasons that we can all understand.
Over the past five years, the number of recipients of retirement pensions and widow's benefit payment has increased by 1 million, but the number of those paid by order books and giros has decreased by more than 1 million: from slightly more than 6 million to less than 5 million. Incapacity benefit payments at the post office have fallen even more dramatically, from more than 2.5 million to less than I million. Similarly, over the past five years, Girobank transactions at post offices have fallen by 37 per cent. and the number of stamps sold at post offices has declined.
Such changes create big challenges for the Post Office. Last year, it's overall operations lost £1.1 million per working day. A major process of change is now taking place. It is backed by substantial investment on the part of the Government to enable the Post Office to be renewed and to return to commercial good health. The problems in the network have affected the ability of sub-postmasters to sell on their businesses; they have taken a severe knock. A vibrant market in respect of the buying and selling of post offices is important to sub-postmasters who serve their communities.
My hon. Friend is familiar with the fact that the Prime Minister asked the performance and innovation unit to develop a strategy for modernising the post office network. Its report made 24 recommendations, all of which were accepted by the Government. Since that acceptance was announced, we have been working closely with Post Office Ltd. and the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters to implement the recommended measures. The PIU found that, over the years, the network of post offices had not kept pace with change, or built on its highly trusted status to develop a wider range of financial services. The Post Office is uniquely trusted; it is one of the most trusted brands in the country, which gives it huge potential. The unit found that it had lost touch with what many of its customers wanted; that it was losing business. As business people, sub-postmasters have found it increasingly difficult to make a living and have begun to leave the network in increasing numbers.
In many urban areas throughout the United Kingdom, there is too little business for the number of post offices that are operating. Of just more than 9,000 urban post offices, more than one in eight has 10 or more other branches within a mile and 155 post offices have 15 or more other branches within a mile. The volume of business is not sufficient to support so dense a network of branches. The Post Office is taking forward a programme that is intended to restore the urban network to commercial viability, restore the confidence of sub-postmasters and attract much-needed new investment so that customers can continue to enjoy access to a full range of services. It must be able to deal with problems such as that described by my hon. Friend when she referred to the decision by Safeway, and be willing to open and to run a replacement office.
My hon. Friend has asked me to set out some of the thinking behind the proposals that Post Office Ltd. has made for closures under the programme that I mentioned. Those proposals will be determined on the basis of the proximity of offices in a particular area, the

309WH
current and projected business volumes of each office and whether individual sub-postmasters have already indicated that they want to leave the network, which is important in the early days. Post Office officials will walk the streets in every area and make a careful study of the location of the offices relative to each other. Those officials will consider important factors for customers: the convenience of alternative branches nearby, if there are any; the availability of public transport links; the provision of access for the disabled and other facilities for people with mobility impairments; and the ability of branches nearby to absorb the extra work that may result from the closure of a particular branch. There may even be potential for expansion in such branches.
A formal consultation will be carried out before any changes are made, in accordance with the existing code of practice on post office closures. That is designed to meet the call for transparency that my hon. Friend underlined. In every case, that would involve consultations with local communities, interest groups, councillors and Members of Parliament. In every instance, there would also be extensive consultations with the consumer body Postwatch, which has taken seriously the importance of its role in the process. We have given that body additional resources so that it can do the job thoroughly and well.
One aim will be to ensure that, if a particular office needs to close, it is as easy and convenient as possible for customers to use other offices nearby. Another aim will be to maximise the amount of business from a closing office that can be captured by other branches nearby. It is, of course, in the interests of the Post Office to retain as much of the business from the office as possible. Equally, it is in the interests of all of our constituents that their concerns be taken fully into account. The programme will start with smaller urban post offices, in which sub-postmasters are under the greatest pressure. The National Federation of Sub-Postmasters has had a full discussion with the Department and the Post Office about how the process can be taken forward as successfully as possible.
There is, properly, a compensation process for sub-postmasters whose post offices will close. European Commission approval for Government funding of that compensation was received on 18 September. Parliamentary approval for the programme itself was gained on 15 October. Post Office Ltd. wrote to all hon. Members on 25 October with a full explanation of its objectives for the programme. When a sub-post office closes under the programme, the Government will meet the costs of compensation, which we expect will total £180 million over the next three years. In addition, a further £30 million will be available for modernising, adapting and investing in those post offices that remain. That will apply, for example, if it is necessary to add another counter to a post office so that it can handle the extra business that comes its way. The key to improving the standard in the offices that remain will be the increased volume of business that they can expect. There will also be grants of between £5,000 and £10,000 for each office that expects to take on a significant number of additional customers. That amount should be matched by the proprietor of the office. Those grants will also be an important boost for the offices that remain.
310WH
This is the first time that there has been a programme of Government investment in urban sub-post offices. That programme is an additional measure to those that were recommended in the performance and innovation unit report. The fact that investment is being made reflects the importance that the Government attach to the urban sub-post office network. The Post Office will generally require offices that receive trade from an office that has closed to improve their facilities and to increase their opening hours, so that increasingly sub-post offices will maintain the same hours as associated retail business. That will considerably improve access to post office services for customers in urban areas.
I think that my hon. Friend will agree that having a properly managed programme of the kind that I have described is preferable to the alternative, which would be unmanaged closures resulting from dwindling income. Without the programme, many more urban sub-postmasters would shut their business altogether—not for the reasons that applied in the case that she described, in which the decision was made by a big corporate organisation, but because the sub-postmasters felt that they could not carry on with such a falling off in business. Such a random process of unmanaged closures would cause much greater disruption to customers than the properly managed process that I have described.
Even after the changes, when whatever closures are needed have taken place, 95 per cent. of people in urban areas will still live within, at most, a mile of their nearest post office branch. The majority will, we expect, live within half a mile. I assure my hon. Friend that, other than in exceptional circumstances, the scope of the programme will not extend to post offices in the most deprived 10 per cent. of urban wards in the country if they are more than half a mile from the next post office. Indeed, we intend to improve and sustain post offices in deprived urban areas. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will shortly be announcing details of a programme of funding to support post office services and the development of associated retail facilities in those deprived districts, precisely because post offices have such an important role in struggling urban shopping centres of the kind that my hon. Friend described.
The programme to restructure the urban post office network will run for three years. It has only just begun. There is no predetermined list of offices that will close. Nor is any arithmetical formula being used to determine the number of closures in an area. Sub-postmasters have already been asked to express possible interest in closing under the terms of the programme, but initial expressions of interest are not binding either on Post Office Ltd., or on the sub-postmaster. Before any changes are made under the programme and before any closures can happen there will be meetings with sub-postmasters and full consultation will take place. Postwatch will examine every proposal and monitor the programme.
The performance and innovation unit suggested not only that the Government should help if the Post Office found that fewer offices were needed in urban areas but that we support the introduction of the concept of universal banking. That will be important for the future well-being of the urban post office network. The introduction of universal banking has been made

311WH
possible because the Government have made the biggest ever investment in the Post Office—£480 million for online computer systems for every post office in the country. We are making good progress on preparations to introduce universal banking services from next April The ambition is to build on the Post Office's uniquely trusted brand and to modernise and extend its commercial banking arrangements, so that it becomes the nation's leading provider of access to bank accounts—the universal bank. Increasingly, the message to be conveyed to my hon. Friend's constituents will be, "Do your banking at the post office." The Post Office has had some big successes with new products and services, including travel insurance and bureau de change services. We shall need more new
312WH
ideas and additional investment, so that post offices can thrive again by providing the services that people need. All the high street banks have now signed up to their part of the universal banking arrangements. Those will be in place from April through the basic bank accounts offered by all the high street banks and major building societies and through Post Office card accounts. Those will be usable only at a post office. Many people will want that simple form of account, so that they can receive their benefit payments.
Our aim must be to restore the urban network to commercial viability and to restore the confidence of sub-postmasters. That is critical if we are to attract much-needed new investment to the network.
It being Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the sitting lapsed, without Question put.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Cetaceans
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what her estimate is of the number of cetaceans killed as a result of fishing by catch in the last 12 months; and if she will make a statement [84463]

  Mr. Morley
  Information on the full extent of dolphin casualties caused by fishing is not available.

  Sample surveys carried out by the Sea Mammal Research Unit on behalf of DEFRA on UK vessels have recorded 61 animals killed since January 2001 as a result of bycatch in the bass fishery, of which eight occurred in the last 12 months. In this period, no bycatch has been observed in any other fishery. We are currently conducting trials into the use of exclusion devices to reduce bycatch in the bass fishery.

  Countryside and Rights of Way Act
  Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she expects to decide whether to allow the new rights of access under part 1 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 to be implemented on a regional basis; and if she will make a statement. [83853]

  Alun Michael
  I am pleased to be able to tell my hon. Friend that this issue has now been resolved and I announced my decision to implement the new right of access on a regional basis via a written ministerial statement on 28 November 2002,Official Report, columns 48–49WS.

  Desalination
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what her policy is on the desalination of sea water for drinking water purposes. [84743]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 3 December 2002]There are a number of sources for providing raw water for treatment to drinking water standards for the public water supply. The principal sources from which water is abstracted at present are surface waters (rivers and reservoirs) and groundwater (e.g. chalk aquifers).

  Desalination of sea water is energy intensive and results in waste products that are difficult to dispose of, and is currently not viewed as a sustainable option. Desalination would need to be identified as an option in a water undertaker's water resources plan, and agreed with the Environment Agency, if it were to be considered an option for public water supply.

  Fisheries
  Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what United Kingdom legislation will restrict the number of days at sea for fishing vessels capturing and landing cod from 1 January 2003; whether amendments to legislation are necessary to achieve Government objectives; and if she will make a statement. [85508]

  Mr. Morley
  I will reply to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Fuel Poverty
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent assessment she has made of fuel poverty in rural areas. [84137]

  Mr. Morley
  A summary report published in August 2001, Fuel Poverty in England 1998, estimated that around 19 per cent. of rural households were in fuel poverty, compared with 15 per cent, of urban households. These figures will be updated in due course with the release of the 2001 English House Condition Survey.

  The depth of fuel poverty in rural areas may be affected by a number of factors. These include the disproportionate number of households which are off the mains gas network and properties which are considered hard to heat.

  A working group was established in 2001 to investigate extension of the gas network. There is evidence that lack of access to mains gas, which is currently the cheapest and most efficient fuel for domestic heating, contributes to keeping households in fuel poverty. The Working Group concluded that a full-scale extension of the gas network could not be justified on cost benefit grounds, but that extension to a more limited extent would be justified in certain cases. Work is progressing on identifying priority areas for any possible future extensions of the gas network.

  My Department recently commissioned a scoping study which is looking at the potential for alternative technologies to help tackle fuel poverty. This could be of particular relevance for rural communities, especially areas without access to the gas network. The study will also consider alternative methods for the treatment of 'hard to heat' homes. The report is expected early in the new year.

  The Fuel Poverty Advisory Group, which was set up to advise Government on achieving its goal of ending fuel poverty, is also looking at issues which effect rural areas. It has already considered a paper on households without access to gas and is due to discuss households which are considered to be 'hard to heat'.

  Kyoto Protocol
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she expects that the United Kingdom will meet its emission standards under the Kyoto Protocol. [84191]
  789W
  Mr. Meacher
  We expect to meet our current commitment under the Kyoto Protocol during the period 2008 to 2012. The UK is committed under the Protocol to achieve an emissions reduction of at least 12.5 per cent, on average over these five years. The reduction is relative to base year emissions in 1990 for carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide, and 1995 for the fluorinated greenhouse gases. Compliance will be assessed after 2012. UK greenhouse gas emissions in 2000 were 13 per cent, below those in the base year.

  Livestock Premiums
  Phil Sawford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what measures are in place to ensure prompt payments to farmers in respect of the beef premium, suckler cow premium and slaughter premiums. [84965]

  Alun Michael
  EC rules do not allow payment of premium in respect of the Beef Special Premium, Suckler Cow Premium and Slaughter Premium to be made before 16 October of the calendar year to which payments apply.

  The prompt payment of claims for advance payment of 2002 bovine premia depends on a number of factors including:
  the animals must have completed their retention period;
  claims must be error free;
  the animals must have completed their cross check against the Cattle Tracing System database

  To date, payment has been made on 48.54 per cent, of Beef Special Premiums and 33.04 per cent, of Slaughter Premiums claims. The remaining unpaid claims have been delayed because they have failed to meet one of the criteria outlined above.

  No payments have yet been made on the Suckler Cow Premiums because of the need to re-write the Suckler Cow Premiums IT system. Payments are however expected to begin in late December.

  Official Engagements
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list her official engagements in the week commencing 25 November 2002. [84229]

  Alun Michael
  The Secretary of State makes it a practice not to publish her diary. Much of her time this week has necessarily been taken up with essential meetings with ministerial colleagues and officials on the

  SSSI name

  County

  Abstractor

  Action taken

  Chippenham Fen

  Cambridgeshire

  —

  Compensation borehole

  Thriplow Peat Holes

  Cambridgeshire

  —

  Compensation borehole

  Ashwell Springs

  Hertfordshire

  —

  Compensation water provided

  Cornard Mere

  Suffolk

  —

  Compensation water increased

  Edgbaston Pool

  West Midlands

  Golf club

  Alternative supply found

  Old Rectory Meadows

  Buckinghamshire

  Thames Water and Three Valleys Water

  River Misbourne alleviation scheme

  Redgrave and Lopham Fen

  Suffolk

  Essex and Suffolk Water

  Cessation of abstraction and relocation of borehole

  Sandwich Bay and Hacklinge Marshes

  Kent

  Southern Water

  Licence revocation.

  River Gelt

  Cumbria

  United Utilities

  Modification of intake structures

  North Dartmoor (Taw Marsh)

  Devon

  South West Water

  Licence revocation

  790W
  various aspects of this Department's wide ranging portfolio. In addition to this, she had speaking engagements on both Monday and Tuesday. Immediately after Cabinet on Thursday, she travelled to Brussels, to attend the monthly Agriculture Council for the remainder of the week.

  Water Abstraction
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment has been conducted for(a) her Department and (b) the Environment Agency on sites which (i) have been damaged by water abstraction and (ii) are threatened by continued water abstraction since 1995; and if she will list the locations of these sites. [84734]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 3 December 2002]The Environment Agency has set up the Restoring Sustainable Abstraction Programme to co-ordinate the assessment of the impact of water abstraction upon the environment. The programme brings together work relating to:the review of consents required on European designated sites under the Conservation (Habitat &c.) Regulations 1994
  the statutory duty under Section 28G of the Countryside Rights of Way Act 2000 in relation to Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  non-designated sites

  The aims of the programme are to identify and investigate sites, both rivers and wetlands, where water abstraction may potentially be causing an impact upon the environment. Where it is demonstrated that such an impact is taking place, steps are taken to identify, justify and develop alternative, more sustainable sources of water.

  The Agency is working closely with English Nature and the Countryside Council for Wales to identify designated sites that should be included in the programme. Sites within the programme are prioritised according to their importance, i.e. the level of designation, and urgency, i.e. the environmental risk posed. The Agency is developing a timetable for progressing investigations of these sites taking into account its available resources.

  Until the investigation work has been completed there is no definitive list available of all sites which have been, or are threatened with damage as a result of abstraction except for a list of SSSIs where investigations have shown that abstractions are having a detrimental impact. The table details sites where investigations have shown that abstractions are having a significant detrimental impact and remedial action has been taken and completed.
  791W
  The sites in the table have had funding agreed through the Periodic Review of water prices for the period 2000–04 to allow implementation of solutions to alleviate the impact of water company abstractions.

  SSSI name

  County

  Abstractor

  Action taken

  Completion date

  River Eden and Tributaries

  Cumbria

  North West Water

  Relocation of the discharge of compensation flow to remove dry stretch.

  2002

  East Ruston Common

  Norfolk

  Anglian Water

  Reduction of licensed abstraction by 50 per cent. at East Ruston.

  2003

  Bowland Fells

  Lancashire

  North West Water

  Investigation, reduction and relocation as well as new treatment works.

  2003

  The Moors, Bishop's Waltham

  Hampshire

  Portsmouth Water

  Close pumping station and develop new source.

  2003

  Severn Trent Water: Blakedown Brook

  Worcestershire

  Severn Trent Water and South Staffordshire Water

  Severn Trent Water: low flow river compensation works to provide up to 2MI/d into the Blakedown Book.

  2003

  South Staffs Water: Hurcott and Podmore Pools

  Diverted output and additional flow. Reduction in groundwater abstration.

  Arundel Park

  West Sussex

  Southern Water

  Partial licence revocation.

  2003

  River Camel

  Cornwall

  South West Water

  Investigate and adjust licence operating conditions

  2003

  Speen (part of Kennet and Lambourn SAC)

  Berkshire

  Thames Water

  Precautionary investigation of possible impact through monitoring of shallow groundwater head. Implement solution.

  2003

  River Avon

  Wiltshire

  Wessex Water

  Reduction of abstraction at Chitterne and use of other sources

  2003

  River Itchen

  Hampshire

  Southern Water (SW) and Portsmouth Water (PW)

  Input to catchment modelling investigations and implementation. SW: general R. Itchen SAC investigation. PW: R. Itchen model Fish Screen not included in price limits

  2004

  Didlington Park Lakes

  Norfolk

  Anglian Water

  Investigation and abstraction reduction (25 per cent. at two boreholes).

  2005

  Kenninghall and Banham Fens and Quidenham Mere

  Norfolk

  Anglian Water

  Investigation to identify potential impact and abstraction reduction by 25 per cent. at three boreholes.

  2005

  Sheringham and Beeston Regis Common

  Norfolk

  Anglian Water

  Investigations and relocation of public water supply boreholes.

  2005

  Yare Broads and Marshes

  Norfolk

  Anglian Water

  Investigation and reduction of licensed abstraction by 75 per cent. at Strumpshaw.

  2005

  Fowlmere

  Cambridgeshire

  Cambridge Water

  Investigation and reduction in licensed abstraction by 50 per cent.

  2005

  Cattawade Marshes

  Essex

  Essex and Suffolk Water

  Investigation and reduction in licensed abstraction

  2005

  Aqualate Mere

  Staffordshire

  Severn Trent Water

  Investigate low-flow river and implement solution

  2005

  Hewell Park Lake

  Worcestershire

  Severn Trent Water

  Implement compensation from Brockhill source during low water levels

  2005

  Sulham and Tidmarsh Woods and Meadows

  Berkshire

  Thames

  Investigate and implement solution, including possible modification to licence at Pangbourne

  2005

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the sites where action has been taken by(a) her Department and (b) the Environment Agency since 1995 on SSSIs which (i) have been damaged and (ii) are threatened with damage from water abstraction, and in each case list the nature of this action. [84735]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 3 December 2002]The Environment Agency regulates water abstraction and is the statutory body with a duty to secure the proper use of water resources in England and Wales.

  The Environment Agency and English Nature are working closely together to identify those SSSIs which
  792W
  Other sites have been funded for investigation only, and any necessary remedial action will be taken as appropriate.

  are, or may be, affected by abstraction. In September 1999 the joint Agency and English Nature document 'Water abstraction and Sites of Special Scientific Interest in England' was published. This document contains details of SSSIs identified as being potentially linked to abstraction. Subsequently a limited number of additional sites have been highlighted and included in the Agency's Restoring Sustainable Abstraction Programme.

  The following table details sites where investigations have shown that abstractions are having a significant detrimental impact and remedial action has been taken and completed.
  793W

  SSSI name

  County

  Abstractor

  Action taken

  Chippenham Fen

  Cambridgeshire

  —

  Compensation borehole

  Thriplow Peat Holes

  Cambridgeshire

  —

  Compensation borehole

  Ashwell Springs

  Hertfordshire

  —

  Compensation water provided

  Cornard Mere

  Suffolk

  —

  Compensation water increased

  Edgbaston Pool

  West Midlands

  Golf club

  Alternative supply found

  Old Rectory Meadows

  Buckinghamshire

  Thames Water and Three Valleys Water

  PWS; River Misbourne alleviation scheme

  Redgrave and Lopham Fen

  Suffolk

  Essex and Suffolk Water

  Cessation of abstraction and relocation of borehole

  Sandwich Bay and Hacklinge Marshes

  Kent

  Southern Water

  Licence revocation

  River Gelt

  Cumbria

  United Utilities

  Modification of intake structures

  North Dartmoor (Taw Marsh)

  Devon

  South West Water

  Licence revocation

  The sites in the table below have had funding agreed through Asset Management Plan 3 (AMPS) for implementation of solutions to alleviate the impact of

  SSSI name

  County

  Abstractor

  Action taken

  Completion date

  River Eden and Tributaries

  Cumbria

  North West Water

  Relocation of the discharge of compensation flow to remove dry stretch

  2002

  East Ruston Common

  Norfolk

  Anglian Water

  Reduction of licensed abstraction by 50 per cent. at East Ruston

  2003

  Bowland Fells

  Lancashire

  North West Water

  Investigation, reduction and relocation as well as new treatment works

  2003

  The Moors, Bishop's Waltham

  Hampshire

  Portsmouth Water

  Close pumping station and develop new source

  2003

  Severn Trent Water: Blakedown Brook

  Worcestershire

  Seven Trent Water and South Staffordshire Water

  Severn Trent Water: low flow river compensation works to provide up to 2Ml/d into the Blakedown Brook

  2003

  South Staffs Water: Hurcott and Podmore Pools

  Diverted output and additional flows. Reduction in groundwater abstraction

  Arundel Park

  West Sussex

  Southern Water

  Partial licence revocation

  2003

  River Camel

  Cornwall

  South West Water

  Investigate and adjust licence operating conditions

  2003

  Speen (part of Kennet and Lambourn SAC)

  Berkshire

  Thames Water

  Precautionary investigation of possible impact through monitoring of shallow groundwater head. Implement solution

  2003

  River Avon

  Wiltshire

  Wessex Water

  Reduction of abstraction at Chitterne and use of other sources

  2003

  River Itchen

  Hampshire

  Southern Water and Portsmouth Water

  Input to catchment modelling investigations and implementation. SW: general R. Itchen SAC investigation. PW: R. Itchen model Fish Screen not included in price limits

  2004

  Didlington Park Lakes

  Norfolk

  Anglian Water

  Investigation and abstraction reduction (25 per cent. at two boreholes)

  2005

  Kenninghall and Banham Fens and Quidenham Mere

  Norfolk

  Anglian Water

  Investigation to identify potential impact and abstraction reduction by 25 per cent. at three boreholes

  2005

  Sheringham and Beeston Regis Common

  Norfolk

  Anglian Water

  Investigations and relocation of PWS boreholes

  2005

  Yare Broads and Marshes

  Norfolk

  Anglian Water

  Investigation and reduction of licensed abstraction by 75 per cent. at Strumpshaw

  2005

  Fowlmere

  Cambridgeshire

  Cambridge Water

  Investigation and reduction in licensed abstraction by 50 per cent.

  2005

  Cattawade Marshes

  Essex

  Essex and Suffolk Water

  Investigation and reduction in licensed abstraction

  2005

  Aqualate Mere

  Staffordshire

  Severn Trent Water

  Investigate low-flow river and implement solution

  2005

  Hewell Park Lake

  Worcestershire

  Severn Trent Water

  Implement compensation from Brockhill source during low water levels

  2005

  Sulham and Tidmarsh Woods and Meadows

  Berkshire

  Thames

  Investigate and implement solution, including possible modification to licence at Pangbourne

  2005

  The Environment Agency, in liaison with English Nature, are currently reviewing existing abstraction licences and other permissions in accordance with the requirements of the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994. The investigation and subsequent remedial action at European designated
  794W
  abstraction. Other sites have been funded for investigation only, any necessary remedial action will be taken as appropriate.

  sites will also contribute to the protection of SSSIs as they make up Special Areas of Conservation and Special Protection Areas.

  Investigation of SSSIs, identified through the Restoring Sustainable Abstraction Programme, will be undertaken on the basis of the priority assigned. A

  795W
  number of sites where there is a potential link to water company abstraction have been identified for possible funding through AMP4, although further progression will be subject to further Ministerial Advice and the outcome of the 2004 Periodic Review process.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many water abstraction licences were revoked in each year since 1995; and if she will list(a) the holder of the licence, (b) the location of the licence, (c) the reasons for the action, (d) the total water volume of the original licence and (e) the amount of compensation paid as a result, in each case. [84736]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 3 December 2002]The information requested is not currently held in a central, accessible form within the Environment Agency. A requirement has been identified, through the Agency's Restoring Sustainable Abstraction Programme, to store such information centrally. Work is currently in progress to modify existing database systems to allow this.

  In seeking to address environmental problems resulting from the effects of abstractions the Agency seeks wherever possible to secure negotiated and agreed solutions that avoid the necessity to use its statutory powers of revocation and the need for compensation. To date it has not used its statutory powers.

  The Agency has, however, identified three examples where it has secured environmentally beneficial solutions by making contributory payments. This may not be an exhaustive list.

  River Worfe

  The then NRA, pursuing its programme of resource recovery, negotiated with the holder of a surface water spray irrigation licence having a major impact on river flows during low flow periods. Agreement was reached to replace the unconstrained licence by a new borehole having significantly less impact on the river. The NRA undertook to construct and test pump the borehole at a cost of about £60,000.

  Redgrave and Lopham Fen

  A high profile scheme was agreed to rescue this fen from damage by an abstraction by Essex and Suffolk Water. It involved relocating a public water supply borehole away from the fen. Total cost of the project was £3.2 million of which the Agency contributed £0.78 million. The rest came from Essex and Suffolk Water (£1.02 million) and an EC life grant (£1.4 million).

  River Mun

  To restore flows in a small north Norfolk river, the Agency persuaded a local farming company to replace a summer surface water licence with a groundwater source. Licensing the borehole involved laying a water main to some isolated properties to prevent derogation of the rights of other abstractors. The Agency paid the £30,000 cost of that.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the abstraction management requirements are which the UK must implement in order to comply with the EC Water Framework Directive. [84737]
  796W
  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 3 December 2002]In respect of the management of the abstraction of fresh surface water and groundwater, Article 11(3)(e) of the EC Water Framework Directive requires that:
  there must be controls over abstraction of fresh surface water and groundwater;
  a register of abstractions must be maintained;
  abstractions must have prior authorisation; and
  controls must be periodically reviewed, and where necessary updated.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what work her Department is doing to ensure that the proposed Water Bill will fully implement the requirements of the EC Water Framework Directive on water abstraction management. [84738]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 3 December 2002]The controls on abstraction in Part II of the Water Resources Act 1991 and the clauses in the draft Water Bill will together be largely sufficient to deliver the obligation under Article 11(3)(e) of the Water Framework Directive. However, there are a number of small, but potentially significant, aspects of the abstraction licensing system that will require further consideration. The Department is currently consulting on what additional measures beyond the proposals in the Water Bill may be needed to fully implement the requirements arising under that Article.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Assisted Suicide
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the action taken by his Department concerning British nationals seeking assisted suicide overseas, with special reference to the practice in European jurisdictions. [82245]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Government policy is that British nationals seeking assisted suicide overseas, in European jurisdictions or otherwise, are not given advice by this Department which might help achieve that outcome.

  EU Membership
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Danish proposals to alter the financial terms for the countries applying for EU membership in 2004. [85058]

  Mr. MacShane
  The Danish Presidency has tabled final proposals to EU candidates including increases in some agricultural quotas and in financing. The Government remains determined to conclude the enlargement negotiations at the Copenhagen European Council (12–13 December). The final agreement must be fair and respect the agreement reached at the Berlin European Council in 1999 on financing enlargement.

  Referendums Protocol
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what instructions he gives(a) ambassadors and (b) other embassy staff on making statements in (i) written and (ii) broadcast media; what particular instructions he gives about public comment on political matters when referendums are to be held in a country; and how he decides when the rules relating to comment on referendum campaigns should take effect. [84661]

  Mr. Straw
  FCO officials who deal with the press are governed by the Civil Service Code and are guided by Cabinet Office advice to government information and communication officers (Guidance on the Work of the Government Information Service), both of which can be found on the Cabinet Office website(www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk).British diplomats are under instruction not to engage in any activity that might be interpreted as party political.

TRANSPORT

  Air Transport
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will extend the consultation period on the future development of air transport in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [84831]

  Mr. Jamieson
  A statement was made by the Secretary of State on Thursday 28 November in which he confirmed that the consultation would be extended.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many aircraft orders each United Kingdom airline placed, in the last 12 months. [85614]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Fleet planning decisions are a commercial matter for the airlines concerned. The Government does not maintain statistical data on the aircraft orders placed by the 150 air carriers licensed by the Civil Aviation Authority.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what account he has taken of(a) aircraft orders placed and (b) passenger growth in determining the criteria for the future development of air transport in the UK. [85616]

  Mr. Jamieson
  As described in the national aviation consultation documents, forecasts of unconstrained passenger demand out to 2030 are the starting point for assessing demand for airport capacity. However, this is not a 'predict and provide' approach: the forecasts only identify what additional capacity would be needed if demand were to be met, either fully or partially, so that the positive and negative aspects of that additional capacity can be appraised so as to reach a view on what, if any, degree of airport expansion is appropriate. The passenger forecasts are long term forecasts, anddepend on key factors influencing demand such as GDP and fares; they do not use aircraft orders to assess supply over shorter periods ahead since the availability of aircraft is not assumed to be a constraint.

  Airports (Slot Allocation)
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what research his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on the ownership of take-off and landing slots at (i) Gatwick and (ii) Heathrow airport. [84869]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The ownership of slots will be considered as part of the consultants' study now being carried out for the commission on the possible use of market-based solutions for the allocation of slots at congested airports.

  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what plans he has to submit proposals to the European Commission on the revision of Article 14 of Council Regulations (EEC) 95/93 on slot allocations at community airports; what timetable has been established for such proposals to be submitted; and what nature of consultation he envisages; [84865]

  (2) what his Department's policy is on the (a) sale and (b) swapping of take-off and landing slots at (i) Gatwick and (ii) Heathrow by airlines [84870]

  Mr. Jamieson
  We believe that the auctioning of new slots, and the trading of existing slots, would help maximise the efficiency of use of slots at congested airports. My officials will be consulting interested parties, including the Scottish Executive, about proposals for amendments to the Commission's proposals for amending Regulation 95/93, and for amending Regulation 2408/92 on Public Services Obligations. The aim is to submit proposals to the Commission in early 2003.

  Carriageway Closure (M1)
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport for what reason the northbound carriageway of the Ml motorway near junction 34 has been closed; what steps have been taken to reduce traffic congestion and delays; and when all three lanes on both north and southbound carriageways in this area will be fully operational. [84609]

  Mr. Spellar
  I have asked the Chief Executive of the Highways Agency, Tim Matthews, to write to the right hon. Member.

  Letter from Tim Matthews to Mr. Greg Knight, dated 4 December 2002:

  I have been asked by the Minister for Transport, John Spellar, to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the closure of the northbound carriageway of the M1 motorway at junction 34.

  The Highways Agency is currently carrying out major strengthening of the Tinsley Viaduct which carries the Ml Motorway across the Don Valley. The works cannot be completed without some limited carriageway closures. These take place overnight when traffic levels are low. The northbound carriageway was closed for each night between Monday 18 and Saturday 23 November. Alternative routes had been agreed with local authorities and were signed and publicised in advance.
  The contractor has been carrying out welding work overnight and this has necessitated closures. Following work on the night of Saturday 23 November, cracking developed in the structure which, if untreated, would have deteriorated. Work could only be

  799W
  carried out with a complete closure of the road. No work could be undertaken on Sunday night because fog made it impossible to install traffic management safely. On Monday the position, which had been kept under review, began to deteriorate further. Taking into account the fact that delay would prolong the closure the decision was taken to close the carriageway that afternoon. This was done and the carriageway remained closed from 4 pm on Monday to 6.45 am on Wednesday. It closed again briefly later that night to allow clearance of the remaining traffic management.
  In taking the decision the Agency took into account the severe congestion that the closure could cause in the area. Local authorities and the Police were informed of the closure as soon as the decision was taken. They assisted with traffic management using the Urban Traffic Control systems to adjust timings on traffic signals in the area. Local and long distance diversion routes were put in place and the closure was publicised through press, radio and the Agency's own website and information line. The information was updated throughout the time the carriageway was closed. Further works on the northbound carriageway will involve a series of closures starting mid February as part of the strengthening works.
  The Viaduct is expected to re-open fully to three running lanes plus hardshoulder in each direction following completion of the strengthening contract in early 2005.
  If you would like any further information on the works being carried out to the viaduct please contact Simon Diggle, the Project Manager for the works, on 0113 283 5309 or email simon.diggle@highways.gsi.gov.uk

  International Hub Airports
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what(a) discussions his Department has had or plans to have and (b) representations have been received by his Department with regard to the (i) economic, (ii) social and (iii) environmental costs and benefits which (A) have been obtained and (B) could potentially be obtained from changes in the number of international passengers passing through international hub airports in the United Kingdom; and if he will place copies of related documentation in the Library. [81405]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 20 November 2002]I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him on 20 November 2002,Official Report, column 181W.

  Journeys (Environmental Impact)
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimates he has made of the environmental impact of a journey between London and Manchester by(a) rail, (b) air and (c) car. [85336]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The estimates for carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are as follows:

  (a) rail (average per passenger): 10.5 kg

  (b) air (average per passenger): 32 kg

  (c) car (average petrol):

  per car: 58 kg

  average per passenger: 37 kg

  (d) car (average diesel):

  per car: 35 kg

  per passenger: 22 kg.

  These CO2 emissions estimates have been produced using factors developed for the guidelines for company reporting on greenhouse gas emissions published by DETR in 2001 and are based on a journey distance of
  800W
  177 miles. In the case of air travel and rail travel, they make no allowance for travel to the airport or railway station. Emissions per passenger for travel by car will depend on the size of the vehicle, and the number of passengers. Estimates are based on an average car and average car occupancy over all journeys of 1.59 passengers per car derived from National Travel Survey in the period 1999–2001.

  Estimates for air quality pollutants are available from the Commission for Integrated Transport in: "A Comparative Study of the Environmental Effects of Rail and Short-haul Air Travel", September 2001.

  Emissions from regional journeys by private car, high-speed rail and domestic aircraft

  Grammes per passenger journey

  Car journey (single person)

  High-speed rail (current)

  Domestic air

  NOx

  330

  31

  99

  PM10

  8

  2

  3

  CO

  2,162

  6

  130

  NMVOC

  297

  1

  13

  SO2

  7

  71

  9

  Local Transport Improvements
  Sir Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures he is taking to increase the local authority resources and to provide the expertise required to identify and implement the major local transport improvements envisaged in the Ten Year Transport Plan. [83801]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The primary responsibility for equipping themselves to deal satisfactorily with their responsibilities for transport rests with local authorities themselves. We recognise that there is currently a shortage of personnel qualified in a number of disciplines relevant to local transport. My Department is therefore helping to fund the Transport Planning Skills Initiative, which is examining how more people can be attracted into the transport profession together with questions of staff training and retention. We are also funding the provision of 111 travel plan coordinators at 84 local authorities at a cost of £9 million over three years, to promote the widespread adoption of travel plans in order to help tackle congestion. It is important, too, that the most effective use is made of the available expertise. Our Centres of Excellence initiative is designed to disseminate best practice in the preparation and implementation of Local Transport Plans (LTPs). We are funding the authorities responsible for 17 of these plans to undertake a programme of dissemination covering a range of local transport issues.

  Modern Facilities at Stations Programme
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what funding under the modern facilities at stations programme has been spent, ranked by local authority area of England and Wales. [85026]

  Mr. Jamieson
  None. The Rail Regulator will first determine a fair and efficient price to be charged by Network Rail for the modern facilities at stations
  801W
  programme to implement the programme. The Regulator's determination is expected before the end of the year.

  Public Service Obligation
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many public service obligations have been imposed on peripheral or development regions since the passing of Article 14 of Council Regulation (EEC) 95/93, broken down by(a) subsidy and (b) non- subsidy. [84867]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The UK has imposed Public Service Obligations on 16 routes to peripheral or development regions. All routes are within Scotland. Services currently operate on 15 of these routes and all receive subsidy.

  Speed Cameras
  Mr. Pope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many road traffic speed cameras there were in Lancashire in(a) 1996–97 and (b) the latest year for which figures are available. [84975]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The number of speed enforcement cameras operational in the Lancashire police force area was 97 in 1996–97 and 147 in 2001–02, the latest year for which figures are available.

  Transport Subsidies
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much subsidy was paid to operators in the(a) aviation and (b) rail industries from public funds in each of the last five years. [84751]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The UK aviation industry normally operates free of Government subsidy. Assistance totalling some £39.7 million was paid to eleven UK airlines during winter 2001–02. In the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 the UK introduced a scheme of up to £40 million in financial assistance to UK airlines affected by closure of US and other airspace

  The Scottish Executive pays a grant to Highlands and Islands Airports Ltd. (RIAL) which ensures the continuation of operations at the company's 10 airports. The Executive also pays a subsidy for lifeline air services on which Public Service Obligations have been imposed under EC Regulations.

  Payments are as follows:

  Year

  HIAL payments (£ million)

  Lifeline air services payments (£)

  2001–02

  19.45

  986,200

  2000–01

  15.142

  1,003,402

  1999–2000

  12.291

  526,579

  1998–99

  6.179

  533,871

  1997–98

  7

  346,465

  Subsidies to operators in the rail industry comprise Support for Passenger Rail Services, paid by the Strategic Rail authority to train operating companies
  802W
  (TOCs), and grants paid by passenger Transport Executives to Train Operating Companies which provide services in their areas. Payments are as follows:

  Year

  Subsidy (£ million)

  2001–02

  1,721

  2000–01

  1,130

  1999–2000

  1,343

  1998–99

  1,533

  1997–98

  1,804

  Traffic Managers
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he plans to bring forward legislation to introduce traffic managers; how many traffic managers he intends to appoint and what the relationship will be in London between the traffic manager, Transport for London, the Mayor of London, and boroughs of London and utility companies. [84240]

  Mr. Jamieson
  We have made it clear that better management of our roads is essential and that the present legislation can be improved. It is vital that someone is responsible for minimising the disruption caused by roadworks. The priority is London and we have already held urgent discussions with the key players about the best way forward.

  Uckfield Line Electrification
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what terms of reference were given to Booz Allen when commissioned to report on the electrification of the Uckfield line through Edenbridge; [85236]

  (2) if he will review his decision under the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information not to place all the information in the Booz Allen Report on the electrification of the Uckfield line through Edenbridge in the Library; [85008]

  (3) what categories of material in the Booz Allen report on the electrification of the Uckfield line through Edenbridge he regards as commercially sensitive. [85237]

  Mr. Spellar
  The terms of reference given to Booz Allen were to make an assessment of the costs and benefits of electrifying the route.

  The report includes information drawn from the Best and Final Offers (BAFOs) for the South Central replacement franchise. These offers were submitted to the SRA in confidence, as part of a competitive bidding process.

  The Code of Practice on Access to Government Information provides for exemption from publication of information which could affect "commercial and contractual activities". As the Booz Allen report includes such information and as I have already placed in the Library a summary of the Booz Allen report, I do not propose to place the report in the Library.

PRIME MINISTER

  Departmental Responsibilities
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will set out the responsibilities of(a) the Department of Work and Pensions, (b) HM Treasury afd (c) the DTI for (i) minimum wage policy and (ii) social security policy; and if he will make a statement. [85304]

  The Prime Minister
  The National Minimum Wage ensures fair minimum standards of pay and underpins the Government's tax and benefit reforms. HM Treasury has overall responsibility for tax reform and for ensuring with the DTI, which has the policy lead, that the national minimum wage makes a full contribution to the Government's objectives to relieve child poverty and increase work incentives. The DTI sets the remit for the independent Low Pay Commission and provides, jointly with HM Treasury, analysis which informs its deliberations. DTI and HMT together advise Ministers on the response to the Commission's recommendations on minimum wage rates and other issues. The Inland Revenue has operational responsibility for enforcement activities.

  The Department for Work and Pensions is responsible for implementing the Government's Welfare to Work strategy. The Department delivers a range of benefits and services for people of working age, those with disabilities, pensioners and children. Jobcentre Plus brings together the Employment Service and those parts of the Benefits Agency dealing with working age people to deliver a fully integrated work and benefit service for claimants. The Pension Service will deliver services to older people.

WALES

  Antisocial Behaviour
  Geraint Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the Home Office on introducing fixed penalty notices for antisocial behaviour in parts of Wales. [83077]

  Mr. Touhig
  My right hon. Friend and I have regular discussions with colleagues about matters affecting Wales.

  The Government are committed to tackling antisocial behaviour, which can cause considerable distress and upset to those who live in the localities where it occurs.

  Fixed penalty notices for certain types of antisocial behaviour are currently being piloted in a part of North Wales.

  The intention is to roll the scheme out nationally.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the use of antisocial behaviour order in Wales. [83093]

  Peter Hain
  The targeted use of antisocial behaviour orders—and less formal sanctions such as acceptable behaviour contracts, curfew and parenting orders and 'On the Spot' fines has been effective in tackling offenders.
  804W
  We are committed to legislation in this session to reduce further the scourge of anti-social behaviour.

  Socially Deprived Communities
  Mr. David
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with the First Secretary about measures to improve the health of individuals in socially deprived communities in Wales. [83078]

  Mr. Touhig
  I have regular meetings with my ministerial colleagues at the National Assembly for Wales and health care is an issue that regularly arises in our discussions.

  Red Dragon Project
  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with Ministers on the Red Dragon Project in the Vale of Glamorgan. [83079]

  Peter Hain
  I very much welcome the agreement on the Red Dragon Project in St Athan between the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, DARA and WDA, in August, for a state-of-the-art aircraft maintenance facility and a high tech aerospace park which will safeguard around 4,000 jobs.

  Assembly Finance
  David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to discuss the implications of the pre-Budget review for the financing of the Assembly with the First Secretary. [83080]

  Peter Hain
  I have already discussed this with the First Minister.

  Crime Statistics
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on levels of crime in Wales. [83081]

  Mr. Touhig
  Recorded crime in Wales has fallen by 16 per cent. since 1997.

  Aerospace Industry
  Mark Tami
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with(a) the Department for Trade and Industry and (b) the Treasury on repayable launch aid for the development of the aerospace industry in Wales. [83082]

  Peter Hain
  The Government have been, and continue to be, supportive of the aerospace industry in the UK. Since 1997, we have committed nearly £1 billion in Launch Investment (previously known as Launch Aid) for major new large aircraft and engine projects.

  My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, announced on 16 May this year the establishment of the Aerospace Innovation and Growth Team (IGT), led by Sir Richard Evans. The IGT, as part of its remit, is considering medium to long-term strategic issues affecting the aerospace sector, including the future of Government support mechanisms. Sir Richard and his team are currently about halfway

  805W
  through their work, and I expect the IGT to report by next spring with recommendations and an agreed action plan to take the industry forward.

  Eye Tests
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the National Assembly for Wales about the degree to which exemption from charges for eye tests can be extended. [83083]

  Mr. Touhig
  The National Assembly for Wales is able to determine fees for NHS sight tests and the groups that qualify for free sight tests, in the same way as the Department of Health can in England.

  Sight tests should not be confused with eye health examinations. The Wales Eye Care Initiative provides for free eye health examinations for certain groups of people identified as being at higher risk of developing eye disease than the rest of the population.

  Industrial Relations
  Hywel Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry regarding industrial relations in north-west Wales. [83084]

  Peter Hain
  I regularly meet Cabinet colleagues and discuss a range of issues including industrial relations.

  The Government have noted the decision of the Employment Tribunal in respect of Friction Dynamics, and will study the full judgment once it is available.

  The law on dismissal of striking workers is under review as part of the Employment Relations Act 1999. The Government are currently talking to unions, employers and others to gather evidence, and will produce a consultation document in early 2003.

  GP Services
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the First Secretary of the National Assembly for Wales about the provision of GP services in Wales. [83085]

  Mr. Touhig
  I have regular meetings with the Assembly's First Minister, and the provision of health care in all parts of Wales is a matter that we regularly discuss. The National Assembly has put in place a number of actions to attract GPs to Valley's communities—for example, the discretionary recruitment and retention initiatives, and improvements to premises.

  Objective 5
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the progress being made under Objective 5 of his 2002–03 objectives. [83086]

  Peter Hain
  A revised version of the Statement of Funding Policy, "Funding the Scottish Parliament, National Assembly for Wales and Northern Ireland Assembly" was published in July this year at the time of 806W
  Spending Review 2002. It is available from HM Treasury and can also be found at http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/fundingguidance.

  Top-up Fees
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with the First Secretary of the National Assembly for Wales regarding top-up fees for Welsh universities. [83087]

  Mr. Touhig
  My right hon. Friend meets regularly with the First Minister to discuss a range of issues, including higher education.

  Bovine TB
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the spread of bovine TB in Wales and in English/Welsh border areas. [83088]

  Peter Hain
  I have regular discussions with the First Secretary about a variety of agricultural matters.

  I welcome the recent announcement of relaxation on movements from mid January, which will come as some relief to the industry.

  However, this UK wide relaxation will be based on rigorous risk assessment as part of the on-going drive towards control and eradication of this disease.

  Police Community Support
  Huw Irranca-Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the Home Office on the use of police community support officers in Wales. [83089]

  Mr. Touhig
  My right hon. Friend and I have regular discussions with colleagues about matters affecting Wales.

  Community Support Officers are a key part of our Police Reform programme. They are an additional resource aimed at further reducing crime and the fear of crime. They will be police authority employees who will help provide a highly visible policing presence on the streets and help tackle nuisance crime.

  27 forces in England and Wales have successfully bid for funding. Gwent is one of these forces and will receive £900,000, which will pay for 30 officers in 2003–04.

  Manufacturing
  24. Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement regarding the state of manufacturing in Wales. [83091]

  Peter Hain
  While manufacturing output in Wales fell in the last four quarters by 7.3 per cent, compared with the same figures a year ago, output for the last quarter rose by 2.6 per cent.

  The general UK slowdown in manufacturing, which began in 2001, was clearly influenced by the synchronised global slowdown, collapse in demand for ICT-related goods and heightened uncertainty in the aftermath of 11 September.
  807W
  The slowdown remains a global phenomenon, but Wales and the UK stand ready to benefit from any sustained recovery due to the Government's pro-active enterprise agenda.

  Learning, Leisure and Sport
  Dr. Francis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with the First Secretary of the Welsh Assembly on improvements in learning, leisure and sporting opportunities. [83092]

  Mr. Touhig
  My right hon. Friend meets regularly with the First Minister and I hold regular meetings with the National Assembly Minister for Education and Lifelong Learning to discuss a range of areas, including the significant improvements which continue to be made in opportunities for education, training, leisure and sport in Wales.

  Transport
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the First Secretary of the National Assembly regarding co ordination in transport in Wales. [83094]

  Peter Hain
  I meet with the First Minister of the Welsh Assembly Government regularly to discuss a range of issues, including the co-ordination of transport in Wales. Recently my hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for Wales met with the Assembly's Minister for the Environment to discuss, among other things, integrated transport in Wales.

  We are working closely with the Assembly Government to identify the best means of developing integrated transport networks.

  Farming
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with the First Secretary of the National Assembly for Wales regarding the farming industry in Wales. [83095]

  Peter Hain
  I have regular meetings with the First Secretary at which a variety of issues are discussed, including the Welsh farming.

  I look forward to meeting representatives of the farming industry and doing all I can on behalf of the industry in Wales.

  Courts
  Mr. Roger Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the Lord Chancellor's Department about the closure of magistrates' courts, Crown courts and their administrative offices in Wales. [83096]

  Mr. Touhig
  My right hon. Friend and I have regular discussions with colleagues about matters affecting Wales.

  Decisions on the future of individual magistrates' courts are a matter for the Magistrates' Courts Committees (MCC). Each MCC is responsible for providing an efficient and effective service to court users
  808W
  in its area, including the provision of adequate accommodation, in consultation with the local paying authority or authorities.

  There are no plans to close any Crown Court Centres in Wales.

  Heroin
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent estimate he has made of the scale of heroin misuse in coalfield areas in Wales. [83069]

  Mr. Touhig
  Due to the illegal nature of drug taking it is extremely difficult to estimate the number of users. We have to rely on the number of people in treatment and the number of people arrested testing positive in order to get an estimate of the scale of heroin misuse.

  Official Travel
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what the total expenditure of(a) his Department and (b) its agencies was on official travel in 2001–02. [84790]

  Peter Hain
  [holding answer 3 December 2002]Expenditure on travel by my Department in 2001–02 was some £260,000.

  My Department has no agencies.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what the total budget of(a) his Department and (b) its agencies is for official travel in 2002–03. [84938]

  Peter Hain
  [holding answer 3 December 2002]Travel costs are met from within the general running costs budget. There is no discrete budget solely for travel.

  My Department has no agencies.

  Police Funding
  Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues and the First Secretary of the National Assembly about police funding in Wales. [83090]

  Mr. Touhig
  My right hon. Friend and I have regular discussions with ministerial colleagues, and with Assembly Members about matters affecting Wales.

  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing, Community Safety and Young People will tomorrow be announcing details of the provisional funding settlement for police authorities for 2003–04.

  Public Appointments
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on his ethnic minority strategy for public appointments. [83075]

  Mr. Touhig
  Although the Wales Office does not make public appointments, where recommendations are given, we seek to ensure that there is equality of opportunity for all people.

DEFENCE

  Army Exercises
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Army exercises have been cancelled since January 2001. [84535]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 2 December 2002]For details on those exercises cancelled between January and November 2001, I refer the hon. Member to the

  Exercise name

  Dates

  Country

  Reason for cancellation

  Flying Rhino 02

  Not finalised

  Germany

  Operational commitments

  Gobi Dust 02

  Not finalised

  USA

  US could not provide troops

  Winged Star 02

  Not finalised

  USA

  Firefighters strike

  Bass Rock 02

  Not finalised

  Canada

  Canada could not provide troops

  Readiness Challenge 02

  1–27 April 2002

  USA

  US cancelled exercise

  Artful Issue 02

  October 2002

  Germany

  UK withdrawal from multi-national division centre

  Snowshoe 1 and 2

  January-March 2002

  Canada

  No longer required

  Arrcade Globe 02

  July 2002

  Germany

  Cancelled by HQ ARRC

  Glacial Engima

  January 2002

  Norway

  Operational commitments

  Ardent Ground 02

  May 2002

  Germany

  UK withdrawal from AMF(L)

  PFP 1/02

  Not finalised

  Central Asia

  Cancelled by CENTCOM

  Ponte Vecchio

  Not finalised

  Italy

  Cancelled by Jt. NBC Regt.

  Iron Ram 02

  1–30 November 2002

  Italy

  Firefighters strike

  Gaulish 4/02

  November 2002

  France

  Firefighters strike

  Asterix 4/02

  October 2002

  France

  Firefighters strike

  Kelp Fire

  January-March 2002

  Falkland Islands

  Operational commitments

  Rock Work

  Not finalised

  Gibraltar

  Unit cancellation

  Britannia Way/Iberian Focus

  September 2002

  Spain

  Firefighters strike

  Lark Song/Foxtrot

  Not finalised

  Denmark

  Cancelled by Denmark

  Island Spell

  June 2002

  Falkland Islands

  Cancelled by unit

  Power Drive

  November 2002

  Gibraltar

  Cancelled by host command

  Courageous Bat

  September 2002

  Denmark

  Cancelled by unit

  Cygnet Goose

  September 2002

  Falkland Islands

  Cancelled by unit

  Grand Prix 3/02

  25 October-6 December 2002

  Kenya

  Firefighters strike

  Panther Cub 6/02

  17 September-30 October 2002

  Belize

  Ex returned to UK 4 days after deployment due to firefighters strike

  Panther Cub 7/02

  30 October-12 December 2002

  Belize

  Firefighters strike

  Iron Foray

  5–11 November 2002

  UK

  Firefighters strike

  UK Milan Concentration

  10–21 November 2002

  UK

  Firefighters strike

  Druids Dance

  18 November-8 December 2002

  UK

  Firefighters strike

  Reynard Chase

  25 November-8 December 2002

  UK

  Resource constraints

  Ulan Eagle

  26 August-21 September 2002

  UK

  Downsized due to resource constraints

  Audits
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the(a) external and (b) internal bodies that audit the Ministry of Defence. [84542]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 2 December 2002]The Comptroller and Auditor General is the external auditor of most of the Ministry of Defence's activity, covering the MOD's 11 top level budgets and six of the MOD's seven executive non-departmental public bodies. KPMG are currently the external auditor for the seventh, the Oil and Pipeline Agency.

  The main source of internal audit is provided by the MOD's Defence Internal Audit Service, which covers the 11 top level budgets and two trading funds (ABRO and DARA). Of the remaining three trading funds, PKF are internal auditors for the Met Office, Deloitte and Touche are internal auditors to DSTL and Bentley Jennison for the United Kingdom Hydrographic Office. Of the non-departmental public bodies, Walton & Co are auditors to the Royal Marines Museum, the Royal Naval Museum and the Royal Navy Submarines Museum. KPMG are internal auditors to the Oil and
  810W
  answer given on 22 November 2001, Official Report, column 374W to the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) The following table covers those Army exercises which have been cancelled since November 2001. It includes details on the defence exercise programme, but not unit-organised exercises, details of which are not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Pipeline Agency. Baker Tilly are internal auditors to the Fleet Air Museum, while Daly, Hoggett & Co are internal auditors to the National Army Museum.

  European Headline Goal
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on progress by the UK in achieving the European Headline Goal; and what discussions he has had with his European counterparts with regard to achieving the Goal. [84845]

  Mr. Hoon
  While achieving the Headline Goal is a matter for all member states, the United Kingdom's contribution is substantial. Up to 12,500 troops, 18 warships and 72 combat aircraft could be made available for EU-led operations, covering a range of capabilities. The UK plays a leading role in the European Capabilities Action Plan (ECAP), in which panels of national experts are producing options for solutions to capability gaps. The UK is a member of all but one of the 18 panels formed so far and chairs four of them.
  811W
  Progress was reviewed at the Informal Meeting of EU Defence Ministers on 4 October and the General Affairs and External Relations Council (GAERC) on 18 November. Capabilities issues are also often discussed bilaterally with other member states.

  Fire Dispute
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the use of United States Air Force personnel based at RAF bases to fight fires during the firefighters' strike. [84744]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 3 December 2002]United States Air Force personnel based at RAF bases are not being used to provide fire cover for the civilian community, during the firefighters' strike.

  The emergency nationwide firefighting cover which has been provided by our service men and women during the strikes is proving effective, and personnel who have been called upon to assist are coping very well with all that has been asked of them.

  Gulf Operations
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the cost has been of preparation to move(a) service personnel and medical auxiliaries and (b) military equipment to locations in the Gulf regions in the last 12 months. [84215]

  Mr. Ingram
  The cost of preparing equipment and personnel for routine movement to and from the Gulf is not recorded separately and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given on 29 October 2002, Official Report, column 709W setting out the overall additional expenditure incurred by the Ministry of Defence as a direct result of operations in the Gulf from 1992–93 onwards.

  Harrier
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the financial consequences for his Department of withdrawing the RN Sea Harrier from service. [84838]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answers I gave to the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) on 5 November,Official Report, column 171W and to the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin). on 16 April, Official Report, columns 821–2W and 29 April, Official Report, column 529W.

  Home Defence
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what regular armed forces are committed to home defence; if numbers are to be increased; and if he will make a statement. [84842]

  Mr. Ingram
  The armed forces have a long-standing mission to help ensure the protection and security of the United Kingdom, providing military aid to the civil authorities as required.
  812W
  The Home Office has responsibility for counter terrorism policy and the lead on domestic security lies with the civil agencies, particularly the police. There are no service personnel purely dedicated to home defence although United Kingdom based force elements can be deployed at short notice to provide assistance to the civil authorities. In addition, the RAF is responsible for the defence of our airspace and the Royal Navy has a role in ensuring the integrity of our territorial waters.

  The Strategic Defence Review New Chapter considered enhancements to those force elements that could contribute to the capability of the armed forces to meet requests from the civil authorities for home defence and security purposes. It concluded that 14 new civil contingency reaction forces should be established from existing volunteer reserve personnel, and some 700 new volunteer reserve posts established to provide improved command, control and planning capabilities. Action on this is in hand.

  Prague Summit
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the Prague Summit, with particular reference to increasing European defence capability, interoperability and enlargement. [84847]

  Mr. Hoon
  The NATO Summit in Prague on 21–22 November opened a new chapter in the Alliance's history aimed at ensuring that NATO has the tools to meet the challenges of the 21st century. Alliance leaders agreed a comprehensive package of measures: a streamlined Command Structure; a new NATO Response Force; reinvigorated Alliance Partnership programmes, including building on the success of the NATO-Russia Council; and modernisation of NATO's internal structures and processes.

  The Summit also launched a new capabilities initiative, the 'Prague Capabilities Commitment' (PCC), which will focus on improvements in Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear Defence, Information Superiority, Combat Effectiveness, and Deployability and Sustainability. Interoperability and multinational solutions to capability shortfalls are key themes of the initiative. The PCC will be complementary to the European Union's Headline Goal.

  Invitations to join the Alliance were issued to seven countries. Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia will now begin accession talks, with formal accession expected in 2004. The invitees will continue to prepare for membership through NATO's Membership Action Plan.

  Royal Navy Personnel
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many trained(a) officers and (b) other ranks have left the Royal Navy in each of the past five years; what estimate he has made of likely future trends; and what steps he is taking to reduce the numbers of trained personnel leaving the Royal Navy. [84370]
  813W
  Dr. Moonie
  The information requested is set out in the table, including Royal Marines:

  Exits during financial year

  Trained officers1

  Trained ratings/other ranks1

  1997–98

  500

  3,560

  1998–99

  450

  3,600

  1999–2000

  500

  3,610

  2000–01

  400

  3,100

  2001–02

  440

  3,540

  1 Source—Defence Analytical Services Agency. Figures have been rounded to the nearest multiple of 10, consistent with the presentation in DASA's Quarterly Press Release.

  The latest published figures, for 1 October 2002, show that during the 12 months to 30 September 2002 the rate of outflow has slowed to 400 officers and 3,230 ratings/ other ranks, and this favourable trend is expected to continue.

  The rate of outflow is reducing, but retention is still recognised as a major challenge. A range of measures are in hand to address the issue holistically throughout the service.

  Sea Dart
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on upgrading of the Type 42s Sea Dart missile; and what the effect of the upgrade will be. [84841]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Sea Dart missile system has undergone a number of modifications and updates to improve its reliability and capability. The final element of the programme incorporates an infra red fuse in the missile. This fuse, which has now come into service, will improve the Royal Navy's medium and long range defence against aircraft and missile threats.

  Sea Trials
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when(a) HMS Albion and (b) HMS Bulwark will commence sea trials. [84377]

  Dr. Moonie
  Sea trials for HMS Albion are expected to begin later this month. HMS Bulwark is expected to start sea trials in 2004.

  Ship Deployments
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which ships were on deployment on(a) 1 November 2000, (b) 1 May 2001, (c) 1 November 2001, (d) 1 May 2002 and (e) 1 November 2002. [84375]

  Mr. Ingram
  The information requested is as follows:.

  1 November 2000.

  HMS Invincible

  HMS Fearless

  HMS Ocean

  HMS York

  HMS Liverpool

  HMS Cardiff

  HMS Newcastle

  HMS Northumberland

  HMS Argyll

  814W

  HMS Sutherland

  HMS Marlborough

  HMS Iron Duke

  HMS Cornwall

  HMS Cumberland

  HMS Endurance

  HMS Somerset

  HMS Scott

  HMS Grimsby

  HMS Middleton

  HMS Pembroke

  HMS Sandown

  HMS Penzance

  HMS Dumbarton Castle

  RFA Black Rover

  RFA Grey Rover

  RFA Bayleaf

  RFA Brambleleaf

  RFA Orangeleaf

  RFA Fort Austin

  RFA Fort Rosalie

  RFA Fort Victoria

  RFA Fort George

  RFA Sir Bedivere

  RFA Sir Galahad

  RFA Sir Geraint

  RFA Sir Percivale

  RFA Sir Tristram

  RFA Sea Centurion

  1 May 2001.

  HMS Glasgow

  HMS Gloucester

  HMS Westminster

  HMS Somerset

  HMS Lancaster

  HMS Richmond

  HMS Sheffield

  HMS Endurance

  HMS Sutherland

  HMS Bangor

  HMS Grimsby

  HMS Atherstone

  HMS Leeds Castle

  RFA Black Rover

  RFA Gold Rover

  RFA Oakleaf

  RFA Orangeleaf

  RFA Diligence

  RFA Sir Tristram

  RFA Sea Crusader

  RFA Sea Centurion

  1 November 2001

  HMS Superb

  HMS Trafalgar

  HMS Triumph

  HMS Illustrious

  HMS Fearless

  HMS Ocean

  815W

  HMS Edinburgh

  HMS Nottingham

  HMS Southampton

  HMS Northumberland

  HMS Montrose

  HMS Monmouth

  HMS Marlborough

  HMS Kent

  HMS Cornwall

  HMS Chatham

  HMS Roebuck

  HMS Endurance

  HMS Bangor

  HMS Bridport

  HMS Quorn

  HMS Cattistock

  HMS Walney

  HMS Inverness

  HMS Leeds Castle

  RFA Black Rover

  RFA Gold Rover

  RFA Bayleaf

  RFA Brambleleaf

  RFA Oakleaf

  RFA Fort Austin

  RFA Fort Rosalie

  RFA Fort Victoria

  RFA Diligence

  RFA Sir Bedivere

  RFA Sir Galahad

  RFA Sir Geraint

  RFA Sir Percivale

  RFA Sir Tristram

  RFA Sea Crusader

  RFA Sea Centurion

  1 May 2002

  HMS Splendid

  HMS Ocean

  HMS Nottingham

  HMS York

  HMS Newcastle

  HMS Portland

  HMS Richmond

  HMS Campbeltown

  HMS Sheffield

  HMS Endurance

  HMS Grimsby

  HMS Pembroke

  HMS Ramsey

  HMS Leeds Castle

  RFA Grey Rover

  RFA Bayleaf

  RFA Oakleaf

  RFA Fort Austin

  RFA Fort George

  RFA Diligence

  RFA Sir Geraint

  RFA Sir Percivale

  816W

  RFA Sir Tristram

  1 November 2002

  HMS Turbulent

  HMS Tireless

  HMS Ark Royal

  HMS Edinburgh

  HMS Cardiff

  HMS Southampton

  HMS Argyll

  HMS Somerset

  HMS Westminster

  HMS Grafton

  HMS Cumberland

  HMS Scott

  HMS Endurance

  HMS Leeds Castle

  HMS Bangor

  HMS Sandown

  HMS Brocklesby

  HMS Blyth

  HMS Walney

  HMS Pembroke

  HMS Dumbarton Castle

  RFA Grey Rover

  RFA Bayleaf

  RFA Oakleaf

  RFA Orangeleaf

  RFA Fort Austin

  RFA Fort Victoria

  RFA Diligence

  RFA Sir Bedivere

  RFA Sir Galahad

  RFA Sea Crusader

  In addition, the Royal Navy has continuously maintained an SSBN on strategic deterrent patrol.

  Surplus Land
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the value of land held by his Department which is surplus to requirements. [82554]

  Dr. Moonie
  The value of property sold is eventually determined by the market at the time of sale, and is clearly subject to many uncertainties. However, the Ministry of Defence is conducting a review of its estate to determine which are its long term core sites that are to be the focus of future investment. Those sites that are non core will come forward for disposal in the medium to long term. In the meantime, the Department agreed to generate income of £500 million from the disposal of surplus land and property over the next three years.

  Swingfire Missiles
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how old are the Swingfire missiles that have been lost in the Bristol Channel. [85061]
  817W
  Dr. Moonie
  The Swingfire warheads which were lost at the St. Thomas's Head Range last March had been removed from the missiles in preparation for disposal. The warheads are 20 to 21-years-old.

  Type 45 Destroyer
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on progress on procurement of the Type 45 Destroyer. [84953]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Type 45 Destroyer project remains on track to meet its planned in-service date. There are six ships on contract and it is currently planned that production will begin in spring 2003 with an in-service date for the first of class of late 2007.

  Urban Battlefield Trainer
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the Urban Battlefield Trainer, with particular reference to its use in training soldiers for fighting in built-up areas. [84848]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Urban Battlefield Trainer (URBAT) is a computer system facilitating procedural training in an urban environment up to company level. It is designed to test and practice procedures through the generation of a battle picture, rather than having to deploy men and equipment physically. In particular, it tests headquarters in the timely issue and dissemination of orders, monitoring the effective flow of information and reaction to the unexpected. The current URBAT is located at Copehill Down training village on Salisbury Plain training area and is the only computer training system able to provide the required level of terrain definition to allow urban operations to be exercised effectively. A new system, known as URBAT 2, is currently being procured and should be in service by the end of July 2003. It will significantly enhance the training benefit by making use of different urban terrain mapping and increasing operator participation.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Entertainment Licences
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what recent discussions she has had about(a) liquor and (b) public entertainment licensing of village halls. [85158]

  Dr. Howells
  In addition to the White Paper public consultation on the proposals now contained in the Licensing Bill, Ministers have had numerous discussions and entered into a great amount of correspondence with a variety of different organisations and individuals. As the new regime proposed in the licensing Bill will cover all premises where licensable activities take place, discussions have focused on how the system will work for all types of premises, and of course the impact on village halls has been considered.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list(a) the organisations she contacted offering consultation and (b) those who responded, in respect of entertainment licence proposals in the Licensing Bill. [84617]
  818W
  Dr. Howells
  We sent the White Paper, that was published in April 2000, to 231 organisations in order to gain their responses in respect of our proposals. I am arranging for a list of these organisations to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses. Any organisation or individual was, of course, free to respond to the White Paper, which was published and made freely available on Government websites.

  We received 1,215 responses to the consultation of which 656 were from organisations. Copies of these responses were placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Funding
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list new(a) companies, (b) work and (c) venues funded by her Department since 1998; and if she will make a statement. [83747]

  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 and Social Clubs
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations she has received concerning the level of closures of social and sports clubs; what measures the Government are taking to support social and sports clubs; and if she will make a statement. [85162]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Government are committed to supporting amateur sports clubs, which play important roles as local social centres. Over the last two years, my Department has worked closely with HM Treasury, Sport England, the Central Council of Physical Recreation and sport's governing bodies on the provision of financial support for such clubs. In the course of that work, my Department has received a large number of formal and informal representations on club numbers from the Council, governing bodies and other interested parties.

  Following detailed work with the Charity Commission, amateur sports clubs have had the opportunity to apply for registered charitable status under new guidance announced in April. Clubs who successfully apply will benefit from mandatory 80 per cent, business rate relief, tax exemption for trading income, and Payroll Giving, and tax reliefs for gifts by individuals and companies.

  Clubs who do not wish to apply for charitable status can apply for a package of tax reliefs available direct from the Inland Revenue. For the majority of amateur sports clubs these two packages offer an excellent way forward, potentially saving them millions of pounds a year in tax.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many sports and social clubs(a) in England and (b) in York and North Yorkshire there were on 1 May (i) 1997 and (ii) 2000; and how many are there now. [85163]
  819W
  Mr. Caborn
  The most accurate estimate of the numbers of amateur sports clubs in the UK was obtained by my Department earlier this year following a wide consultation of governing bodies. Based on those discussions, 110,000 departmental guidance leaflets on the benefits of charitable status were sent to individual clubs.

  Earlier work by the Central Council of Physical Recreation was based on random sampling and suggested that sports club numbers had fallen slightly over recent years. Neither the Council nor Sport England holds details of the numbers of sports clubs in England, or in York and North Yorkshire, or of numbers of purely social clubs.

  Wembley Stadium
  Rob Marris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if the Government will(a) give, (b) loan and (c) underwrite further funding for the building of Wembley Stadium. [85071]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Government's contribution to the English National Stadium project is Limited to a grant of up to 20 million towards non-stadium infrastructure. The London Development Agency is also granting up to £21 million and the Sports Lottery Fund's grant of £120 million has already been paid and spent by Wembley National Stadium Limited. 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 16 October and which can be downloaded from my Department's websiteat http://www.culture.gov.uk/sport.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Abandoned Vehicles
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many abandoned vehicles were dealt with under the Pollution Control and Local Government (NI) Order 1978 in each year since 1997; and what the average cost is of dealing with abandoned vehicles under this Order. [84520]

  Angela Smith
  There are no data available for the numbers and the costs associated with the collection of abandoned vehicles for the years 1997 to 1999. However, at the start of this year the Environment and Heritage Service of the Department of the Environment commissioned a survey to obtain data and information about End of Life Vehicles (ELVs), including abandoned vehicles, in 2000.

  In 2000, the number of abandoned vehicles disposed of by district councils was 2,899 and the direct costs associated with collection and disposal of these ranged from £0 to £50. The average cost was £40.67. Additional costs, including the costs of storage and officer time, increased the average cost to £53. The total cost to councils for collecting all abandoned vehicles in 2000 was estimated to be £117,902.

  An Executive Summary of the survey will be published in early 2003.
  820W

  Car Crime
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to increase penalties for joy riders and car thieves. [84381]

  Mr. Browne
  The Government are committed to undertaking a comprehensive review of the law relating to road traffic penalties in Northern Ireland. This will include the offence of aggravated vehicle taking.

  Preparatory work is under way on a consultation paper in anticipation of this review. I hope to be in a position to issue this document to a wide range of interested parties early in the coming new year.

  Any decision on the future of these penalties must be made on the basis of the recommendations of the review.

  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has for a review of penalties available to courts dealing with the perpetrators of car thefts and joy riding in Northern Ireland. [83113]

  Mr. Browne
  The Government are committed to undertaking a comprehensive review of the law relating to road traffic penalties in Northern Ireland. This will include the offence of aggravated vehicle taking.

  Preparatory work is under way on a consultation paper in anticipation of this review. I hope to be in a position to issue this document to a wide range of interested parties early in the coming new year.

  Nursing Staff
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what action is being taken by the Department of Health to ensure that there are enough specialised nursing staff to monitor patients on drugs. [83039]

  Mr. Browne
  I recently announced an additional £100,000 recurrent funding to improve the staffing infrastructure needed to support services for people who suffer from Multiple Sclerosis (MS).

  Electronic Tagging
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proposals he has to introduce electronic tagging for certain categories of criminals in Northern Ireland. [84478]

  Mr. Browne
  I have no immediate proposals to introduce the electronic tagging of criminals. The Criminal Justice Review recommended that electronic monitoring be kept under review in the light of developing experience elsewhere, including in England and Wales. The issue is currently being considered as part of a review of the Northern Ireland sentencing framework.

  Fertiliser Industry
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussions will be held with the Irish Government regarding the loss of 200 jobs in the fertiliser industry in North Belfast; and what action will be taken to ensure that all staff statutory requirements
  821W
  are met in respect of pension fund, redundancy payments and the issuing of statutory notices of employment. [82043]

  Mr. Pearson
  As well as meeting with Richardsons' management and Unions representing the work force, I have written to the company shareholders, including the Irish Government, expressing my concern over the treatment of the work force. I have met with ICI and a representative of the Irish Government. Further I hope to meet Mary Harney TD Deputy Prime Minister, Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment shortly.

  The issues relating to pensions are complex. There are four different pension schemes and the shareholders have asked the trustees of each scheme to establish the facts and options to mitigate the impact on members. The shareholders are proposing to meet with the four pension fund trustees and while the Government's influence in relation to the operation of private pension schemes may be limited, I will await the outcome of this meeting with interest.

  In relation to statutory payments, former employees at the Belfast plant may make an application to the Department for Employment and Learning for statutory redundancy payments. If the employees believe that IFI, Richardson's parent company, failed to consult about the redundancies in proper time they can bring a complaint to an industrial tribunal.

  Inward Investment (Strangford)
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what action he is taking to support inward investment in the Strangford area, in particular(a) Newtownards and (b) Killyleagh. [82025]

  Mr. Pearson
  The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, through its Agency Invest Northern Ireland, is actively seeking to attract high quality knowledge-based investment to Northern Ireland. Invest Northern Ireland is working with district councils, including the Ards and Down councils and other local stakeholders to develop regional propositions that will promote the key benefits of those areas. As part of this process Ards council facilitated a meeting last month to develop a sales proposition for the area and follow-up actions are under way.

  Research Base
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to give Northern Ireland an improved research base; and how he plans to achieve this. [82031]

  Mr. Pearson
  An improved research base, which is dependent on the combined efforts of Government, academia and the private sector, is critical for the development of a modern, competitive, knowledge based economy in Northern Ireland. I launched a draft Regional Innovation Strategy for public consultation on 21 November 2002. Entitled "think, create, innovate" it identifies a series of actions to build on Northern Ireland's strengths and address its weaknesses. It also seeks to ensure that there is a strategic framework for action by all the key 822W
  stakeholders. The public consultation phase will end in January 2003 and I intend to publish the final version in March 2003.

  Scallops
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will provide compensation to the Northern Ireland scallop industry following the recent imposition of a retrospective ban on the Irish Sea scallop grounds; and when he intends to re-open the fishery. [84456]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  No. It remains Northern Ireland policy not to pay compensation during such outbreaks. The ban in the Irish Sea does not extend to the North Sea or Strangford Lough where scallops may still be caught by fishermen subject to the requirement that they be taken to an approved processing plant for shucking under a movement permit.

  It is not possible at this stage to indicate when the fishery will reopened.

  Teachers' Pay
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will extend the consultation period for submissions on the Teachers' Pay and Conditions Inquiry in Northern Ireland. [85034]

  Jane Kennedy
  A letter from the Inquiry's Chairman was sent to all schools on 2 December informing them that it has decided, following representations from school governors, to extend the date for the receipt of evidence for its main report to 31 January 2003.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Official Travel
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Solicitor-General what the total expenditure of(a) her Department and (b) its agencies was on official travel in 2001–02 [84801]

  The Solicitor-General
  The total expenditure of the Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers on official travel in 2001–02 was £65,919.

  The total expenditure of the Crown Prosecution Service on official travel in 2001–02 was £4,255,472.

  The total expenditure of the Treasury Solicitor's Department on official travel in 2001–02 was £22,151.

  The total expenditure of HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate on official travel in 2001–02 was £89,096.

  The total expenditure of the Serious Fraud Office on official travel in 2001–02 was £356,000.

  Since 1999 the Government have published an annual list of all visits overseas undertaken by Cabinet Ministers costing £500 or more during each financial year. The Government have also published on an annual basis the cost of all Ministers' visits overseas.

  Details of travel undertaken during the period 1 April 2001 to 31 March 2002 was published on 24 July 2002, Official Report, 1374–75W).

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Employment Delays
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what delays are being experienced by schools between employing(a) teaching, (b) classroom support, (c) voluntary and (d) other staff and their deployment into activities with children, arising from delays in screening by the Criminal Records Bureau. [85068]

  Mr. Miliband
  My Department has not been made aware of any delays in schools deploying staff or volunteers to work with children since we issued advice about interim arrangements in September. Those arrangements allow new staff and volunteers in schools for whom a Criminal Records Bureau Disclosure is required to be deployed to work with children while awaiting the Disclosure at the discretion of the Head teacher. Schools should check my Department's list of people who are barred from working with children in the education service (List 99) and complete other recruitment checks such as taking up references, before staff or volunteers start work.

  Adult Learning
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what help will be given to rural areas to help with adult learning. [85060]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  Support for adult learners in rural areas is a key priority in our national strategy for improving adult literacy and numeracy, launched in March 2001. Good progress is being made, and through the Learning and Skills Council, we are expanding the range of provision, and providing better access. For example, extended schools are providing centres for adult learning within rural communities, and in some locations, may also provide access to sports and other facilities. Online centres have also been established in rural areas, and trials are under way to pilot the use of ICT in pubs.

  In 2001–02 a total of 8,064 new child care places were created in Devon, Cornwall, Durham and Lincolnshire, helping more parents to access learning provision. And the modernisation of the Higher Education student support system will consider how to improve access through online application and interactive help facilities for students.

  We shall be reporting fully on all our activities to the Countryside Agency as part of the annual cycle of rural proofing reporting by the Government. We shall also be working closely with DEFRA on their review of skills and learning in rural areas announced on 21 November.

  Child Care Review
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what progress has been made with the implementation of the Inter Departmental Child Care Review [83439]

  Maria Eagle
  I have been asked to reply.
  824W
  Following the announcement by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 15 July, a single inter-departmental Unit responsible for both Sure Start and Early Years and Child Care programmes has been established, accountable for delivery to the Department for Education and Skills and the Department for Work and Pensions. My Noble Friend Baroness Ashton the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State with responsibility for Sure Start, Early Years and Child Care is lead Minister for the work of the new Unit and a member of the Ministerial team of both Departments.

  The new Unit will have a £1.5 billion budget, including more than doubling Child Care spending, by 2006. Its work will include: reforming local and national infrastructure and simplifying funding; establishing a network of Children's Centres, providing integrated Child Care, early education, family and health services for up to 650,000 children in disadvantaged areas by 2006; and creating at least 250,000 new child care places by that date, on top of the existing target of creating new places for 1.6 million children by 2004.

  The report of the child care review, "Delivering for Children and Families", was published on 6 November. A copy is available in the Library.

  Drugs Awareness
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many schools have a teacher trained in drugs awareness and education. [85036]

  Mr. Miliband
  The information is not collected centrally.

  Education Costs
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much the Government allocates to educate a child aged 11 to 16 years in the(a) Tamworth and (b) Sutton Coldfield constituencies. [84178]

  Mr. Miliband
  In 2002–03, Staffordshire's average funding per pupil aged 11–15 is £3,440, and for Birmingham it is £4,230. We do not identify separately the amounts for individual constituencies. The reason for the difference is the higher levels of deprivation in Birmingham as a whole. Funding is distributed to schools and children through local education authorities' own funding formulae: these formulae can be a significant cause of the differences in funding between similar schools in neighbouring authorities, since they often do not take enough account of the needs of deprived children. We have issued guidance to LEAs about their use of deprivation funding in order to persuade them to target funding for deprivation at those children and schools that most need it.

  Note:

  Figures in cash terms for pupils aged 11 to 15 (secondary school pupils)—rounded to nearest 10. The figures include the Education SSA plus Grants.

  Education Provision (Buckinghamshire)
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the pupil/teacher ratios were
  825W
  for (a) primary schools and (b) secondary schools in (i) Chesham and Amersham and (ii) Buckinghamshire in each year since 1 January 1996. [85126]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 3 December 2002]The information requested is shown in the table.

  Maintained primary and secondary schools1: Pupil: teacher ratios2

  Pupil:teacher ratio

  Chesham and Amersham3

  Buckinghamshire LEA

  Position in January each year

  Primary schools

  Secondary schools

  Primary schools

  Secondary schools

  1996

  4—

  4—

  523.6

  517.1

  1997

  24.5

  17.0

  523.9

  517.3

  1998

  24.7

  17.1

  24.2

  17.6

  1999

  24.6

  18.2

  23.9

  18.1

  2000

  23.6

  18.3

  22.8

  18.4

  2001

  22.9

  18.2

  22.8

  18.3

  2002

  22.2

  18.0

  22.1

  18.1

  1 Includes middle schools as deemed.

  2 The pupil:teacher ratio is calculated by dividing the total number of full-time equivalent pupils on roll in schools by the total number of full-time equivalent qualified teachers employed in schools.

  3 Parliamentary constituency.

  4 Not available.

  5 Before local government reorganization.

  Source:

  Annual Schools' Census.

  Table 1: Recruitment to GTP and RTP courses in England, 2001–02

  GTP

  GTP

  September 2001

  January 2001

  April 2002

  Total

  September 2001

  January 2001

  April 2002

  Total

  Primary

  540

  309

  364

  1,213

  61

  41

  16

  118

  Secondary

  Mathematics

  68

  84

  66

  218

  0

  4

  2

  6

  English and Drama

  135

  147

  92

  374

  2

  1

  1

  4

  Science

  153

  128

  94

  375

  1

  2

  2

  5

  Modern Foreign Languages

  125

  77

  59

  261

  0

  1

  0

  1

  Total Technology

  139

  169

  112

  420

  6

  6

  5

  17

  History

  25

  26

  19

  70

  1

  0

  0

  1

  Geography

  16

  15

  6

  37

  1

  0

  0

  1

  Physical Education

  29

  38

  21

  88

  0

  0

  1

  1

  Art

  14

  33

  12

  59

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Music

  11

  21

  12

  44

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Religious Education

  3

  18

  4

  25

  1

  0

  0

  1

  Citizenship

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Other

  32

  18

  10

  60

  3

  5

  2

  10

  Secondary total

  750

  774

  507

  2,031

  15

  19

  13

  47

  Grand total

  1,290

  1,083

  871

  3,244

  76

  60

  29

  165

  Source:

  Teacher Training Agency.

  Ministerial Design Champion
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list the meetings undertaken by his Department's Ministerial Design Champion in that capacity. [85188]

  Mr. Miliband
  My noble Friend, the Baroness Ashton was the Department's Ministerial Design Champion

  Examinations
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what percentage of children excluded from school gained(a) five or more GCSEs at grades A* to C and (b) one or more GCSEs in (i) 2001 and (ii) 2002. [85347]

  Mr. Miliband
  Currently the only readily available source of data on the GCSE attainment of young people excluded from school is the Youth Cohort Study (YCS).

  The latest data available from the YCS is for people who took their GCSEs in the summer of 1999. This shows that of those who were excluded from school in years 10 or 11, 17 per cent, gained five or more GCSEs at grades A* to C and 90 per cent, reported gaining at least one GCSE.

  Figures for more recent years will become available from the National Pupil Database in due course.

  Graduate Training Programme
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many trainees commenced the graduate training programme and registered training programme in(a) primary schools and (b) secondary schools in (i) September 2001, (ii) January 2002 and (iii) April 2002; and in what subjects. [84568]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 2 December 2002]: The numbers of trainees who commenced the Graduate Teacher Programme (GTP) and Registered Teacher Programme (RTP) in 2001–02 are presented in the table. Trainees in secondary schools are shown by the subject they trained in.

  until this month when, due to changes in Ministerial responsibilities, I succeeded her.

  In her role as Design Champion, Baroness Ashton accepted an invitation to speak at a conference organised by the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE) on the theme "Achieving Design Quality in PFI Schools". The conference took place on 22 October 2001, at the Millennium Primary

  827W
  School in Greenwich. This year there have been two meetings of the Ministerial Design Champions, but unfortunately she was not able to attend either. Instead, the Department was represented at official level.

  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when his Department's Ministerial Design Champion last met(a) the Commission of Architecture and the Built Environment, (b) the Royal Institution of British Architects and (c) officials from the DfES's Schools Building Design Unit. [85189]

  Mr. Miliband
  Baroness Ashton last met representatives of the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE) in October 2001, at the conference organised by CABE and referred to in answer to the previous question. A meeting was arranged between her and the President of the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) in July this year, but this had to be postponed and a new meeting has yet to be arranged.

  Baroness Ashton regularly meets officials from the Department's schools Building & esign Unit (SBDU) to discuss issues as they arise. The last meeting which focused on design took place in May this year.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many times he has visited East Lancashire in his official capacity; and what the purpose was of each visit. [82401]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  My predecessor and I have not visited East Lancashire in this capacity since the June 2001 General Election. However I did visit Preston on 27 September 2002 to meet a business group at the University of Central Lancashire. I was also a guest of the Directors of Preston North End Football Club to observe the game against Norwich City on 28 September, which I am glad to report that Norwich won.

  Pre-School Education
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what additional resources will be given to local education authorities to extend free early education to all three-year-olds. [83167]

  Maria Eagle
  I have been asked to reply.

  Over the three financial years 2001–02 to 2003–04, 986 million has been allocated for the creation of new, free early education places for three year olds and for other early years initiatives.

  From April 2003 all early education funding will be made available to local authorities in the under 5's sub-block, through Education Formula Spending 2003–04. This sub-block will be increased substantially to £2.6 billion which will provide adequate resources for all local education authorities to achieve universal provision for three year olds.

  In addition, £40 million capital funds have been made available over the financial years 2002–03 and 2003–04, for the building of nursery education facilities in disadvantaged areas which will support the achievement of universal provision of three year olds.
  828W

  Primary Schools
  Mr. Cameron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what recent consultations he has had with bodies representing pre-school play groups(a) in rural areas and (b) elsewhere, over proposals that all four-year-olds should attend primary schools. [82051]

  Maria Eagle
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Secretary of State has no proposals for recommending that all four year olds should attend primary school. Compulsory school age remains the term following the child's fifth birthday.

  Some primary schools do operate an early admission policy. Where this is the case, the School Admissions Code of Practice encourages admission authorities to allow parents who have secured a place for their child to defer entry until later in the same academic year if they wish to do so.

  Admissions policy has recently been reviewed and following consultation, a new, revised Code has been produced. This is currently before Parliament for consideration. The new Code includes a stronger message on deferred entry making it clear to primary school admission authorities that the Secretary of State expects them to offer parents the option of deferring entry.

  Public Building Designs
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on how he intends to implement the recommendations in the joint Office of Government Commerce and Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment guidance, Improving standards of design in the procurement of public building. [85191]

  Mr. Miliband
  The DfES does not procure educational buildings. In the schools sector, this is the responsibility of local education authorities, school governors and trustees. For this sector, the relevant recommendations of the CABE/OGC report have already been, or will be, taken into account and reflected in updated DfES project design, procurement, funding and asset management plan appraisal guidance.

  In the further and higher education sectors, the responsibility for influencing design and sustainability issues rests, respectively, with the LSC and the HEFCE.

  Qualifications and Curriculum Authority
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what checks were made before the appointment of the new Chief Executive of the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority; and if he will make a statement. [83934]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Qualification and Curriculum Authority appoint their Chief Executive with the approval of the Secretary of State. The QCA in its recruitment process obtained views from leading education practitioners in Australia who had worked with Ken Boston. The judgment of those consulted was that the new Chief Executive was a highly credible candidate with considerable integrity.

  Sure Start
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on the effects of Sure Start programmes on children's health. [83166]

  Maria Eagle
  I have been asked to reply.

  Sure Start is expected to have a positive impact on children's health in their early years of life and throughout childhood into adulthood.

  Sure Start programmes work to improve children's health by working with existing statutory and voluntary agencies to provide a wide range of health related support and advice to parents and parents to be. This includes: diet and nutrition advice; smoking cessation; preparation for parenthood classes; enhanced maternity and health visiting services; child health and development information; identification of and support to mothers with post-natal depression; breastfeeding support; parenting support and advice; early identification of special needs and support to families with children with special needs along with a wide range of practical, social and specialist support to improve parents' social and emotional health.

  Comprehensive monitoring and evaluation processes are in place to assess the impact of Sure Start on a wide range of child health outcomes. At present it is too early to assess the impact of Sure Start on such outcomes but information on this will become available over the next 12–18 months.

  One of Sure Start's PSA objectives is concerned with improving children's health and progress towards this is reported annually in the DfES Annual Report.

  Recruitment to courses of initial teacher training and employment based initial teacher training programmes in England in 2001–02

  Postgraduate ITT recruitment

  Undergraduate ITT recruitment

  Total ITT recruitment

  GTP recruitment

  KTP recruitment

  OTT recruitment

  Total ITT and EBR recruitment

  Primary

  6,749

  6,385

  13,135

  1,213

  118

  415

  14,881

  Secondary

  Mathematics

  1,409

  150

  1,559

  218

  6

  85

  1,868

  English and drama

  2,119

  128

  2,247

  374

  4

  142

  2,767

  Science

  2,464

  150

  2,614

  375

  5

  94

  3,088

  Modern foreign languages

  1,699

  16

  1,715

  261

  1

  23

  2,000

  Total technology

  1,774

  387

  2,161

  420

  17

  57

  2,655

  History

  933

  0

  933

  70

  1

  15

  1,019

  Geography

  1,024

  11

  1,035

  37

  1

  11

  1,084

  Physical education

  764

  566

  1,330

  88

  1

  30

  1,499

  Art

  843

  0

  843

  59

  0

  5

  907

  Music

  627

  29

  656

  44

  0

  18

  718

  Religious education

  581

  7

  588

  25

  1

  6

  620

  Citizenship

  147

  0

  147

  0

  0

  0

  147

  Other

  231

  0

  231

  60

  10

  20

  321

  Secondary total

  4,615

  1,444

  16,059

  2,031

  47

  506

  18,643

  Grand total

  21,364

  7,830

  29,194

  3,244

  165

  921

  33,524

  Source:

  Teacher training agency

  Teacher Training
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many undergraduates started full-time teacher training courses in England in the academic year 2001–02 in each subject. [84569]

  Mr. Miliband
  The number of undergraduates who started full-time teacher training courses in England in the academic year 2001–02 by subject is shown in the table.

  Table 1. The number of full-time undergraduate teacher trainees who entered in 2001–02

  >

  Number

  Primary

  6,368

  Secondary

  Mathematics

  149

  English

  128

  Science

  150

  Modern Foreign Languages

  16

  Total Technology

  386

  History

  0

  Geography

  11

  Physical Education

  564

  Art

  0

  Music

  29

  Religious Education

  7

  Citizenship

  0

  Other

  0

  Secondary total

  1,440

  Grand total

  7,808

  Source:

  TTA ITT Trainee Number Census 2001–02.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many people entered initial teacher training courses for(a) primary and (b) secondary subjects through (i) undergraduate, (ii) postgraduate and (iii) employment-based routes in the academic years (A) 2001–02 and (B) 2002–03. [84570]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 2 December 2002]: The information is shown in the tables.
  831W

  Recruitment to courses of initial teacher training and employment based initial teacher training programmes in England in 2002–03

  Postgraduate ITT recruitment

  Undergraduate ITT recruitment

  Total ITT recruitment

  GTP recruitment

  RTP recruitment

  OTT recruitment 1

  Total ITT and EBR recruitment

  Primary

  7,988

  6,488

  14,476

  684

  16

  34

  15,210

  Secondary

  Mathematics

  1,545

  144

  1,689

  135

  1

  11

  1,836

  English and drama

  2,386

  109

  2,495

  233

  2

  19

  2,749

  Science

  2,537

  133

  2,670

  198

  0

  19

  2,887

  Modern foreign languages

  1,742

  7

  1,749

  128

  1

  0

  1,878

  Total technology

  2,055

  347

  2,402

  272

  1

  7

  2,682

  History

  995

  3

  998

  33

  0

  3

  1,034

  Geography

  1,025

  6

  1,031

  12

  0

  2

  1,045

  Physical education

  771

  554

  1,325

  48

  0

  7

  1,380

  Art

  880

  0

  880

  42

  0

  0

  922

  Music

  604

  7

  61 1

  31

  0

  3

  645

  Religious education

  573

  3

  576

  35

  0

  0

  611

  Citizenship

  185

  0

  185

  0

  0

  0

  185

  Other

  174

  0

  174

  53

  0

  4

  231

  Secondary total

  15,472

  1,313

  16,785

  1,220

  5

  75

  18,085

  Grand total

  23,460

  7,801

  31,261

  1,904

  21

  109

  33,295

  Source:

  Teacher training agency

  1 Entrants to date. There will be further intakes in the spring and summer 2003 terms.

TREASURY

  Capital Gains Act
  Mr. Arbuthnot
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer with reference to the Inland Revenue's guidance that the words substantial extent in the Capital Gains Tax Act 1992, Schedule A1, paragraph 22A(1) means 20 per cent, or more, to what the 20 per cent, figure refers. [84483]

  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what the figure of 80 per cent, used by the Inland Revenue to judge whether a company's activities are primarily trading activities applies. [85069]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The figure relates to the proportion of a company's activities which are not trading activities. The Inland Revenue will publish guidance in Tax Bulletin 62 (to be issued in December 2002) on how to determine for Capital Gains Tax taper relief purposes whether a company's non-trading activities amount to more than 20 per cent, of its total activities. This guidance, which updates the earlier guidance published in June 2001 in Tax Bulletin 53 by reflecting changes to the legislation which were introduced in Finance Act 2002, is available now on the Revenue website at:www.inlandrevenue.gov uk/bulletins/tax—bulletin—taper—relief.htm.

  A hard copy is being placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Double Taxation Convention
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assurances have been received by him from officials in the relevant Government Departments in 832W
  (a) the UK and (b) the USA that a mutually agreed agenda for ratification of the UK/US Double Taxation Convention has been fixed and is being adhered to. [84446]

  Dawn Primarolo
  It is not possible to fix a mutually agreed agenda for ratification of the new UK/USA Double Taxation Convention because the UK and USA have ratification procedures that lie outside the control of the Government Departments concerned. However, the ratification process was completed in the UK on 20 November 2002 and we expect the US Senate to consider the Convention early in 2003.

  The Convention requires that the instruments of ratification shall be exchanged as soon as possible after each country has ratified the Convention. Both countries are moving as quickly as they can to achieve that.

  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Governments of the UK and the US expect to complete the process of ratification of the UK/US Double Taxation Convention signed on 24 July 2001. [84447]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The ratification process for the new UK/USA Double Taxation Convention was completed in the United Kingdom on 20 November 2002. In the US the convention has been transmitted to the Senate, which is expected to consider it early in 2003. Instruments of ratification will be exchanged by the two Governments as soon as possible after the Senate has given its advice and consent to ratification.

  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Government expect to announce to business and other interested parties(a) the date on which the UK/US Double Taxation Convention will come into force and (b) the date on which its provisions will take effect. [84448]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The UK/USA Double Taxation Convention will enter into force on the same day that instruments of ratification are exchanged by the two
  833W
  governments. When that has taken place, an announcement will be published in the London, Edinburgh and Belfast Gazettes. The Inland Revenue will also publish a News Release announcing the entry into force date and a statement will appear on its website.

  The provisions of the Convention will take effect in accordance with the provisions of Article 29 of the Convention, and will flow automatically from the entry into force date.

  Human Corpses
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make an assessment of the powers of Customs and Excise to prevent the importation of human corpses and body parts for the purpose of artistic or public display; and if he will make a statement. [85345]

  John Healey
  HM Customs and Excise has no powers to prevent the import of human corpses and body parts whether or not for the purpose of artistic or public display.

  Inland Revenue
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many companies were subjected to penalties by the Large Business Office and Special Business Office in fiscal year 2000–01; what the total levels of penalty were; and if he will make a statement. [82039]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Large Business Office and the Special Compliance Office do not at present keep their records in a way that allows this information to be provided, except at disproportionate cost. The Inland Revenue are reviewing their record systems with a view to providing information more easily in future.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many cases were settled by the Large Business Office and Special Business Office in the last five fiscal years; and if he will make a statement. [82041]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The figures are as follows:

  Large business office

  Special compliance office

  1997–98

  —

  983

  1998–99

  3,366

  877

  1999–2000

  2,757

  869

  2000–01

  2,519

  810

  2001–02

  2,105

  738

  For the Large Business Office, figures for 1997–98 are not available on a comparable basis with those for other years. The figures for other years are of numbers of adjustments to taxable profits or losses recorded on issues into which the Office has inquired. In each year, several such adjustments may arise on any one case.

  The Special Compliance Office has focused on larger and more complex cases in recent years. The Large Business Office, focuses resources on achieving greater voluntary compliance by taxpayers.
  834W

  Inland Revenue Inspectors
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many fully-trained Inland Revenue inspectors there were in(a) 1985, (b) 1990, (c) 1995 and (d) 2001; how many general grade inspectors there were in (i) 1985, (ii) 1990, (iii) 1995 and (iv) 2001; how many unfilled general and fully-trained inspector posts there were in each of the above years; and if he will make a statement. [82042]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Organisational groupings of Inland Revenue staff were significantly changed in 1993. Consequently the fully-trained inspectors fell mostly into a new Band B group, and the general group of inspectors was mainly replaced by a much broader grouping of them and other staff in a new Band C group.

  The Inland Revenue estimates that the number of fully-trained Inspectors in Band B at 1 April 1995 and 1 April 2001 stood at 1,900 and 1,800 respectively. The total number of staff in Band C were 7,042 at 1 April 1995 and 8,477 at 1 April 2001. A new personnel records system was introduced in 1997, replacing the database for earlier years. Using other, less reliable data the Inland Revenue estimates there were some 2,500 fully-trained and 4,500 general group inspectors in 1985, and 2,100 fully-trained and 5,100 general group inspectors in 1990.

  Records are not kept for the numbers of past staff vacancies.

  Mature Students (Child Tax Credit)
  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether mature students in higher education in England whose spouses are in work will be eligible for child tax credit. [84963]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Yes, provided that the couple is responsible for at least one child or young person.

  Methadone
  John Mann
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer in how many cases methadone appeared on death certificates in each of the last 10 years. [85035]

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

  Letter from John Pullinger to John Mann, dated 4 December 2002:

  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your question asking in how many cases methadone appears on the death certificate in each of the last ten years. I am replying in his absence. (85035)

  Figures for deaths related to drug poisoning are currently available for 1993 to 2000 for England and Wales. The information requested is given in the table below:

  Deaths where methadone was mentioned on the death certificate1, persons, England and Wales, 1993–20002

  Year

  Number

  1993

  232

  1994

  269

  1995

  310

  1996

  368

  1997

  421

  835W

  Deaths where methadone was mentioned on the death certificate1, persons, England and Wales, 1993–20002

  Year

  Number

  1998

  364

  1999

  298

  2000

  238

  1 Selected using the following codes from the International Classification of Diseases Ninth Revision:

  292 (drug psychoses)

  304 (drug dependence).

  305.2–305.9 (non-dependent abuse of drugs).

  E850–E858 (accidental poisoning by drugs, medicaments and biologicals)

  E950.0–E950.5 (suicide and self-inflicted poisoning by solid or liquid substances).

  E980.0–E980.5(poisoning by solid or liquid substances, undetermined whether accidentally or purposely inflicted).

  E962.0 (assault by poisoning—drugs and medicaments).

  where methadone was also mentioned on the death certificate.

  2 Data are for occurrences of death per calendar year.

  Source:

  Office for National Statistics (2002) Report: Deaths related to drug poisoning: results for England and Wales, 1993–2000. Health Statistics Quarterly 13, 76–82.

  Monetary Policy Committee
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what advice and instructions the Treasury gave during the last six months to(a) members of the Bank of England Monetary Policy Committee and (b) their staff on the relevance of house prices to the setting of interest rates; and what advice he has given since his pre-Budget statement. [85222]

  Ruth Kelly
  [holding answer 3 December 2002]: The Chancellor regularly meets with the Governor of the Bank of England to discuss a wide range of issues. The Treasury representative to the MPC and other Treasury officials also regularly discuss economic issues with counterparts in the Bank of England.

  The MPC's remit is to meet the target of 2.5 per cent, for RPIX inflation, reconfirmed in the Budget.

  Network Rail
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will make a statement on the treatment of Network Rail's financing as Government debt in the national accounts; [85177]

  (2) what plans he has to include the total borrowings of Network Rail in the national accounts as Government debt. [85178]

  Mr. Boateng
  Network Rail is classified as a private sector corporation in national accounts. Its financial transactions, such as borrowing, are recorded in the financial account of the corporations' sector in national accounts. Its borrowing is not therefore included in the Government sector.

  Government provide subsidies and investment grants to the rail industry, mainly to train operating companies. These payments are counted as part of Government expenditure and would add to Government debt if not financed by Government revenue.

  Official Travel
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the total budget of(a) his Department and (b) its agencies is for official travel in 2002–03. [84928]

  Ruth Kelly
  [holding answer 3 December 2002]: Since 1999, the Government have published an annual list of all visits overseas undertaken by Cabinet Ministers costing £500 or more during each financial year. The Government have also published on an annual basis the cost of all Ministers' visits overseas. Details of travel undertaken during the period 1 April 2001 to 31 March 2002 was published on 24 July 2002, Official Report, column 75W. The cost of Ministers' visits overseas for 2002–03 will be published as soon as possible after the end of the current financial year. Copies of the lists are available in the Libraries of the House.

  All travel is undertaken fully in accordance with the rules set out in the Ministerial Code and Travel by Ministers, copies of which are available in the Libraries of the House.

  Pensions
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to his statement of 27 November 2002,Official Report, column 326, whether the proportion of an individual's pension fund that is allowed to be taken as a tax free lump sum on retirement will remain the same. [85223]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions will publish the Government's Green Paper on pensions on 17 December 2002. This will include proposals to simplify the tax treatment of pensions.

  As confirmed by the Chancellor in his pre-Budget report statement, the tax-free lump sum payment to retirees will remain.

  Personal Pensions
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the cost to the Treasury of 2 per cent, payments made to appropriate personal pension arrangements was, where contracting out from SERPS commenced between 29 April 1988 and 30 June 1994 and those persons have subsequently been reinstated, as a result of the FSA Review of Personal Pension sales, into an arrangement where the 2 per cent, incentive would not have been payable. [84715]

  Ruth Kelly
  Individuals who had previously been in a contracted-out occupational scheme for two or more years and were entitled to stay in that scheme but left voluntarily after 5 April 1988 while continuing to work for the same employer would not have qualified for the 2 per cent, incentive when taking up membership of an appropriate personal pension (APP) scheme. If these members were subsequently reinstated into the occupational scheme there could have been no requirement to recover an incentive which had not been paid.

  In the other cases, where either the individual had not been in the scheme for two years, or they had never been in the occupational scheme but chose to join the

  837W
  appropriate personal pension scheme despite being eligible to join the occupational scheme, the 2 per cent, incentive would have been paid.

  Two options were used when reinstating individuals into their occupational pension schemes.

  One option involved the removal of the APP arrangement from their NI account and the adjustment of their NI contributions from standard A rate to the contracted-out rate. This action triggered the recovery of the minimum contributions from the APP scheme, which would include the 2 per cent, incentive if paid.

  The other option was to leave the APP in place and the APP provider to pay a transfer value to the occupational scheme sufficient to reinstate the relevant years into the occupational scheme. In these cases because the APP was not cancelled no recovery of the 2 per cent, incentive was made.

  No statistics have been kept in relation to the amount of 2 per cent, incentive recovered in cases where the individual has been reinstated into an arrangement that would not have qualified for the incentive.

  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what the cost to the Treasury of the 2 per cent, incentive payments made to appropriate personal pension arrangements was, where contracting out from SERPS commenced between 29 April 1988 and 30 June 1994; [84717]

  (2) what the value of 2 per cent, incentive payments reclaimed by the Treasury was, where they were made to appropriate personal pension arrangements where contracting out from SERPS commenced between 29 April 1988 and 30 June 1994, and where those persons were reinstated, as a result of the FS A Review of Personal Pension sales, into an arrangement where the 2 per cent, incentive would not have been payable. [84716]

  Ruth Kelly
  The 2 per cent, incentive was payable for tax years 1987–88 to 1992–93 inclusive. If a member of an appropriate personal pension (APP) scheme was entitled to the 2 per cent, incentive it was paid from the tax year their APP arrangement began until 5 April 1993 or the tax year their APP was cancelled if earlier.

  Statistics show that the net amount of 2 per cent, incentive paid to APP schemes for this period was £3,180.19 million.

  No statistics have been kept in relation to the amount of 2 per cent, incentive recovered in cases where the individual has been reinstated into an arrangement that would not have qualified for the incentive.

  Public-Private Finance
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the level of PFI and PPP liabilities over the next 25 years, including contracts to be signed up to the end of financial year 2002–03. [84611]

  Mr. Boateng
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given to the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) on 21 November 2002,Official Report, column 280W.

  Taxation (Non-domicile Rules)
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the amount of foreign investment in the UK resulting from the non-domicile tax rules. [85291]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer the hon. Lady to the reply I gave her on 7 November 2002,Official Report, column 743W. Paragraphs 5.81–82 of the pre-Budget report published on 27 November set out the latest position on the review of the residence and domicile rules.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan and Baku-Tbilisi-Erzurum Pipelines
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans her Department has to conduct a social and environmental impact assessment of(a) the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline and (b) the Baku- Tbilisi-Erzurum gas pipeline. [83729]

  Ms Hewitt
  Social and environmental impact assessments have been carried out by Environmental Resources Management (ERM) for the three countries that the BTC oil pipeline runs through, and can be found on the BTC website: www.caspiandevelopmentandexport.com The prospective lenders to BTC Co. are receiving independent advice on environmental and social issues.

  ECGD considers relevant impact assessments as part of its due diligence procedures on any application from a UK exporter.

  Bank Assets (Holocaust Victims)
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the restitution of assets to holocaust victims in respect of bank assets seized in world war two; how many claims have been made; how many outstanding claims have been referred to Lord Archer of Sandwell's panel; and how much compensation has been awarded. [82956]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Enemy Property Claims Assessment Panel (EPCAP) assesses claims submitted under the Enemy Property Payment Scheme. The Panel of Assessors has nearly completed the assessment of the 1,097 claims received with over 1,050 already settled.

  The amount of compensation paid to claimants now totals almost £8.7 million.

  Canadian Engine Manufacturers
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the compatiblity with WTO rules of the level of Governmental support to Canadian engine manufacturers in the context of the competition to provide engines for the A400M; and if he will make a statement. [83954]
  839W
  Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 28 November 2002]: The airframe manufacturer is currently assessing the merits of the competing bids for the A400M engine contract. The Department has not been provided with any evidence that the Canadian bid is incompatible with WTO rules. In any case, competence for taking action against other governments that may be in contravention of their WTO commitments lies with the European Commission.

  Counterfeit Goods
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent discussions she has had with(a) the music industry, (b) local authorities and (c) other individuals and bodies regarding the sale of illegal and counterfeit music albums. [85310]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The music industry was represented at the meeting I had earlier this year with the industry umbrella group, the Alliance Against Counterfeiting and Piracy, to discuss concerns about intellectual property (IP) crime. The interests of local authorities inthis area are covered by LACORS, the Local Authorities Coordinators of RegulatoryServices, which is one of the bodies participating in the Counterfeiting and PiracyForum. The Forum brings together representatives from both the public and privatesectors to explore collaborative approaches to fighting IP crime. IP crime, which affects many different sectors as well as music, is a topic that comes up in discussions we have with a range of individuals and bodies, and some of these are specifically concerned about counterfeit music recordings.

  Departmental Targets
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the extent to which her Department achieved its targets in each year since 1997. [84117]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 28 November 2002]: The Department publishes information on progress against a wide range of targets in its annual Expenditure Plans Report. This includes information on Public Service Agreements (PSA) targets as well as on Agency and other operational targets. Copies of these reports are available in the Libraries of the House.

  Electricity Generation
  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what contingency plans are in place to ensure continuation of electricity supply in the event of a generating company or power station falling into administration and becoming unable to continue supply to the National Grid. [82899]

  Mr. Wilson
  NGC has various statutory duties to help ensure security of supply. However, were the output of a specific station to be essential for security of supply, NGC can seek if necessary to contract with a power station/administrator to maintain supply.

  Energy Policy
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the UK's total installed electricity generating capacity is; what the maximum daily peak demand for electricity is; and what proportion of this is met by(a) nuclear power generation and (b) energy from renewable sources. [85106]

  Mr. Wilson
  Figures published in the Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics, 2002 and on the DTI Energy Statistics website show that at the end of December 2001 total UK generating capacity in declared net capacity terms (DNC) was 79,553 MW, of which 73,219 MW was owned by major power producers and 6,334 MW by other generators. The simultaneous maximum load met by major power producers in the UK in the winter of 2001–02 was 58,589 MW in January 2002. An analysis of which plant were in use at the time of this maximum demand is not available. However, of the 79,553 MW of UK generating capacity, 16 per cent, was nuclear, 2 per cent, was natural flow hydro and 1 per cent, was renewables other than hydro.

  Innovating Businesses
  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 a significant rise in the proportion of innovating businesses. [83689]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 26 November 2002]The full wording of Public Service Agreement target six was:Increase the level of exploitation of technological knowledge derived from the science and engineering base, as demonstrated by a significant rise in the proportion of innovating businesses citing such success.

  This target is measured through a business innovation survey that takes place four yearly, so that achievement of the target will be assessed in 2005. The benchmark for 2000, that we will seek to better is that the share of innovating businesses citing any Science and Engineering Base source is 38 per cent.

  The science and engineering base for this purpose includes universities, government research labs, other public research labs and private research institutes. The citation levels for these individual sources are:

  Percentages

  Universities

  23

  Government Laboratories

  16

  Other Public Sector

  25

  Private Public Sector

  25

  Private Research Institutes

  16

  Note:

  Individual businesses may cite more than one source.

  Miners' Compensation
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many claims for compensation for respiratory disease were made by ex-miners in(a) 1999, (b) 2000 and (c) 2001; how many claimants died before receiving final payments, in each year; and how many claims for compensation for respiratory diseases there are. [84313]
  841W
  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 3 December 2002]: The information is as follows:

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Number of respiratory claims registered each year (live and deceased)

  29,447

  36,886

  44,317

  Number of claimants who died during this year before receiving full and final settlement (incl. denied and withdrawn claims)

  2,684

  2.743

  2,230

  As of 24 November there are 210,446 claims registered for respiratory disease (inclusive of both live and deceased claims).

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many times she has visited east Lancashire in her official capacity; and what the purpose was of each visit. [82402]

  Ms Hewitt
  I had planned a visit to the Ribble area of Lancashire on Wednesday 4 December, but, owing to ill health my visit had to be cancelled. I hope to reinstate a similar visit in the near future.

  Net Metering Arrangements
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate she has made of the number of homes operating on net metering; and if she will take steps to increase this number. [84729]

  Mr Wilson
  [holding answer 3 December 2002]: No definitive information is available on the number of homes with a net metering arrangement though it is known that a small number of companies have offered net metering tariffs to domestic consumers. It is believed that more than 200 customers may have taken these offers up.

  Metering arrangements are a matter for energy suppliers and their customers. The Government, through the Distributed Generation Coordination Group, is working with the industry to encourage the development of suitable metering arrangements for customers with domestic scale generation.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much electricity was returned to the national grid last year as a result of net metering arrangements. [84731]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 3 December 2002]: No information is available but the amount returned to the grid is likely to have been very small since it is believed that only a small number of households had a net metering tariff.

  Norwich Airport
  Dr. Ian Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans the Competition Commission has to investigate the sale of Norwich Airport. [85450]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Under the Fair Trading Act 1973 a merger qualifies for investigation if it creates or enhances a 25 per cent, share of supply in the UK or a842W
  substantial part of the UK, or if the gross value of the world-wide assets being taken over is more than 70 million.

  In the first instance it is for the Director General of Fair Trading to advise Ministers on whether or not a qualifying merger should be referred to the Competition Commission.

  Photovoltaic Major Demonstration Programme
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the Government intends to make a decision on funding for phase 2 of the Photovoltaic Major Demonstration Programme; and if she will make a statement. [84759]

  Mr. Wilson
  Funding for further phases of the Photovoltaic Major Demonstration Programme is dependent on the emerging success of the first phase. The Government's Energy White Paper, to be published in the New Year, will be looking at the role of renewables, including PV, as a contributor to meeting the UK's and international carbon reduction targets, now and in the longer terms.

  Post Offices
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many(a) post offices and (b) sub post offices there were in (i) Chesham and Amersham and (ii) Buckinghamshire in (A) 1975, (B) 1980, (C) 1985, (D) 1990, (E) 1995, (F) 2000, (G) 2001 and (H) 2002. [85133]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 3 December 2002]: I am informed by Post Office Ltd. that historic data in the form requested are not available as the company does not require this data for operational reasons.

  However, in 1999, the Post Office undertook a special exercise to determine the number of post offices in each Parliamentary constituency in response to the then hon. Member for Birmingham Erdington on 29 November 1999, Official Report, column 22W. I further understand from Post Office Ltd. that it compiled a list of post offices by Parliamentary constituency as of 20 April 2002 showing their classification as urban or rural offices. A copy of this list is held in the Libraries of the House.

  Regional Economic Performance
  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 improve the economic performance of all regions, as measured by the trend in growth of each region's GDP per capita. [83687]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 26 November 2002]: It is not possible yet to assess whether there has been an improvement against the baseline for this target. This is because of the long-term nature of the target and the time lags in getting the relevant information to measure the target.
  843W
  Measurement of trend rates of growth per capita will use a similar methodology to that used by the Treasury to estimate national trend GDP growth i.e. by calculating average growth rates between points when the economy can be identified a being 'on trend'.

  Regional Government Offices (Telephone Queries)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what guidelines are given to regional government offices for answering hon. Members' queries by telephone. [84079]

  Mr. Leslie
  I have been asked to reply.

  No specific guidelines have been sent to government offices on answering telephone inquiries from MPs. However, they act in accordance with the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Regional Policy
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions she has had with the Mayor of London on the Government's policy on promoting a model of economic growth that would not discourage development in the regions of the UK. [84665]

  Alan Johnson
  I meet the Mayor of London from time to time to discuss a range of issues in connection with the Mayor's Economic Development Strategy and the work of the London Development Agency.

  Renewable Energy
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the national base resource scenario for onshore wind targets is with regard to(a) minimum average wind speed, (b) maximum wind farm density, (c) spacing of the centres of the wind farms from each others and (d) minimum and maximum wind farm size. [84558]

  Mr. Wilson
  The UK windspeed database is available on the DTI website at http://www.dti.gov.uk/renewable/windspeed/online.html. The database contains estimates of the annual mean windspeed throughout the UK. The data is intended as a guide as on-site measurements are needed for a proper assessment of any individual site. It does not set scenarios for onshore wind targets.

  The British Wind Energy Association estimates that wind turbines start operating at wind speeds of 4 to 5 metres per second (around 10 miles an hour) and reach maximum power output at around 15 meters/second (around 33 miles per hour). At very high wind speeds, i.e. gale force winds, (25 metres/second, 50+ miles/hour) wind turbines shut down.

  Project specific matters such as wind farm density, spacing and size are issues for project developers to consider. All onshore wind farms are subject to the relevant planning regime and developers must seek consent to construct and operate wind farms from the relevant planning authorities. Decisions are taken on a case by case basis.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what support the Government is providing for community combined heat and power schemes based on renewable energy. [85103]
  844W
  Mr. Wilson
  The Bio-energy Capital Grants Scheme, which is run jointly by DTI and the New Opportunities Fund with input from DEFRA, included funds for combined heat and power derived from biomass, in particular energy crops, in its recent call for proposals (which closed on 31 October).

  DEFRA runs the £50 million Community Energy programme which encourages combined heat and power in community heating schemes through grants. Around one quarter of the successful bids to the programme have included the use of alternative or renewable fuels.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the Government's initiatives on educating(a) local authorities and (b) the public on the objectives of the national drive towards renewable energy generation; and how much funding is being dedicated to these initiatives. [85112]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Government are currently carrying out a review of future energy policy with a view to issuing a White Paper in the new year. As a part of this review they are considering the role of local authorities and the engagement of communities in the development of renewable energy.

  Within the allocation of £2.5 million for renewables planning, Government Offices have included awareness raising events in their bids.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how host communities of renewable energy projects benefit in terms of revenue royalties from such projects; and what plans she has to introduce further royalty-based benefits for host communities of renewable energy projects. [85114]

  Mr. Wilson
  When the community owns and runs renewable energy installations, they can sell the resulting electricity or excess electricity (where the project provides their own source of electricity) or they can sell the resulting Renewables Obligation Certificates (ROCs). The Community Renewables Initiative is working on means to enable community schemes to aggregate their electricity generation in order to obtain ROCs and improve their viability.

  Additionally, there will be a number of installations under the forthcoming DTI Community and Household Scheme and the joint DTI/New Opportunities Fund Biomass Grant Scheme which will be owned and run by the host community. Such schemes can also benefit through the sale of ROCs.

  A number of communities also gain from leasing their land to developers of renewables projects (eg National Wind Power's Windworks scheme and a number of crofting schemes).

  The Energy White Paper, due to be published early in the new year, will address a range of issues including the engagement of communities in renewable energy developments.

  Solar Photovoltaic Industries
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she last met representatives of the European and Japanese solar photovoltaic industries. [84754]

  Mr. Wilson
  I and my ministerial colleagues have regular meetings with representatives of the UK and global PV industry to discuss the UK market and the development of PV manufacturing in this country.

  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much public funding is available for training and skills development in the solar photovoltaics and solar thermal industries; and if she will make a statement. [84757]

  Mr. Wilson
  For solar photovoltaics there is no specific funding from central Government for training and skills development. However, funding is available through the Department of Trade and Industry's Renewable Energy Programme and the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council's Supergen Programme to support research and development projects. In addition, the Faraday INREB (Integration of New and Renewable Energy in Buildings) Partnership has a particular focus on training. A UK company is also involved in an EU ALTENER project to develop a training course for PV installers under City & Guilds, and there are a number of other training courses being developed in response to the DTFs Major Photovoltaics Demonstration Programme (PV MDP). Finally, the DTI is running an Installer Accreditation scheme under the Management Contract for the PV MDP.

  For Solar Thermal, the DTI has funded two projects under its Renewable Energy R&D Programme. One entitled "The Creation of a Training Infrastructure for the Installation of Active Solar Systems" (ETSU Report S/P3/248/REP), and the other under the EU ALTENER Programme, entitled "Training Plumbers to Design and Install Solar Water Heating Systems for Households" (ETSU Report S/P3/272/REP). There is also a network of Solar Clubs around the country, which aim to teach their members the basics of how to install a solar water heating installation for themselves. Finally, it is also the intention that the forthcoming Community and Household Renewables Scheme will also operate an installer accreditation scheme for the installers of small-scale renewable technology installers, including solar water heating systems.

  Staff Salaries
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many of her Department's and agencies' full-time employees as at 1 June were employed on salaries(a) under £20,000, (b) between £20,001 and £40,000, (c) between £40,001 and £65,000, (d) between £65,001 and £115,000 and (e) over £115,000; in each group, what percentage were (i) female and (ii) from ethnic minorities; and if she will make a statement. [83647]

  Ms Hewitt
  The table lists the numbers of full-time staff in the DTI and its agencies on 1 June 2002 in the salary bands set out in the question. For each band it 846W
  gives the percentage that are female and from ethnic minorities, except the highest where the numbers are small enough for individuals to be identified.

  Percentage

  Salary band

  Total staff

  Female

  Ethnic minority

  Under £20,000

  4,224

  56.6

  15.9

  £20,001 to £40,000

  3,373

  33.9

  10.7

  £40,001 to £65,000

  885

  18.2

  3.7

  £65,001 to £115,000

  131

  21.4

  3.1

  Over £115,000

  3

  —

  —

  Total

  8,616

  43.2

  12.4

  I am committed to ensuring that the proportions at all levels properly reflect the proportion of women and ethnic minorities in the UK population and have prepared a strategy to identify actions to address this.

  Thailand
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent commitments her Department has made to help promote the development and export of poultry meat from Thailand. [81068]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The Department has made no commitment to help promote the development and export of poultry meat from Thailand.

  Torness Power Station
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the Torness power station will be generating electricity again. [85108]

  Mr. Wilson
  This is a matter for British Energy.

  However, I understand from the company that both generating units at Torness are now in service.

  US Steel Tariff
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the impact on British industry of the US steel tariff. [83918]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 28 November 2002]: On 5 March 2001, President Bush announced the imposition of increased duties on imports of a wide range of steel products following a safeguard investigation under Section 201 of the US 1974 Trade Act. Based on 2001 figures, 46 per cent, of UK steel exports equivalent to around 215,000 tonnes were covered by the measures. This equates to approximately 2 per cent, of UK producers' total sales of steel industry products. Subsequently the US Authorities announced exclusions resulting in 70 per cent, of UK steel trade with the US being unaffected by the US safeguard action. The Government will continue to take close interest in the US response to further requests from UK companies for exclusions, and will intervene with the US Authorities if necessary.

  Following the US decision, the EU took the precautionary measure of establishing its own safeguard action to protect against a surge of imports into the EU diverted from the US market. In addition, the EU, together with a number of other WTO members (including China, Japan, Korea, Norway and

  847W
  Switzerland) is challenging the US safeguard measures in the WTO. The Dispute Panel ruling is expected in March 2003.

  Wind Farms
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what size onshore wind farm buffer zones are in relation to(a) roads, railways and canals and (b) airports. [84557]

  Mr. Wilson
  The information is as follows:

  (a) There are no specific buffer zones for onshore wind farms in relation to roads, railways or canals. Each application is assessed on its merits.

  Applicants are advised to consult, at an early stage, the Department of Transport for trunk roads and the local highway authority for all other publicly maintained highways.

  The Strategic Rail Authority should be consulted in relation to construction works near railway lines.

  Each planning application near a canal follows the usual planning procedures and would be decided on the merits of the development, with the British Waterways Board available to provide advice to planning authorities. For applications near rivers, applicants will need to take account of the Water Resources Act 1991 and the Land Drainage bylaws 1981.

  (b) Developments within a specified radius of major airports and aerodromes are subject to mandatory consultation with the Civil Aviation Authority or the Ministry of Defence under the Town and Country Planning (Safeguarded Aerodromes, Technical Sites and Military Explosives Storage Areas) Direction 2001. The radius around an airport, within which mandatory
  848W
  consultation is necessary, is detailed for that airport in their particular safeguarding map. The safeguarding map is issued to each local planning authority within the area affected as specified by the legend on the map.

  For a proposed development within a radius of 2 km of an aerodrome, which is not safeguarded, the airport management should be consulted by the applicant about the development.

  WTO Regime
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps she is taking to ensure the WTO regime allows countries to limit imports where there are genuine and demonstrable ethical objections to a product or its method of production on(a) environmental and (b) animal welfare grounds. [80850]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 20 November 2002]: The UK has been working with our EU colleagues on these issues for a number of years, as trade is a matter of community competence. Environmental and animal welfare issues have long been included among the EU's WTO negotiating priorities. At Doha, the EU successfully secured negotiations in the current WTO round to clarify the relationship between the trade clauses in Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs) and WTO law. In the negotiations we are pushing for a presumption of conformity between WTO rules and specific trade obligations in specific MEAs. This would cover trade measures in existing international MEAs on trade in endangered species, ozone-depleting substances, hazardous waste and chemicals. The Doha mandate also ensures that the issue of farm animal welfare will be taken into account as part of the current agreement on agriculture negotiations.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Afghan Refugees
  Julie Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the funding implications are of the agreement between UNHCR, the Iranian Government and the Afghan Interim Administration on resettling the 2.2 million Afghan refugees from Iran to Afghanistan; and what Britain's contribution to this funding is. [80717]

  Clare Short
  [holding answer 18 November 2002]: On 3 April 2002, at the time of signing, the Tripartite agreement with the governments of Iran and Afghanistan, UNHCR estimated that some 1.5 million Afghan refugees were in Iran. In 2002, UNHCR allocated 6 million specifically for assistance to the Afghan refugees in Iran.

  Following the signing of this agreement, 400,000 Afghan refugees have voluntarily returned to Afghanistan from Iran. UNHCR estimate a voluntary repatriation of a further 500,000 Afghan refugees from Iran in 2003. In 2003, The UNHCR appeal has earmarked US$198m specifically for Afghan Internally Displaced Persons and Afghan refugees returning from Iran, Pakistan and the five central Asian states.

  Since September 2001, the UK has contributed over 5m to UNHCR for their programmes of assistance to Afghan refugees. Of our overall contribution to Afghanistan over lm has been specifically designated for Afghan refugees in Iran. We are also supporting a number of other humanitarian programmes which will help to create an environment for the sustainable return of both refugees and Internally Displaced Persons.

  Julie Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the level of funding to UNHCR for support to Afghan refugees in Iran has been in each of the last five years; and what the UK contribution has been. [80718]

  Clare Short
  [holding answer 18 November 2002]: Since September 2001, the UK has contributed over £5million to UNHCR for their programmes of assistance to Afghan refugees. Of our overall contribution to Afghanistan over £1 million has been specifically designated for Afghan refugees in Iran. We are also supporting a number of other humanitarian programmes which will help create an environment for the sustainable return of both refugees and Internally Displaced Persons.

  The level of UNHCR funding to Afghan refugees in Iran over the last five years 1998—2002 inclusive is as follows:

  £

  1998

  9,556,733

  1999

  10,660,773

  2000

  9,238,962

  2001

  9,089,776

  2002

  14,736,383

  850W
  The UK contribution as a whole to displaced persons within Afghanistan and Afghan refugees in Iran, Pakistan and the five central Asian states through UNHCR over the last five years 1998—2002 inclusive is as follows:

  £

  1998

  1,024,984

  1999

  0

  2000

  997,437

  2001

  2,351,057

  2002

  5,003,203

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what new steps she is taking to ensure that the people of Afghanistan will have sufficient supplies and resources to survive the winter. [84145]

  Clare Short
  In September DFID provided an additional £11 million to be disbursed to address humanitarian needs over the winter months. This money has now been disbursed. The majority has been provided to support the work of major UN agencies, including the World Food Programme, UNHCR, UNICEF and the UN Joint Logistics Centre (UNJLC), as well as the International Committee of the Red Cross and is intended to help fill gaps in relief assistance for food, water, health care, clothing and shelter. The funding to the UNJLC is to help the UN clear routes in order to gain access to vulnerable people otherwise cut off by the winter snows and poor roads.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much economic aid was paid to Afghanistan in 2001 and what the projected figure is for 2002; and if she will make a statement. [84195]

  Clare Short
  During 2001 all assistance given to Afghanistan by the UK was for humanitarian activities. In the current financial year we have allocated £65 million to humanitarian and reconstruction assistance. So far we have disbursed over £52 million, this includes £10 million to the Afghan Reconstruction Trust Fund and over £12 million to meet repayments of Afghan arrears to the international financial institutions.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions she has had on the subject of the transfer of aid to Afghanistan from humanitarian to reconstruction projects; and if she will make a statement. [84199]

  Clare Short
  During my recent visit to Afghanistan I had several discussions with Afghan Ministers and UN agencies regarding the transition from humanitarian to reconstruction assistance. This needs to be managed with care because the transitional Administration has very limited capacity to deliver services outside Kabul and humanitarian needs remain considerable not least because the south of Afghanistan
  851W
  is suffering its fifth year of drought. My Department is providing £10 million to the Afghan Reconstruction Trust Fund. We are also including a contribution of approximately £12.5 million to help Afghanistan clear its arrears to the international financial institutions so that it can access concessional resources for reconstruction assistance.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what appraisal she has made of the level of aid going to Afghanistan in relation to(a) the number of refugees returning and (b) the number of school children. [84200]

  Clare Short
  Since the start of 2002, nearly two million refugees are reported to have returned to Afghanistan from neighbouring countries; in that same period approximately three million children have returned to school. From October 2001 to December 2002, UNHCR have received over $245 million of funding, resulting in their appeal for funds being just under 91 per cent, funded. UNICEF, which is providing, among other things, support to education in Afghanistan, is reporting that their appeal for 2002 has raised just over $137 million, which equates to 72 per cent, of funds requested. In addition to this, funding money is also being directed to education and refugee support via other routes, including bilateral support and through NGOs. In comparison to donor appeals in previous crises the appeals for Afghanistan are in the most part well funded.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if it is her Department's policy to continue to give most aid to non-governmental organisations in Afghanistan. [84286]

  Clare Short
  Both the UN agencies and the NGOs have done an excellent job in delivering much needed humanitarian assistance quickly to Afghanistan. To date we have directed the majority of our aid through the UN system and NGOs. We have also placed £10 million in the Afghan Reconstruction Trust Fund (ARTF) to provide the Afghan Transitional Administration with funds to support what it has identified as priorities for development. However, most of these funds are being spent on pay for very small salaries for large numbers of civil servants that provide very limited services to the people of Afghanistan. We hope that as the Transitional Administration continues to build its capacity it will be better placed in the future to channel development assistance direct and focus it on areas of greatest need.

  Central African Republic
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what action she is taking to help replenish stocks of anti-tuberculosis drugs in the Central African Republic. [84640]

  Clare Short
  The Central African Republic has made an emergency application to the Global TB Drug Facility (GDF) for an estimated years supply of TB drugs. Delivery is expected imminently. Connected to 852W
  this application, the World Health Organisation (WHO) will soon be fielding a mission to determine the Central African Republic's long term tuberculosis drug needs. Future additional supplies of TB drugs will be secured through the formal application process to the GDF and additional technical support provided by Stop TB. DFID is a partner of Stop TB and the GDF.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what evidence has been received by her Department indicating a shortage of medical supplies within hospitals in the Central African Republic. [84641]

  Clare Short
  My Department is aware of reports from UN agencies indicating that there are shortages of medicines in the Central African Republic, particularly in hospitals and health centres in CAR's northern provinces. According to a report on 28 November, two major health zones remain cut off from a re-supply depot in the capital, Bangui, due to the closure of the main road route on security grounds. The result of this has been a shortage of essential medicines and vaccines (e.g. for tuberculosis, polio and yellow fever) in the regional pharmaceutical depots. UK support to CAR is provided through multilateral agencies such as the European Commission.

  Cote d'Ivoire
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assistance she has offered in response to the UN appeal of 21 November for Cote d'Ivoire. [84636]

  Clare Short
  We are working closely with others to try to help bring about a swift and peaceful resolution to the conflict in Cote d'Ivoire. We have received several appeals for humanitarian assistance from the UN and other organisations and we are considering how to respond to these in the light of the changing circumstances in the country.

  Ethiopia
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the impact which availability of seaports is having on the transportation of food aid to Ethiopia. [84947]

  Clare Short
  Our ambassador to Ethiopia, who also covers Djibouti, visited Djibouti from 20–22 November. During his visit he was informed that the port is working efficiently and is well placed to handle the food aid imports required to deal with the humanitarian situation in Ethiopia, with a throughput of 300,000 metric tonnes per month. The Government of Djibouti indicated that it will do everything it can to help.

  Malawi
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development for what reason her Department has no involvement in the water sector in Malawi. [84616]

  Clare Short
  DFID's programme has more than doubled since 1996 (to £70 million per annum). It is concentrated on health, education, governance and sustainable livelihoods support. One of the important lessons of effective development is that bilateral agencies should not seek to work in all sectors but should co-operate with others in supporting reform efforts in different sectors. Japan, Canada, Norway, UNICEF and the World bank are currently engaged in Malawi's water sector.

  Mauritania
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on food security levels in Mauritania. [84643]

  Clare Short
  Mauritania is a low-income food deficit country which is vulnerable to drought and desertification. Late and erratic rainfall in southern regions this year has aggravated an already poor food situation in the country. The World Food Programme (WFP) has estimated that there are 750,000 people affected by food shortages. We are monitoring the situation closely and have provided assistance through our contributions to WFP and are considering our response to their latest emergency appeal.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the level of malnutrition among children in Mauritania. [84980]

  Clare Short
  We have no figures for children affected by malnutrition in Mauritania as a whole. However, Oxfam report that a nutritional assessment carried out in September 2002 in the Aftout region by UNICEF, World Food Programme (WFP) and international NGOs concluded that 56 per cent, of the children were suffering from malnutrition. The WFP estimates that 750,000 people are affected by food shortages. We have provided assistance through our contributions to WFP and are considering our response to their latest appeal.

  Red Crescent Society (Mauritania)
  John Barrett
  ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will provide financial assistance for the small scale food security projects proposed by the Red Crescent Society in Mauritania. [84642]

  Clare Short
  We have no plans to provide financial assistance to the food security projects proposed by the Red Crescent Society in Mauritania.

  Rinderpest Disease
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what evidence has been collected by her Department indicating the potential for a resurgence in the Rinderpest livestock disease in Africa. [84633]
  854W
  Clare Short
  The history of Rinderpest outbreaks points to the potential for rinderpest to undergo resurgence wherever the virus persists within a population.

  Investigations by the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, Operation Lifeline Sudan and the Pan-African Programme for the Control of Epizootics (PACE) indicate that eradication campaigns have now been successful in removing persistent foci of Rinderpest virus in Southern Sudan, although definitive confirmation is not yet possible. The main challenge is therefore the South Somali pastoral ecosystem that has shown itself to have the potential to infect populations in both Kenya and Tanzania. Unregulated trade—particularly the Informal' trade routes—could potentially export the disease further afield.

  In addition to the funds that the UK provides to pan-African Programme for the Control of Epizootics (PACE) by way of the EC, DFID also directly funds the Community-based Animal Health and Participatory Epidemiology unit of the African Union's Inter-African Bureau for Animal Resources. This unit is developing community-based animal heath delivery and surveillance systems which enable rinderpest vaccination and early warning of potential outbreaks to be carried out in the remote areas where rinderpest has persisted.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what precautionary steps are being taken to ensure the trade of cattle across the Red Sea does not result in the spread of Rinderpest disease. [84634]

  Clare Short
  The sanitary control of livestock imports remains the responsibility of importing countries. Saudi Arabia has banned the import of cattle from Somalia, but informal trade, which is much less susceptible to regulation, probably persists across the Red Sea. Efforts are therefore needed to identify and control the persistence of Rinderpest virus at source. To this end DFID and the EC have been working in partnership with the African Union's Bureau for Animal Resources, the EC-funded pan-African Programme for the Control of Epizootics (PACE) programme and the Office International des Epizooties (the O.I.E.—the world organisation for Animal Health) to assist African countries in Rinderpest eradication, and subsequently in meeting the requirements of the O.I.E. 'Pathway', which leads to international recognition of Rinderpest freedom for the benefit of importing countries.

  In particular, through its DFID-funded Community Based Animal Health and Participatory Epidemiology (CAPE) initiative AU/IBAR has developed service delivery systems that are capable of delivering mass vaccination in marginal areas such as the Somali pastoral eco-system, even in the presence of conflict, and of maintaining disease surveillance and early warning systems that feed into national systems.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the latest levels of Rinderpest disease in(a) Southern Somalia and (b) Northern Kenya. [84635]
  855W
  Clare Short
  Southern Somalia and Northern Kenya together comprise the Somali "pastoral ecosystem". Following the successes of recent years in eliminating the virus elsewhere, the Somali ecosystem constitutes what is probably the last reservoir of Rinderpest infection in the world.

  Through DFID's long-standing involvement in Rinderpest control our understanding of the factors underpinning the disease and its persistence within pastoral ecosystems highlights the importance of several factors. These include:
  The periods of drought which affect both Northern Kenya and South Somalia (forcing herders to migrate further with their livestock when they occur);
  The ecosystem's remoteness and underdevelopment;
  Conflict and civil war, which hamper control and surveillance efforts-particularly in Somalia.

  DFID's direct involvement in efforts to eradicate the virus (which comprises financial support to the African Union's Inter-African Bureau for Animal Resources and partnerships with EU-funded regional disease control programmes) has therefore been complemented by broader programmes in the fields of sustainable development, of vulnerability management through good governance and of conflict resolution.

  The fact that the Somali ecosystem is now believed to contain the last remaining foci of the disease underlines the considerable achievements that have been made in the field of Rinderpest eradication in the last fifteen years. The target for global eradication stands at 2010. The indications are that this target is achievable.

  Rwanda
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what financial aid she has allocated for the assistance of the elections in Rwanda in July 2003. [84639]

  Clare Short
  We are in close liaison with the Government of Rwanda and other international partners, in discussing provision of support for elections. We have not yet determined the level of support required.

  Southern Africa
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what action she is taking to ensure children attending schools in Southern Africa are provided with a nutritional meal during their day's work. [84637]

  Clare Short
  We are funding food through the World Food programme to vulnerable groups in Lesotho, Malawi, Swaziland, Zambia and Zimbabwe. As part of these food pipelines, WFP is providing special support to school age children in Malawi and Lesotho to help ensure continued school attendance. WFP is also targeting malnourished children in Malawi with a programme of selective supplementary feeding. In Zimbabwe, WFP is planning to provide high-energy biscuits for school children in the worst affected areas. UNICEF is also providing programmes for supplementary and therapeutic feeding in the region, and is helping to target child-headed households and orphans for humanitarian assistance.
  856W
  In addition, in Zimbabwe, DFID has been funding NGOs to provide supplementary feeding for children since September 2001. In October 2002, NGOs funded by DFID provided one protein-fortified maize meal a day for 570,000 under five and primary school children in Zimbabwe. We plan to increase numbers reached to 800,000 each month by the end of the year.

  Trade-related Capacity Building
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans she has to increase aid for trade-related capacity building. [83362]

  Clare Short
  In November 20011 announced a further £20 million package of support to trade-related capacity building bringing the total commitment since 1998 to £37.8 million. In 2003–04 DFID will focus our trade-related capacity building on four key objectives:Developing countries' effective participation in negotiations and rule making
  Mainstreaming trade into national development plans and country poverty reduction strategies
  Building sustainable country-level capacity to make good pro-poor trade policy and promote the participation and representation of poor people in trade policy dialogue
  Developing the supply-side response to take advantage of market access opportunities.

  We will focus in particular on DFID's Africa Trade and Poverty Programme and the Integrated Framework.

  Uganda
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the humanitarian requirements in Northern Uganda. [84949]

  Clare Short
  The circumstances faced by people in Northern Uganda are of grave concern. Humanitarian consequences of the continuing conflict are high, with an estimated 600,000 internally displaced persons and declining levels of food security due to disruption of harvesting and planting seasons. DFID has committed £450,000 so far this year for humanitarian supplies, and we continue to monitor the situation very closely with international partners and the Government of Uganda. We are currently considering additional proposals in the light of recent appeals.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps she has taken to assist in rehabilitation efforts in south western Uganda. [84950]

  Clare Short
  The UK continues to support Uganda's efforts to deal with regional conflicts through dialogue with its neighbours. DFID is also providing assistance for the implementation of the Amnesty Act and the Defence Review, plus support to local civil society to strengthen networking, advocacy and lobbying for peace.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) what funding has been allocated for(a) World Health Allocation,(b) International Organisation for Migration and (c) United Nations Development Programme, as part of

  857W
  the response of her Department to the 2002 United Nations Consolidated Appeal for Uganda; and if she will make a statement; [84952]

  (2) what funding her Department has made available for the (a) recovery and infrastructure and (b) protection and human rights sections of the 2002 United Nations Consolidated Appeal for Uganda. [84951]

  Clare Short
  DFID is considering the UN Consolidated Appeal as a component of our wider programme of support to Uganda. Resources are allocated to Uganda primarily through Government systems and in support of the Government of Uganda's own Poverty Eradication Action Plan.

  UN Consolidated Appeal
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what response she will make to the 2002 consolidated appeal by the United Nations for(a) Eritrea, (b) Burundi and (c) Uganda. [84948]

  Clare Short
  The UK does not usually intervene directly to address humanitarian crises, but contributes funding to specialist organisations. These contributions are made through responses to the United Nations Consolidated Appeals, to appeals by the International Committee of the Red Cross and from international relief agencies.

  We contributed £1,350,000, £850,000, and £611,000 for humanitarian work in Eritrea, Burundi and Uganda respectively, in 2002. The 2003 appeals have now been issued and we are giving consideration to our response. Actual support in 2003 will depend on the level of humanitarian needs.

  Additional funding is provided through core support to international organisations including the UN, and through the European Commission. Nearly 20 per cent, of EC funding is paid for by DFID contributions.

  UNHCR
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the funding shortfall within UNHCR; and if she will make a statement. [84638]

  Clare Short
  I discussed funding of UNHCR when the High Commissioner for Refugees visited London in July. Subsequent meetings have taken place between officials in Geneva and London, where funding of the agency was one of the items under discussion. We

  Fixed penalty and court proceedings data for speed offences detected by cameras1,2 in Lancashire police force area 1996, 1997 and 2000

  Fixed penalties

  Court proceedings

  Year

  Number of tickets3

  Estimated revenue4(£
  000)

  Number of fines

  Total amount of fine(£
  000)

  Average fine (£)

  1996

  4,028

  161.1

  302

  19.9

  66

  1997

  5,620

  224.8

  477

  37.1

  78

  2000

  24,5005

  1,062.05

  926

  79.8

  86

  1 Automatic cameras until 1998, all camera types from 1999.

  2 Offences under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and Motor Vehicles (Speed Limits on Motorways) Regulations 1973.

  3 Paid ie no further action.

  4 'Estimate' based on £40 fixed penalty charge for 1996, 1997 and January to October 2000. From November 2000 the penalty was raised to £60.

  5 Provisional.

  858W
  provided advice to UNHCR on the availability of funds from our regional programmes in response to local need.

  We are aware of the immense needs which UNHCR is mandated to address and the financial constraints within which it operates.

  Our core unearmarked contribution for 2002 is £
  14 million. In addition, we respond as appropriate to direct appeals from UNHCR for assistance with specific short-term refugee emergency situations and reintegration programmes. In 2002 this assistance amounts to £3.925 million to date. The UK share of EC Development Assistance, including humanitarian, in 2001 was 18.9 per cent, making the UK one of the EC's largest donors. In 2001 therefore, the UK provided £7.9 million for UNHCR through the EC's overall contribution of £41.8 million.

  I have also recently approved an extra £1 million to fund UNHCR's community services activities in Africa. This will help underpin UNHCR's key protection activities: prevention of sexual and gender based violence, HIV awareness, self-reliance, youth education and capacity building of refugee social support networks.

  The UK has a strong record of support to UNHCR, both in response to emergency appeals and through longer-term institutional strengthening, focusing on helping the agency improve its management, working partnerships and programming. These partnership principles underpin DFID's Institutional Strategy Paper (ISP) for UNHCR, agreed with the agency in December 2001, and which forms the basis of our funding arrangement.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Speeding
  Mr. Pope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many motorists were fined owing to being caught speeding by road traffic speed cameras in Lancashire in(a) 1996–97 and (b) the last year for which figures are available; [84976]

  (2) what the total amount of revenue generated by road traffic speed cameras in Lancashire was in (a) 1996–97 and (b) the last year for which figures are available. [84977]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  Available information, by calendar year, is given in the table. Data for 2001 will be available in the new year.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Bill Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons originating from countries that are not members of the Commonwealth were granted political asylum in Great Britain in 2001, broken down by their country of origin. [83889]

  Beverley Hughes
  I regret that information on the number of asylum seekers granted asylum in Great Britain in 2001 is not available—applications are made

  Initial decisions1,2 on applications for asylum in the UK from non-Commonwealth nationals, excluding dependants, by type, and broken down by nationality, 2001

  Total initial decisions

  Recognised as a refugee and granted asylum

  Not recognised as a refugee but granted exceptional leave

  Total refused

  Europe

  Albania

  1,710

  30

  160

  1,525

  Armenia

  145

  15

  —

  130

  Azerbaijan

  125

  20

  5

  100

  Belarussia

  510

  5

  5

  500

  Bosnia-Herzegovina

  185

  10

  20

  155

  Bulgaria

  145

  —

  10

  130

  Croatia

  390

  15

  10

  360

  Czech Republic

  895

  —

  5

  890

  Estonia

  265

  —

  —

  265

  Federal Republic of Yugoslavia

  11,165

  340

  2,015

  8,810

  Georgia

  205

  10

  5

  190

  Hungary

  10

  —

  —

  10

  Kazakhstan

  40

  —

  5

  35

  KyrgyzStan

  10

  —

  —

  10

  Latvia

  395

  —

  5

  390

  Lithuania

  685

  —

  30

  655

  Macedonia

  625

  5

  140

  480

  Moldova

  400

  5

  45

  345

  Other FSU (n/k)

  5

  —

  —

  —

  Poland

  805

  —

  10

  790

  Romania

  2,155

  —

  70

  2,080

  Russia

  870

  20

  35

  815

  Slovakia

  95

  5

  —

  90

  Slovenia

  5

  —

  —

  5

  Tajikistan

  15

  —

  —

  10

  Turkey

  7,000

  195

  275

  7,190

  Turkmenistan

  5

  —

  —

  5

  Ukraine

  1,145

  10

  25

  1,110

  Uzbekistan

  30

  —

  —

  25

  Other Europe

  40

  —

  5

  35

  Total excluding UK Commonwealth

  30,680

  685

  2,885

  27,105

  Americas

  Argentina

  5

  —

  —

  —

  Bolivia

  55

  —

  5

  50

  Brazil

  70

  —

  5

  65

  Chile

  15

  —

  —

  10

  Colombia

  750

  40

  55

  660

  Cuba

  30

  —

  —

  25

  Ecuador

  510

  10

  10

  490

  El Salvador

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Guatemala

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Guyana

  5

  —

  —

  5

  Haiti

  5

  —

  —

  5

  Honduras

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Mexico

  5

  —

  —

  5

  Nicaragua

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Peru

  35

  —

  10

  25

  Surinam

  5

  —

  —

  —

  Uruguay

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Venezuela

  20

  —

  —

  20

  Other Americas

  25

  —

  5

  20

  Total excluding UK Commonwealth

  1,510

  60

  90

  1,360

  860W
  for asylum in the United Kingdom (UK). Reliable information on the geographical location of applicants at the time of decision outcomes is not available by region. Information on the country of origin of asylum applicants is not available.

  The table provides statistics on the outcomes of initial decisions made on applications for asylum in the UK in 2001 relating to principal applicants who were nationals of countries that are not members of the British Commonwealth.
  861W

  Initial decisions1,2 on applications for asylum in the UK from non-Commonwealth nationals, excluding dependants, by type, and broken down by nationality, 2001

  Total initial decisions

  Recognised as a refugee and granted asylum

  Not recognised as a refugee but granted exceptional leave

  Total refused

  Middle East and North Africa

  Bahrain

  5

  —

  —

  —

  Egypt

  105

  5

  5

  90

  Iran

  5,825

  555

  295

  4,975

  Iraq

  8,880

  815

  1,855

  6,210

  Israel

  100

  —

  5

  90

  Jordan

  50

  5

  5

  45

  Kuwait

  60

  5

  10

  40

  Lebanon

  455

  15

  20

  420

  Libya

  385

  60

  80

  225

  Morocco

  50

  —

  —

  50

  Oman

  5

  —

  —

  5

  Palestine

  70

  5

  —

  60

  Saudi Arabia

  20

  —

  —

  10

  Syria

  220

  20

  15

  185

  Tunisia

  45

  5

  —

  40

  UAE

  5

  —

  5

  —

  Yemen

  275

  25

  25

  225

  Total excluding UK Commonwealth

  16,520

  1,520

  2,325

  12,670

  Africa

  Algeria

  2,665

  60

  75

  2,530

  Angola

  1,255

  100

  495

  665

  Benin

  15

  —

  —

  10

  Burkina Faso

  25

  —

  —

  20

  Burundi

  1,095

  225

  250

  625

  CAR

  5

  —

  —

  5

  Chad

  105

  20

  5

  80

  Comoros

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Congo

  885

  105

  70

  690

  Democratic Republic of Congo

  2,435

  310

  330

  1,795

  Djibouti

  5

  —

  —

  5

  Equatorial Guinea

  5

  —

  —

  5

  Eritrea

  1,300

  120

  235

  945

  Ethiopia

  1,155

  85

  235

  835

  Gabon

  5

  —

  —

  5

  Guinea

  110

  25

  10

  75

  Guinea-Bissau

  25

  —

  —

  25

  Ivory Coast

  485

  15

  20

  445

  Liberia

  190

  10

  90

  90

  Madagascar

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Mali

  5

  —

  —

  5

  Mauritania

  10

  —

  —

  10

  Niger

  25

  —

  —

  25

  Rwanda

  965

  200

  320

  445

  Senegal

  15

  —

  —

  15

  Somalia

  8,305

  2,845

  1,960

  3,495

  Sudan

  770

  120

  50

  595

  Togo

  150

  20

  15

  110

  Other Africa

  5

  —

  —

  —

  Total excluding UK Commonwealth

  21,980

  4,270

  4,165

  13,550

  Far East

  Afghanistan

  12,155

  2,280

  7,370

  2,530

  Bhutan

  90

  15

  5

  65

  Burma (Myanmar)

  125

  30

  5

  90

  Cambodia

  5

  —

  —

  5

  China

  4,290

  15

  160

  4,110

  Hong Kong

  15

  —

  —

  15

  Indonesia

  385

  5

  —

  360

  Japan

  5

  —

  —

  5

  Korea North

  15

  —

  —

  15

  Korea South

  5

  —

  —

  5

  Macau

  5

  —

  —

  5

  Mongolia

  180

  —

  —

  180

  Nepal

  1,000

  25

  15

  960

  Philippines

  55

  —

  5

  50

  Taiwan

  5

  —

  —

  5

  Thailand

  30

  —

  —

  30

  Vietnam

  390

  15

  70

  300

  862W 863W

  Initial decisions1,2 on applications for asylum in the UK from non-Commonwealth nationals, excluding dependants, by type, and broken down by nationality, 2001

  Total initial decisions

  Recognised as a refugee and granted asylum

  Not recognised as a refugee but granted exceptional leave

  Total refused

  Western Samoa

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other Far East

  5

  —

  —

  5

  Total excluding UK Commonwealth

  18,735

  2,370

  7,635

  8,730

  Grand Total excluding UK Commonwealth

  89,425

  8,910

  17,100

  63,415

  1 Provisional figures rounded to nearest 5, with '—' = 1 or 2 (except percentages)

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

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average cost of legal aid for an asylum seeker was in the last 12 months; how much was spent in the last year on legal aid for asylum seekers; and if she will make a statement. [84879]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Legal Services Commission's systems do not record expenditure in such a way as to separate asylum seekers from immigration and nationality cases generally. Nor does the commission record information on individual cases1.

  The Commission can provide an estimate of the average cost of publicly-funded work for the stages of an immigration and asylum case based upon claims received for work conducted during year 2001–02:
  work on an asylum application up to and including the initial decision cost on average £900;
  work on an appeal to the Immigration Adjudicator cost on average £1,000.
  work on a further appeal to a full hearing at the Immigration Appeals Tribunal cost on average £1,000; and
  the average cost of publicly-funded legal representation for immigration and asylum cases was £3,133. This could cover proceedings in the High Court, Court of Appeal, and the House of Lords.

  Payments for all immigration and asylum advice, assistance and representation in 2001–02 came to a total of £129.7 million.
  1 The number of publicly-funded asylum cases decreases at each stage. For example, only a small proportion of cases would be taken to the ImmigrationAppeal Tribunal, and even fewer to proceedings in the High Court or Court of Appeal. It is therefore wrong to aggregate the average costs reported in this answer and imply that the sum is the average cost of a typical asylum case.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers awaiting removal from the country his Department has failed to contact; what steps have been taken with regard to these asylum seekers; and if he will make a statement. [84881]

  Beverley Hughes
  I regret that the information requested is not available. Asylum applicants do not always inform the Immigration Service (IS) that they are leaving the United Kingdom.

  We are making improvements in contact management, as detailed in the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act, 2002. We will seek to maintain contact with all asylum seekers. Asylum seekers
  864W
  will be informed of their obligations to provide up-to-date address details, and to report as required, during the induction process. Provision of support from the National Asylum Support Service (NASS) is conditional on complying with these requirements. Those not accommodated by NASS will also be required to report. The IS will manage the contact process actively through the eight designated reporting centres, by using police stations and by visiting asylum seekers at their accommodation.

  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers there were in Somerset in each of the last three years. [85062]

  Beverley Hughes
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  The availability of information on the location of asylum seekers in the United Kingdom is currently linked to the support the asylum seeker receives. Asylum seekers in the United Kingdom either receive support from the National Asylum Support Service (NASS), local authorities or the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), or are supporting themselves.

  Currently, asylum seekers provided accommodation by NASS are not dispersed to Somerset because NASS has no dispersal accommodation there. Some asylum seekers supported by NASS find their own accommodation and receive subsistence-only support from NASS. The following table shows the number of asylum seekers (including dependants) who were receiving subsistence-only support from NASS, and were resident in the South West region (which includes Somerset) at the requested dates:

  Number of asylum seekers (including dependants) receiving subsistence-only support from NASS in the South West region1

  End of December 2000

  145

  End of December 2001

  350

  End of September 2002

  540

  1 Figures have been rounded to the nearest five. These figures exclude cases where support has been ceased.

  From the grant claims sent to the Home Office by local authorities, as at the end of September 2002, and the end of September 2001, there were five asylum seekers (excluding dependants) who were being supported by Somerset Local Authority.1
  865W
  No information is held centrally on the numbers of asylum seekers supported by DWP or who support themselves living in Somerset.

  Statistics on the number of asylum seekers supported by NASS in each region are available on the Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate website:http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigration1.html
  1 Asylum seekers are not necessarily resident in the Local Authority which supports them due to the voluntary dispersal programme which operated prior to NASS.

  Recorded crime: Number of domestic burglary offences recorded from April 2000 to March 2002, by quarter

  Street crime initiative forces

  April 2000 to June 2000

  July 2000 to September 2000

  October 2000 to December 2000

  January 2001 to March 2001

  April 2001 to June 2001

  July 2001 to September 2001

  October 2000 to December 2001

  January 2002 to March 2002

  Avon and Somerset

  2,823

  2,891

  3,346

  3,336

  3,529

  3,840

  3,693

  4,933

  Greater Manchester

  9,447

  9,043

  9,878

  10,816

  9,232

  8,940

  10,246

  10,663

  Lancashire

  2,285

  2,374

  2,825

  3,159

  3,071

  3,266

  2,990

  2,775

  Merseyside

  2,882

  2,997

  3,163

  3,472

  3,499

  3,498

  3,655

  3,695

  Metropolitan police

  16,651

  16,523

  18,137

  18,858

  16,596

  18,352

  19,599

  19,384

  Nottinghamshire

  3,032

  2,801

  3,191

  3,236

  2,923

  3,420

  3,638

  4,352

  South Yorkshire

  3,827

  3,185

  3,526

  4,150

  3,482

  3,607

  4,326

  4,773

  Thames Valley

  3,106

  2,867

  3,642

  3,607

  2,827

  3,486

  3,254

  3,830

  West Midlands

  7,229

  7,231

  8,240

  8,293

  6,934

  7,595

  8,777

  7,913

  West Yorkshire

  6,371

  6,834

  8,491

  8,510

  6,998

  7,842

  9,387

  10,451

  England and Wales total

  95,204

  93,656

  105,666

  108,457

  95,970

  104,486

  112,875

  117,029

  National Crime Recording Standard (NCRS)

  The Home Office counting rules have again been 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.

  Avon and Somerset (from October 2000), Lancashire (from August 2000) and Greater Manchester (from January 2002) introduced the new standard in advance of national implementation, and the recorded crimes in these forces may be significantly affected. West Midlands adopted the Standard in April 1999, and hence the figures given will not be influenced by the Standard.

  The other SCI forces adopted the Standard in April 2002.

  Crime (Staffordshire)
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will make a statement on changes in crime rates in Staffordshire in the last 10 years; [84179]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the rates of (a) burglary, (b) car crime and (c) street crime in Staffordshire in the last 10 years. [84180]

  Year1

  All recorded crime

  All burglary

  Theft of and from vehicles

  Robbery (personal and business property)

  Robbery of personal property2

  Number of recorded crimes in Staffordshire

  1992

  97,536

  28,830

  28,217

  391

  n/a

  1993

  98,421

  30,091

  27,611

  414

  n/a

  1994

  93,757

  26,736

  25,958

  416

  n/a

  1995

  91,495

  24,838

  23,745

  500

  n/a

  1996

  92,155

  24,511

  21,902

  503

  n/a

  1997

  89,957

  23,518

  20,596

  498

  n/a

  1998–993

  91,919

  20,391

  19,464

  509

  428

  1999–20004

  98,852

  19,155

  17,601

  697

  550

  2000–01

  104,705

  17,106

  16,071

  796

  633

  2001–02

  117,274

  18,801

  17,960

  964

  835

  Numbers of recorded crimes per 100,000 population in Staffordshire

  1992

  9,291

  2,746

  2,688

  37

  n/a

  1993

  9,357

  2,861

  2,625

  39

  n/a

  1994

  8,899

  2,538

  2,464

  39

  n/a

  1995

  8,677

  2,355

  2,252

  47

  n/a

  1996

  8,723

  2,320

  2,073

  48

  n/a

  1997

  8,521

  2,228

  1,951

  47

  n/a

  1998–993

  8,669

  1,923

  1,836

  48

  40

  Burglary
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the monthly burglary rates in the areas covered by the street crime initiative in the last two years. [83668]

  Mr. Denham
  General recorded crime figures for the period from April 2002, the period of the street crime initiative, have yet to be collated. Details of domestic burglary figures for three-month periods up to March 2002, for the 10 police force areas involved in the street crime initiative, are given in the table.

  Mr. Denham
  Details are given in the table. For car crime, total figures for theft of and theft from vehicles have been used. 'Street crime' is not a separate category in general recorded crime figures, which are based on legal definitions. Figures are given for all robbery, and robbery of personal property, the latter being collected separately from 1 April 1998.
  867W

  Year1

  All recorded crime

  All burglary

  Theft of and from vehicles

  Robbery (personal and business property)

  Robbery of personal property2

  1999–20004

  9,314

  1,805

  1,659

  66

  52

  2000–01

  9,872

  1,613

  1,515

  75

  60

  2001–02

  11,067

  1,774

  1,694

  91

  79

  1 Figures are on a calendar year basis up to 1997, and years ending March thereafter.

  2 Robbery of personal property has been collected separately since 1 April 1998.

  3 There was a change in the counting rules for recorded crime on 1 April 1998, and hence figures before and after that date will not be directly comparable. However, apart from the total recorded crime figure, it is thought that the categories given would be relatively little affected by the change.

  4 Staffordshire adopted the principles of the National Crime Recording Standard (NCRS) in October 1999, in advance of its national implementation date of April 2002. The 1999–2000, 2000–01 and 2001–02 figures for the force will be affected by the Standard, although again, apart for the total recorded crime figure, the categories chosen are thought to be relatively little affected by the change

  Criminal Justice
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether there will be restrictions on the types of previous convictions that could be mentioned during a trial under the new criminal justice reforms. [84399]

  Hilary Benn
  [holding answer 2 December 2002]: The Criminal Justice Bill, introduced on 21 November 2002, will reform the law on admitting evidence of a person's bad character, and will enable evidence such as previous convictions to be used where they are relevant to the case. This will, however, be subject to a power for judges and magistrates to exclude this sort of evidence if admitting it would have an adverse effect on the fairness of a trial.

  DCS Ellie Baker
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the reasons for the suspension of Detective Chief Superintendent Ellie Baker. [83182]

  Mr. Denham
  The West Midlands Police (WMP) inform me that the decision to suspend Detective Chief Superintendent Elaine Baker was taken after a member of the public made a complaint, which could result in her facing either a criminal conviction and/or a serious disciplinary sanction.

  A full investigation of the allegations will be undertaken by the Metropolitan Police Service under the supervision of the Police Complaints Authority. It would therefore not be appropriate for me to make any further comment at this time.

  Detection Rates
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on policies to improve crime detection rates. [82092]

  Mr. Denham
  The Police Standards Unit is currently working with a number of police forces to improve their crime detection rates. This will be achieved through a structured performance enhancement programme, utilising good practice guidance and supported through other existing policies.

  Through the further development and structured implementation of the National Intelligence Model (NIM), police activity can be targeted more effectively
  868W
  at both detecting and disrupting crime. This, coupled with the increased provision of analytical support, will provide the crime and disorder partnerships with the ability to detect crime and bring offenders to justice.

  Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR), which is being piloted in nine police forces, will have an impact on detecting crime and denying criminals the use of roads. Figures, after four weeks of the pilots, show 6,580 vehicles stopped; 480 arrests made; 59 stolen vehicles recovered; over £400,000 of stolen goods, vehicles and drugs recovered and £144,000 of vehicle excise duty evasion detected.

  ANPR works by scanning vehicle registrations and checking them against information stored in databases to identify vehicles of interest to the police, such as stolen cars or those involved in crimes. When a suspicious vehicle is recognised it can be the focus of targeted interception and inquiries.

  The Government have made available £182 million over a four year period to expand the National DNA Database. The Home Office, the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) and the Forensic Science Service are working together to maximise the benefits gained from the expenditure being made in the development and application of DNA and other forensic techniques.

  Drugs
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what public funding from central Government sources is given to non-governmental organisations for drug education purposes. [83860]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  For 2002–03 the Department for Education and Skills (DfES) has provided nongovernmental organisations, including the National Children's Bureau, Drug Education Practitioners Group and DrugScope, with £100,150 funding for drug education purposes.

  The Government also issued drug education and prevention funding (£5 million in 2001–02 and £9 million 2002–03) to primary care trusts (PCTs). All PCTs and social services departments, in partnership with their local Drug Action Team, will use this funding to commission: (a) primary and (b) secondary prevention activity for all young people identified as at risk.
  869W
  The DfES has also committed £15 million to local education authorities to support drug education in schools and this will rise to £17 million in 2003–04. This increase will improve the quality and coverage of drug, alcohol and tobacco education programmes in schools. In many areas non-governmental organisations will be commissioned to deliver substance misuse education. However this is a local decision and there is no central monitoring of whether funds are used by local education authorities and PCTs to fund non-governmental organisations.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many convictions on(a) drug charges and (b) drug dealing there have been in the West Midlands in each of the past four years. [84823]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The numbers of cautions and convictions for all drug offences and trafficking offences in the West Midlands police force area from 1997–2000 are shown the table.

  Number of persons found guilty, cautioned, given a fiscal fine or dealt with by compounding for drug offences in West Midlands police area, 1997–2000

  Number of Persons

  All drug offences

  Trafficking offences

  1997

  5,292

  633

  1998

  6,353

  709

  1999

  5,725

  663

  2000

  5,837

  688

  Source:

  Home Office Drug Seizure and Offender Statistics, United Kingdom, 1997–2000—Area Tables.

  The Home Office Statistical Bulletin is available on the Recorded Data Service (RDS) website, http:www.homeoffice.gov.uk.rds.pdfs2.hosb402.pdf, and copies are available in the Library.

  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what conferences on the subject of drugs have been attended by Ministers and senior civil servants since May 1997; who the organisers were of each conference; and what financial support from central Government sources was provided for each occasion. [84222]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  Ministers and officials regularly attend conferences within the UK and internationally on the subject of drug misuse. To provide the detail requested would incur disproportionate cost.

  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what recent discussions he has had with his Irish counterpart about lessons for the United Kingdom from drugs courts in Ireland; [82990]

  (2) what discussions he has had with his Swedish counterpart about lessons for the United Kingdom from drugs courts in Sweden. [82989]
  870W
  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has had no formal contacts with his Irish or Swedish counterpart on this issue, but his officials and those of other Departments monitor the work of other jurisdictions when looking at how the courts in England, Wales and Scotland should respond to those whose offending is linked with a drug habit.

  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the balance, in terms of Government support, between the harm reduction and harm prevention approaches to drug education. [84221]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  Government have a holistic approach to achieving quality standards in the delivery of drug education through the development of a framework of personal, social and health education supported by the National Healthy Schools Standards. This is only one of the many Government initiatives to improve the quantity and effectiveness of drug education.

  Substance misuse education mainly involves harm prevention. However with children of secondary school age and particularly those at greater risk, such as school excludees and young offenders, this is balanced with harm reduction messages. These young people are more likely to be experimenting with illegal drugs and so need more detailed information. The Department for Education and Skills are currently reviewing guidance to schools on drug education and new guidance will be issued by the academic year 2003.

  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what hospitality has been accepted by his officials from organisations lobbying for the liberalisation of the drug laws since 1997. [84220]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  None.

  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what specialist assistance is provided for police forces to tackle the sale of illegal drugs. [82931]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  Advice and assistance in tackling the supply aspects of drug abuse are available to police forces from a number of sources including the National Crime Squad, National Criminal Intelligence Service, and Her Majesty's Customs and Excise. Advice on best practice is also available from Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary, the Home Office Drugs Strategy Directorate and the Police Standards Unit. Scientific and technical advice and support is available from the Home Office Police Scientific Development Branch.

  Advice on tracing and confiscating the assets of criminals, including drug traffickers, will be available through the new Asset Recovery Agency when established in February 2003. The Asset Recovery Agency will also train and accredit financial investigators working in law enforcement and other agencies.
  871W
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what co-operation there has been between his Department and the Office of National Drug Control in the United States in the last three years. [82939]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The United States and the United Kingdom, along with our European Union partners, have an affirmed commitment to exchange ideas and experiences in combating drug use and drug dependence. Members of our two Governments meet often, and there is extensive co-operation between the US and the UK at official level in a variety of fora. For example, we are both signatories of the United Nations' Conventions on narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, we both participate in meetings of the Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND) and we both cooperate through various UN programmes.

  Hoax Emergency Calls
  Mr. Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many individuals suspected of hoax calls to the emergency services have(a) been arrested and (b) had their telephones disconnected since 22 November 2002. [85174]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  [holding answer 3 December 2002]: I have been told by the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) that 12 people have been referred for prosecution and 168 people for disconnection for making a hoax call between 22 and 30 November 2002. Individuals whose phones have been disconnected may still face prosecution, and police are continuing to investigate hoax call cases.

  Mr. Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what criteria are used by the police to determine whether to(a) prosecute and (b) refer for disconnection those suspected of hoax calls to the emergency services. [85175]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  [holding answer 3 December 2002]: I have been told by the Association of Chief Police Officers that they have circulated guidance to all police forces on dealing with hoax calls referring to the importance of identifying and prosecuting offenders, and disconnecting their telephones where appropriate.

  Immigration and Nationality Directorate
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether letters to hon. Members and signed by officials at the IND Integrated Case Work Unit are cleared by Ministers before they are sent; and what ministerial accountability is accepted for each letter. [84984]

  Beverley Hughes
  The leaflet 'Information for Members of Parliament about immigration and nationality enquiries', which was published in November 2002, sets out the circumstances where it 872W
  would not usually be appropriate for Home Office Ministers to intervene in individual immigration cases. It also gave Members information about how to correspond with the Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND).

  Where Members make written representations directly to officials of IND, the replies are prepared in line with appropriate legislation, departmental instructions and current ministerial guidance. Ministers do not clear these replies.

  Leg Restraints
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his policy is on the use of leg restraints on people in the custody of the police. [84659]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 2 December 2002]: I am told by the Association of Chief Police Officers that they issued guidance to all police forces in the use of limb restraints in July 2001.

  Police Stations
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police stations have(a) opened and (b) closed in West Sussex this year. [84764]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 2 December 2002]: The Chief Constable of Sussex informs me that there are 15 police stations in West Sussex. None has been opened or closed this year. A new police station is planned to be opened in Selsey in April 2003.

  Prisons
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on projected prison population figures for the next five years. [82133]

  Hilary Benn
  [holding answer 2 December 2002]: The Statistical Bulletin "Projections of Long Term Trends in the Prison Population to 2009" will be published shortly. A copy of which will be placed in the Library.

  Psychological Resources (Marc Hodgkiss)
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what psychological resources are available in the Ravenswood House Medical Secure Unit to assess and treat Marc Hodgkiss; and if she will make a statement. [82451]

  Ms Blears
  I have been asked to reply.

  Ravenswood House is resourced to provide services to residents and not non-residents such as Mr. Hodgkiss.

  Scottish Executive
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many official inter-ministerial
  873W
  meetings his Department has held with the Scottish Executive since May 1999, broken down by (a) Scottish Executive department, (b) subject and (c) date. [83584]

  Home Office Minister

  Scottish Executive Minister

  Subject discussed

  Date

  Bob Ainsworth

  Iain Gray (then Deputy Justice Minister)

  Drugs policy

  18 September 2001

  Bob Ainsworth

  Richard Simpson (then Deputy Justice Minister)

  Drugs policy

  26 March 2002

  Beverley Hughes

  Margaret Curran (Minister for Social Justice)

  Various issues relating to asylum seekers in Scotland

  11–12 September 2002

  Lord Falconer

  Colin Boyd (Lord Advocate) and Elish Angiolini (Solicitor General)

  Prison population, Effective sentences, persistent offenders, bail and enforcement of warrants and fines

  15 November 2002

  Security Service Surveillance
  Mr. Galloway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) who authorised the(a) recruitment and (b) use by (i) Special Branch and (ii) the security service of a paid agent codenamed Silver Fox in the National Union of Mineworkers during 1984–85; and if he will make a statement; [82593]

  (2) who authorised (a) Special Branch and (b) the security service to place a field agent in the circle of Mr. David Nellist while he was an hon. Member; and if he will make a statement; [82592]

  Mr. Blunkett
  Operational decisions at the time would have been for the relevant Chief Officer. It has been the longstanding policy of successive governments neither to confirm nor deny reports concerning Security Service operations.

  Superintendent Garry Horlacher
  David Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will make a statement on the reasons for the recent investigation into the conduct of Superintendent Garry Horlacher; [84204]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the number of man hours lost as result of the investigation into the conduct of Superintendent Garry Horlacher; [84207]

  (3) if he will make a statement on the origin of the regulation regarding staff information on a whiteboard, which led to the investigation into the conduct of Superintendent Garry Horlacher; [84205]

  (4) if he will make a statement on the time taken to complete the investigation into the conduct of Superintendent Garry Horlacher; and what assessment he has made of (a) the costs of the investigaton and (b) the impact upon police morale. [84206]

  Mr. Denham
  I am informed by Cumbria Constabulary that they received a number of allegations, some of which were of a serious nature, which the force considered breached the principles of honesty and integrity, confidentiality, and politeness and tolerance, contained in the Code of Conduct in the Police Conduct) Regulations 1999. The force considered that the more serious allegations merited an investigation under those regulations.

  Cumbria Constabulary advise me that the investigation took three months. It was undertaken by an outside force that has not charged for this work. No officers were suspended, and thus, no time was lost.
  874W
  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  [holding answer 27 November 2002]: As far as records show the following meetings have been held between Home Office and Scottish Executive Ministers since May 1999:

  The force recognise that morale may have been impacted by the investigation, but they consider that there would have been a more serious impact if no investigation had been undertaken into the serious allegations made against a senior officer.

  Police Morale
  David Maclean:
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to reduce the time spent by police officers on paperwork and administrative tasks; and if he will make a statement on police morale. [84208]

  Mr. Denham
  We are committed to tackling the administrative burdens and inefficient working practices that keep officers off the streets. Sir David O'Dowd's task force was commissioned to give the Government a police service view of what could be done to tackle the administrative burdens and inefficient working practices which keep police officers off the streets. The task force report, published on 17 September, highlighted ways to free up significant amounts of officers' time. A steering group, co-chaired by the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Home Office, is taking the task force recommendations forward. This is a vital opportunity to bring about a real difference to the everyday lives of officers on the front line.

  We have turned around the decline in police numbers that started under the last Government. The investment has been made to deliver a record number of police officers and there are now 5,400 more officers than two years ago. We are on course for our targets of 130,000 officers by March 2003 and 132,500 in 2004. We have also reached agreement on a package of reforms to police pay and conditions of service that is good for the service, for rank and file officers and for the public. We will ensure that officers know and feel that they are valued.

  Thames Valley Police
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) police officers and (b) civilian support staff were employed by Thames Valley Police in each year since 1 January 1996. [85134]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 3 December 2002]: The information requested about police strength has been set out in the table. Figures are only available for March and September of each year.
  875W

  Thames Valley Police

  Year as at 31 March

  Police officers

  Civilian support staff

  1996

  3,674

  1,738

  1997

  3,695

  1,825

  1998

  3,776

  1,827

  1999

  3,748

  1,799

  2000

  3,740

  1,786

  2001

  3,703

  1,891

  2002

  3,762

  2,061

  Source:

  Home Office Statistical Bulletins—Police Service Strength—1996–2002.

  Under-age Drinkers
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to bring forward legislation to allow the police to confiscate sealed alcohol containers from under-age drinkers in public places. [84803]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 3 December 2002]: We have included a clause in the Licensing Bill, now before Parliament, which will, if enacted, amend the existing legislation to allow the police to confiscate alcohol in sealed containers from young people who are drinking in public places.

  Wildlife Legislation
  Mr. Roger Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to the answer of 26 November 2002,Official Report, column 243W, how many prosecutions and convictions there have been under the (a) Wild Mammals Protection Act 1996, (b) Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and (c) Protection of Badgers Act 1992 in each year, broken down by region. [84820]

  Mr. Denham
  The available information is shown in the table for England and Wales, 1998 to 2000.

  Statistics for 2001 will be available in due course.

  Number of defendants proceeded against at the magistrates courts and convicted at all courts under various Wildlife Acts by region, England and Wales 19981

  Region/statute

  Proceeded against

  Convicted

  East

  Wild Mammals Protection Act 1996

  1

  1

  Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981

  3

  1

  Protection of Badgers Act 19922

  —

  —

  East Midlands

  Wild Mammals Protection Act 1996

  1

  1

  Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981

  —

  —

  Protection of Badgers Act 19922

  2

  1

  London

  Wild Mammals Protection Act 1996

  1

  1

  Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981

  1

  1

  Protection of Badgers Act 19922

  —

  —

  North East

  Wild Mammals Protection Act 1996

  —

  —

  Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981

  14

  11

  Protection of Badgers Act 19922

  —

  —

  876W

  Number of defendants proceeded against at the magistrates courts and convicted at all courts under various Wildlife Acts by region, England and Wales 19981

  Region/statute

  Proceeded against

  Convicted

  North West

  Wild Mammals Protection Act 1996

  1

  1

  Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981

  10

  8

  Protection of Badgers Act 19922

  —

  —

  South East

  Wild Mammals Protection Act 1996

  1

  1

  Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981

  11

  7

  Protection of Badgers Act 19922

  1

  —

  South West

  Wild Mammals Protection Act 1996

  —

  —

  Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981

  3

  3

  Protection of Badgers Act 19922

  12

  —

  West Midlands

  Wild Mammals Protection Act 1996

  2

  1

  Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981

  5

  4

  Protection of Badgers Act 19922

  —

  —

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  Wild Mammals Protection Act 1996

  —

  —

  Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981

  5

  3

  Protection of Badgers Act 19922

  —

  —

  Wales

  Wild Mammals Protection Act 1996

  1

  1

  Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981

  19

  7

  Protection of Badgers Act 19922

  4

  3

  England and Wales

  Wild Mammals Protection Act 1996

  8

  7

  Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981

  71

  45

  Protection of Badgers Act 19922

  19

  4

  1 These data are on the principal offence basis.

  2 Excludes offences under Protection of Badgers Act 1992, Sec 13.

  Number of defendants proceeded against at the magistrates courts and convicted at all courts under various Wildlife Acts by region, England and Wales 19991

  Region/statute

  Proceeded against

  Convicted

  East

  Wild Mammals Protection Act 1996

  —

  —

  Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981

  8

  7

  Protection of Badgers Act 19922

  1

  —

  East Midlands

  Wild Mammals Protection Act 1996

  —

  —

  Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981

  5

  4

  Protection of Badgers Act 19922

  9

  2

  London

  Wild Mammals Protection Act 1996

  —

  —

  Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981

  96

  74

  Protection of Badgers Act 19922

  —

  —

  North East

  Wild Mammals Protection Act 1996

  —

  —

  Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981

  7

  3

  Protection of Badgers Act 19922

  —

  —

  North West

  Wild Mammals Protection Act 1996

  —

  —

  Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981

  21

  12

  Protection of Badgers Act 19922

  4

  3

  877W

  Number of defendants proceeded against at the magistrates courts and convicted at all courts under various Wildlife Acts by region, England and Wales 19991

  Region/statute

  Proceeded against

  Convicted

  South East

  Wild Mammals Protection Act 1996

  —

  —

  Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981

  4

  3

  Protection of Badgers Act 19922

  7

  2

  South West

  Wild Mammals Protection Act 1996

  —

  —

  Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981

  9

  6

  Protection of Badgers Act 19922

  1

  —

  West Midlands

  Wild Mammals Protection Act 1996

  —

  —

  Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981

  8

  5

  Protection of Badgers Act 19922

  —

  —

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  Wild Mammals Protection Act 1996

  —

  —

  Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981

  4

  4

  Protection of Badgers Act 19922

  1

  1

  Wales

  Wild Mammals Protection Act 1996

  —

  —

  Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981

  4

  3

  Protection of Badgers Act 19922

  7

  2

  England and Wales

  Wild Mammals Protection Act 1996

  —

  —

  Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981

  166

  121

  Protection of Badgers Act 19922

  30

  10

  1 These data are on the principal offence basis.

  2 Excludes offences under Protection of Badgers Act 1992, Sec 13.

  Number of defendants proceeded against at the magistrates courts and convicted at all courts under various Wildlife Acts by region, England and Wales 20001,2

  Region/statute

  Proceeded against

  Convicted

  East

  Wild Mammals Protection Act 1996

  —

  —

  Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981

  17

  14

  Protection of Badgers Act 19923

  1

  1

  East Midlands

  Wild Mammals Protection Act 1996

  1

  1

  Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981

  5

  3

  Protection of Badgers Act 19923

  2

  —

  London

  Wild Mammals Protection Act 1996

  —

  —

  Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981

  2

  2

  Protection of Badgers Act 19923

  —

  —

  North East

  Wild Mammals Protection Act 1996

  —

  —

  Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981

  4

  4

  Protection of Badgers Act 19923

  —

  —

  North West

  Wild Mammals Protection Act 1996

  1

  1

  Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981

  43

  42

  Protection of Badgers Act 19923

  3

  1

  South East

  Wild Mammals Protection Act 1996

  1

  1

  Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981

  3

  1

  Protection of Badgers Act 19923

  3

  —

  878W

  Number of defendants proceeded against at the magistrates courts and convicted at all courts under various Wildlife Acts by region, England and Wales 2000 1,2

  Region/statute

  Proceeded against

  Convicted

  South West

  Wild Mammals Protection Act 1996

  —

  —

  Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981

  5

  2

  Protection of Badgers Act 19923

  1

  1

  West Midlands

  Wild Mammals Protection Act 1996

  1

  —

  Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981

  6

  3

  Protection of Badgers Act 19923

  4

  1

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  Wild Mammals Protection Act 1996

  1

  1

  Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981

  —

  —

  Protection of Badgers Act 19923

  1

  —

  Wales

  Wild Mammals Protection Act 1996

  —

  —

  Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981

  12

  9

  Protection of Badgers Act 19923

  6

  —

  England and Wales

  Wild Mammals Protection Act 1996

  5

  4

  Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981

  97

  80

  Protection of Badgers Act 19923

  21

  4

  1 These data are on the principal offence basis.

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

  3 Excludes offences under Protection of Badgers Act 1992, Sec 13.

  Women Prisoners
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the estimated number of women in prison who are drug users is. [82862]

  Hilary Benn
  The random mandatory drug testing (MDT) programme is the most up-to-date available measure of drug misuse in prisons in England and Wales. The annual average figures of positive tests in women's prisons for the last three years are reproduced in the table.

  Year

  Random MDT percentage positive

  2002–031

  7.4

  2001–02

  8.7

  2000–01

  9.3

  1 Denotes April 2002 to October 2002 figures

  Young Offenders Institutions
  Dr. Vis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many incidents of self-harm have been recorded at each of the prisons in the juvenile estate since April 2000; [83829]

  (2) how many self-harm forms F2052SH have been opened at each of the prisons in the juvenile estate since April 2000. [83828]

  Hilary Benn
  The information requested is shown in the tables. Table 1 covers the 675 recorded incidents of self-harm by juveniles between 1 April 2000 and
  879W
  30 September 2002. Table 2 covers the number of recorded F2052SHs forms opened in the juvenile estate between 1 January 2000 and 30 June 2002.

  Table 1. Showing the number of reported self-harm incidents in the juvenile estate by financial year between 1 April 2000 and 30 September 2002

  Financial Year

  Establishment

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–031

  Ashfield

  112

  128

  51

  Brinsford

  6

  6

  7

  Castington

  41

  72

  16

  Feltham

  9

  14

  5

  Hindley

  0

  2

  12

  Hollesley Bay

  4

  8

  12

  Huntercombe

  6

  6

  0

  Lancaster

  Farms

  6

  7

  2

  Onley

  4

  29

  25

  Pare

  11

  0

  1

  Portland

  12

  8

  0

  Stoke Heath

  11

  13

  0

  Werrington

  1

  1

  1

  Wetherby

  8

  18

  0

  Total

  231

  312

  132

  1 2002–03 figures are up to 30 September

  Table 2. Showing the number of F2052SHs opened in the juvenile estate between 1 January 2000 and 30 June 2002

  Calendar Year

  Establishment

  20001

  2001

  20022

  Ashfield

  150

  147

  91

  Brinsford

  134

  98

  32

  Castington

  75

  109

  45

  Feltham

  260

  448

  227

  Hindley

  0

  15

  80

  Hollesley Bay

  30

  136

  50

  Huntercombe

  112

  106

  117

  Lancaster

  Farms

  68

  37

  21

  Onley

  108

  73

  69

  Portland

  129

  101

  8

  Reading

  0

  48

  0

  Stoke Heath

  216

  150

  68

  Werrington

  57

  99

  42

  Wetherby

  193

  197

  78

  Total

  1,532

  1,763

  928

  The data is extracted on a six monthly basis, therefore:

  1 The figure for 2000 is for the complete calendar year.

  2 The 2002 figure is for the first six months of the calendar year.

  The Prison Service, with the support of the Youth Justice Board, is developing a suicide and self-harm prevention strategy. This is being taken forward through a three-year programme which runs to April 2004. Work is being targeted where the risks are highest—in local prisons, on remand, in the early weeks and months of custody—within a broad preventative approach. An all-round pro-active approach will encourage a supportive culture in prisons based on good staff-prisoner relationships, a constructive regime and a physically safe environment. Six pilot prisons including Feltham young offender institution are testing the full range of new safer custody policies and standards, and the results of the programme will be subject to independent quantitative and qualitative evaluation.

  Youth Initiatives (West Midlands)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many children aged between 10 and 16 years have benefited from(a) Positive Futures and (b) similar initiatives in the West Midlands. [84824]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  Positive Futures is a partnership managed within the Home Office Drugs Strategy Directorate. There are currently 67 local projects operating in neighbourhoods across England and Wales, all falling within the top 20 per cent, as identified through the multiple deprivation indices. The intended outcomes of the programme are:reductions in drug use among those participating in the project;
  an increase in regular participation in sport and physical activity by those involved;
  reductions in youth offending in the locality of the project

  There are currently nine Positive Futures projects in the West Midlands, four began in June 2000 in Birmingham (Kings Norton), Sandwell, Walsall and Wolverhampton. A further five began in April 2002 in Birmingham (Handsworth), Coventry, Lichfield, Rugby and Solihull. The numbers of children and young people attending activities on a regular basis between June and October 2002 was approximately 880.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many under-17-year- olds participate in Youth Inclusion Programmes in the West Midlands. [84822]

  Mr. Denham
  The Youth Inclusion Programme is part of the Government's approach to reducing youth offending by working with young people to prevent them being drawn into crime in the first place. There are at present 70 Youth Inclusion Programme schemes across the country, with nine schemes running in the West Midlands. Each scheme targets the 50 young people, aged 13 to 16, living in the local area who are considered to be at the greatest risk of social exclusion, crime and antisocial behaviour. The schemes in the West Midlands are running in Coventry, Sandwell, Stoke, Walsall and Wolverhampton, with four schemes in Birmingham. Between July and September 2002, 542 young people under 17 participated in these nine schemes.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Onshore Wind Farms
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister which types of designated areas within the United Kingdom are protected from future development of onshore wind farms; and what legislation enforces this protection [84559]

  Mr. Wilson
  I have been asked to reply.

  No areas within the United Kingdom are specifically designated as "no-go" areas for wind farm development. Each case is assessed on its own individual merit. Planning Policy Guidance Note 7 states that in national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty, the

  881W
  broads and stes of special scientific interest, the conservation of the countryside, and its wildlife and cultural heritage, should be given great weight in planning policies and development control decisions. Planning Policy Guidance Note 2 states that very special circumstances are needed to justify development in the green belt.

  Audit Commission
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the total expenditure of the Audit Commission was in each year since 1997 and its forecast budget for the coming year. [84907]

  Mr. Leslie
  The information requested on total expenditure by the Audit Commission for each year since 1997 can be found in the following table.

  Year ending

  £ million

  31 March 19971

  93.4

  31 October 1998

  105.7

  31 October 1999

  111.6

  31 October 2000

  144.1

  31 October 2001

  178.8

  31 October 20022

  212

  31 October 20033

  207

  Note:

  The Audit Commission's financial year, which in earlier years ran from 1 April to 31 March, was amended to run from 1 November to 31 October with effect from 1 November 1997. The year ending 31 March 1997 was therefore the last complete financial year before the change was made.

  The period coincided with the Commission taking on a number of new responsibilities, including those derived from the Local Government Act 1999 on local authority performance. This included the auditing of best value performance plans and the setting up of the best value inspection service. More recently, the Commission has taken the lead role in developing a comprehensive performance assessment process, the results of which are expected shortly. In 2000, the Commission also took on new responsibilities with regard to the National Health Service, involving the review of NHS performance at national as well as local levels.

  Building Inspectors
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he proposes to make an order which will allow approved inspectors to check all types of work on all types of dwellings. [85212]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister intends to consult relevant parties as soon as possible on procedures for designation of new home warranty schemes for the purposes of the rules governing building control by approved inspectors. Once designation procedures have been established and put into practice, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will be able to decide on re-approval of professional indemnity insurance schemes for approved inspectors, in terms that would allow them to deal with all types of domestic building work.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister by how much total expenditure would be increased if all parish and town councils in England increased the maximum £3.50 per elector multiplier as specified in section 137(4) of the Local Government Act 972 up to £5.00 as specified in the draft Local Government Bill; and by how much audit best value and other compliance costs for parish and town councils lave increased in each of the last two years. [84421]

  Mr. Leslie
  The maximum expenditure by English parish and town councils currently permitted under section 137(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 is estimated to be about £45 million per year. It is estimated that this would increase to about £65 million per year as a result of the maximum amount increasing from £3.50 to £5.00 per elector.

  Not all parish and town councils make full use of the existing £3.50 amount, but we are increasing it because t has been in place since 1990, and consultation responses to the "Modernising Local Government "Finance" green paper have shown that it has been inhibiting expenditure for some councils.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister does not hold information on the total cost of financial audit for parish and town councils. For parish councils, the Audit Commission's 'lighter touch' regime aims to develop a proportionate audit approach as well as a reduction in audit fees for most councils.

  The exact costs of best value are not known. However, the duty of best value should not have added excessive costs when a council is well organised and managed. Any additional costs should have been offset by gains in economy, efficiency and effectiveness and by the new opportunities provided by innovative service delivery through for example by partnership arrangements. Councils would have been free to plough back the savings made into core and other services.

  Moreover, the Government announced in the local government white paper "Strong Local Leadership—Quality Public Services" that it will pay a grant of £30,000 per year to Best Value Town and Parish Councils to cover the costs of audit and the corporate costs of carrying out work relating to best value, such as preparation of performance plans and the management of reviews.

  No other compliance costs for parish and town councils are believed to have increased in the last two years.

  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to allow local authorities to charge a punitive level of council tax on long-term voids. [84968]

  Mr. Leslie
  On 19 November, my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford) announced we would be giving English local authorities the discretion to reduce or remove the current 50 per cent, council tax discount on long-term empty property. The Office of the Deputy Prime
  883W
  Minister has included the necessary provision in the Local Government Bill and, subject to parliamentary approval, we aim to implement this change on 1 April 2004.

  We have no plans to allow local authorities to charge more than the full council tax.

  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what representations he has received about removing council tax exemption to student houses in multi-occupancy; and if he will make a statement. [85029]

  Mr. Leslie
  Since August 2001, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has received 12 representations from members of the public about the council tax exemption for premises occupied by students. Nine of those believed that landlords should be made liable for the council tax in properties occupied only by students, while three suggested that students should be made liable for the council tax.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has no plans to change or remove the exemption from council tax of dwellings occupied only by students.

  Fire Service
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of the Fire Cover Review and its recommendations; and when he intends to give his response. [83437]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The report on the Fire Cover Review was commissioned by the Central Fire Brigades Advisory Council and it is for the council to decide whether or not to endorse the report and publish its findings. It was expected that the council would discuss the report at a meeting on 12 November2002, but this was cancelled as a result of the fire service pay dispute. The next meeting is currently scheduled to take place on 12 February 2002. If the Council endorses the report a copy will be placed in the Libraries of the House. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will give a response to the report in the light of the discussion in the Council and after wide consultation.

  Green Goddesses (Cinderford)
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he will reply to two letter from the Chairman of the

  National BVPIs and ACPIs 2000–01

  National BVPIs2001–02

  Percentages decrease from 2000–01 to 2001–02

  National BVPIs 2002–03

  Percentages decrease from 2000–01 to 2002–03

  Percentages from 2001–02 to 2002–03

  Unitaries/Met Boroughs

  189

  123

  35

  97

  49

  21

  London

  189

  121

  36

  94

  50

  22

  County Councils (including fire)

  134

  105

  22.

  86

  36.

  18.

  District Councils

  91

  65

  29

  51

  44

  22

  Fire

  18

  18

  0

  19

  N/a

  N/a

  Note:

  BVPIs, ie indicators prescribed by Government under the 1999 Act.

  ACPIs, ie. Indicators prescribed by the Auidt Commission under the Local Government Act 1992, consolidated into the Audit Commission Act 1998.
  884W
  Gloucestershire County Council requesting further assistance for extra Green Goddesses and crew to man them for Cinderford, Gloucestershire. [85181]

  Mr. Raynsford
  A senior official from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister responded to the substance of both letters from the Chair of the Fire Authority on 11 November 2002.

  Local Government (Discretion)
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what recent legislation has allowed greater discretion to be exercised by local councils and authorities. [84718]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Local Government Act 2000 provided considerable additional discretion to local authorities through the introduction of a new power to promote or improve the economic, social or environmental well-being of their areas unless prohibited elsewhere in legislation. I also refer the hon. Member to the written statement given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford) on 26 November concerning a package of measures to devolve power to local authorities, including recent and proposed changes to legislation.

  Local Performance Indicators
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) if he will list the local performance indicators monitoring the activities of specific local authorities in(a) 2001–02 and (b) 2002–03, for each local authority with local performance indicators [84908]

  (2) how many best value performance indicators (a) monitored in 2001–02 and (b) are monitoring in 2002–03 the activities of (i) fire and (ii) local authorities. [84906]

  Mr. Leslie
  Local authorities employ a wide variety of indicators to measure their performance across a range of activities, and no central record is kept of them. Where indicators are prescribed by Government under the Local Government Act 1999, these are published annually following consultation with local government and others. The attached table summarises the number of such indicators in 2001–02 and 2002–03 by type of authority. Full details are contained in SI 2001 No 724 and SI2002 No 523, copies of which can be found in the library of the House. A similar number of indicators was previously prescribed by the Audit Commission: these were replaced entirely in 2001–02 by those prescribed by Government under the 1999 Act.

  Neighbourhood Renewal
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister whal criteria are applied to give an area neighbourhood renewal status; and where such areas are located, broker down by constituency. [84183]

  Mrs. Roche
  The information requested is not broker down by constituency but the Neighbourhood Renewal Fund is allocated to local authority districts that fall within the 50 most deprived authorities on any of the six district level summary measures of the ward level Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD 2000). The six measures are:Income scale—the number of people experiencing income deprivation
  Employment scale—the number of people experiencing employment deprivation
  Local Concentration—tells us how severe deprivation is in each authorities 'hot spots' of deprivation
  Extent—the percentage of each district's population that live ii one of the 10 per cent, most deprived wards in England
  The 'average scores' and 'average ranks' measures are the average level of deprivation across the entire district

  This brings in a total of 81 authorities. In addition there are transitional arrangements in place for seven other authorities that were among the 50 most deprived on the previous measure of deprivation, but which do not appear among the 50 most deprived authorities on the IMD 2000.

  The following lists the 88 authorities current! receiving NRF funding.

  Local authorities in receipt of NRF

  Hackney

  Hastings

  Tower Hamlets

  Derwentside

  Newham

  Hyndburn

  Manchester

  Stoke-on-Trent

  Knowsley

  North Tyneside

  Easington

  Wirral

  Liverpool

  Rotherham

  Middlesbrough

  Burnley

  Islington

  South Tyneside

  Hartlepool

  Southwark

  Halton

  Nottingham

  Blackburn with Darwen

  Doncaster

  Kingston upon Hull, City of

  886W

  Leicester

  Sandwell

  Walsall

  Wear Valley

  Barrow-in-Furness

  Redcar and Cleveland

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  Wolverhampton

  Sunderland

  Salford

  Haringey

  Barnsley

  Pendle

  Rochdale

  Gateshead

  Mansfield

  Camden

  Great Yarmouth

  Wansbeck

  Birmingham

  St. Helens

  Oldham

  Stockton-on-Tees

  Bolsover

  Bradford

  Bolton

  Blackpool

  Sefton

  Preston

  Greenwich

  Sheffield

  Kerrier

  Coventry

  Pen with

  Wakefield

  Derby

  Sedgefield

  Leeds

  Waltham Forest

  Barking and Dagenham

  Lewisham

  Brent

  Lambeth

  Ashfield

  Allerdale

  Bristol, City of

  Wigan

  Plymouth

  Luton

  Kirklees

  Enfield

  Westminster

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  Kensington and Chelsea

  Tameside

  Brighton and Hove

  Portsmouth

  Dudley

  Southampton

  887W

  Ealing

  Croydon

  Lincoln

  Wandsworth

  Polling Hours
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to extend the polling hours for local referenda. [85204]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has no plans to do so.

  Regional Assemblies
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what consultation is planned prior to referendums on regional assemblies. [85393]

  Mr. Leslie
  On 2 December, the Government launched a soundings exercise on the level of interest in each English region (outside London) in holding a referendum about establishing an elected regional assembly. We are asking for views, information and evidence from people in each region, including local authorities, MPs, MEPs, regional chambers and others. Responses are requested by 3 March 2003.

  This soundings exercise will inform the Secretary of State's consideration of the level of interest in each English region in holding a referendum about establishing an elected regional assembly. Level of interest will be the primary factor in determining which regions will undergo a local government review by the Boundary Committee. Such a review, which must be carried out in a region before a referendum on establishing elected assemblies can be held, will recommend the most appropriate unitary local

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  High Court Chancery Division

  38,360

  37,428

  37,281

  37,333

  37,034

  High Court Queen's Bench Division

  121,446

  114,984

  72,161

  26,876

  21,613

  County Court

  2,208,878

  2,245,324

  2,000,337

  1,871,923

  1,739,090

  High Court Judges (Appointments)
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will list the high court judges the Lord Chancellor has appointed since 1997. [84900]

  Name

  Division

  Appointed

  The hon. Mr. Justice Sullivan

  Queen's Bench Division

  1 October 1997

  The hon. Mr. Justice Hughes

  Family Division

  1 October 1997

  The hon. Mr. Justice Park

  Chancery Division

  3 November 1997

  The hon. Mr. Justice Penry-Davey

  Queen's Bench Division

  12 November 1997

  The hon. Mr. Justice Pumfrey

  Chancery Division

  24 November 1997

  The hon. Mr. Justice Richards

  Queen's Bench Division

  1 December 1997

  The hon. Mr. Justice Charles

  Family Division

  12 January 1998

  The hon. Mr Justice David Steel

  Queen's Bench Division

  19 January 1998

  The hon. Mr. Justice Hart

  Chancery Division

  24 January 1998

  The hon. Mr. Justice Gray

  Queen's Bench Division

  1 October 1998

  888W
  government structure for those parts of the region that currently have both a county and district council, should an elected assembly be established for the region.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Boundary Review
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, if she will make a statement on progress with reviewing(a) the boundaries of local authorities in England and (b) the boundary between Wychavon and the City of Worcester. [84169]

  Mr. Leslie
  I have been asked to reply.

  No reviews of the boundaries between principal local authorities have taken place recently and we have no plans for such reviews to take place in the immediate future, except as part of any local government review required before a referendum in a region for an elected regional assembly. There is therefore no boundary review taking place between the district of Wychavon and the city of Worcester.

  The electoral commission have recently completed electoral reviews of the district of Wychavon and the city of Worcester-these reviews are of the electoral arrangements within the boundaries of the district and the city.

  County Court Summonses
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many(a) writs and (b) county court summonses were issued in each year since 1997. [84899]

  Yvette Cooper
  Figures for the number of civil proceedings commenced both in the High Court and county courts since 1997 are provided in the following table.

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  High Court Judges are appointed by The Queen on the recommendation of my noble and learned Friend, the Lord Chancellor.

  Since the Lord Chancellor took office, on 2 May 1997, 57 High Court Judges have been appointed on his recommendation. Their names, together with the Division of the High Court to which they were assigned, and the date of their appointment are listed as follows:
  889W

  Name

  Division

  Appointed

  The hon. Mr. Justice Klevan

  Queen's Bench Division

  1 October 19981

  The hon. Mr. Justice Bratza

  Queen's Bench Division

  30 October 1998

  The hon. Mr. Justice Burton

  Queen's Bench Division

  23 November 1998

  The hon. Mr. Justice Jackson

  Queen's Bench Division

  12 January 1999

  The hon. Mr. Justice Bodey

  Family division

  12 January 1999

  The hon. Mrs. Justice Hallett DBE

  Queen's Bench Division

  14 April 1999

  The hon. Mr. Justice Elias

  Queen's Bench Division

  4. May 1999

  The hon. Mr. Justice Aikens

  Queen's Bench Division

  6 May 1999

  The hon. Mr. Justice Black DBE

  Family Division

  4 October 1999

  The hon. Mr. Justice Silber

  Queen's Bench Division

  3 December 1999

  The hon. Mr. Justice Goldring

  Queen's Bench Division

  3 December 1999

  The hon. Mr. Justice Crane

  Queen's Bench Division

  11 January 2000

  The hon. Mrs. Justice Rafferty DBE

  Queen's Bench Division

  21 February 2000

  The hon. Mr. Justice Grigson

  Queen's Bench Division

  19 April 2000

  The hon. Mr. Justice Gibbs

  Queen's Bench Division

  19 April 2000

  The hon. Mr. Justice Henriques

  Queen's Bench Division

  19 April 2000

  The hon. Mr. Justice Tomlinson

  Queen's Bench Division

  2 May 2000

  The hon. Mr. Justice Munby

  Family Division

  22 May 2000

  The hon. Mr. Justice Andrew Smith

  Queen's Bench Division

  19 July 2000

  The hon. Mr. Justice Stanley Burnton

  Queen's Bench Division

  19 July 2000

  The hon. Mr. Justice Lawrence Collins

  Chancery Division

  28 September 2000

  The hon. Mr. Justice Hunt

  Queen's Bench Division

  28 September 2000

  The hon. Mr. Justice Pitchford

  Queen's Bench Division

  28 September 2000

  The hon. Mr. Justice Coleridge

  Family Division

  28 September 2000

  The hon. Mr. Justice Patten

  Chancery Division

  2 October 2000

  The hon. Mr. Justice Leveson

  Queen's Bench Division

  23 October 2000

  The hon. Mr. Justice Ouseley

  Queen's Bench Division

  2 November 2000

  The hon. Mr. Justice Etherton

  Chancery Division

  11 January 2001

  The hon. Mr. Justice McCombe

  Queen's Bench Division

  11 January 2001

  The hon. Mr. Justice Jack

  Queen's Bench Division

  11 January 2001

  The hon. Mr. Justice Owen

  Queen's Bench Division

  15 January 2001

  The hon. Mr. Justice Mackay

  Queen's Bench Division

  24 January 2001

  The hon. Mr. Justice Mitting

  Queen's Bench Division

  3 April 2001

  The hon. Mr. Justice Roderick Evans

  Queen's Bench Division

  23 April 2001

  The hon. Mr. Justice Davis

  Queen's Bench Division

  1 October 2001

  The hon. Mr. Justice Gross

  Queen's Bench Division

  1 October 2001

  The hon. Mr. Justice Keith

  Queen's Bench Division

  2 October 2001

  The hon. Mr. Justice Cooke

  Queen's Bench Division

  2 October 2001

  The hon. Mr. Justice Field

  Queen's Bench Division

  15 January 2002

  The hon. Mr. Justice Hedley

  Family Division

  15 January 2002

  The hon. Mr. Justice Pitchers

  Queen's Bench Division

  16 January 2002

  The hon. Mr. Justice Peter Smith

  Chancery Division

  15 April 2002

  The hon. Mr. Justice Treacy

  Queen's Bench Division

  1 October 2002

  The hon. Mr. Justice Simon

  Queen's Bench Division

  1 October 2002

  The hon. Mr. Justice Royce

  Queen's Bench Division

  21 October 2002

  The hon Mrs. Justice Cox DBE

  Queen's Bench Division

  4 November 2002

  The hon. Mr. Justice Fulford

  Queen's Bench Division

  21 November 2002

  1 Died 26 December 2001

  Magistrates
  Dr. Naysmith
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will reimburse actual lost pay of lay magistrates, rather than a sum based on average earnings; and if he will make a statement. [84723]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Financial Loss Allowance is based on average earnings and is paid from cash limited budgets of the Magistrates' Courts Committees allocated from public funds granted by my Department with the concurrence of Her Majesty's Treasury. This method is considered the most equitable way of striking a balance to cover the differing trades and professions within the magistracy.

  Mark Tami
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what training and support is given to individuals taking up magistrates posts. [84587]
  890W
  Yvette Cooper
  Training of magistrates is the responsibility of Magistrates Courts Committees (MCCs) who are required to work within a framework approved by the Lord Chancellor. Under the Magistrates National Training Initiative, the Lord Chancellor requires MCCs to follow the training syllabus produced by the Judicial Studies Board.

  The JSB syllabus requires newly appointed magistrates to attend a series of training sessions covering the essential aspects of magisterial work including 'The Obligations of the Judicial Oath', 'Bail', 'Mode of Trial', 'Evaluation of Evidence', 'Verdict and Sentencing'. It is also expected that magistrates make at least one visit to a local court and to a penal institution.

  A newly appointed magistrate is supported during his or her first two years of sitting by an experienced and trained magistrate acting as a mentor.

  Magistrates Courts (Fines)
  Mr. Humfrey Malins
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what the total
  891W
  level of fines imposed by the Inner London magistrates courts was in each of the last three years; what the average recovery time was; and what amounts were (a) written off and (b) remitted. [83810]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Inner London Magistrates' Courts Service (1LMCS) became part of the amalgamated Greater London Magistrates' Courts Authority (GLMCA) on 1 April 2001. It is therefore not possible to provide separate data for Inner London from that date, only data for the amalgamated GLMCA. Information on average fine recovery times is not collected.

  The information available is set out in the table as follows:

  £

  Organisation

  Year

  Imposed

  Written off

  Remitted

  GLMCA

  2001–02

  77,640,695

  13,916,583

  127,931,066

  ILMCS

  2000–01

  60,240,074

  5,742,177

  4,812,386

  ILMCS

  1999–2000

  54,160,594

  7,564,414

  6,817,071

  1 Includes all areas within the GLMCA, not just ILMCS

  Official Travel
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (1) what the total expenditure of(a) her Department and (b) its agencies was on official travel in 2001–02. [84786]

  (2) what the total budget of (a) the Lord Chancellor's Department and (b) its agencies is for official travel in 2002–03. [84929]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Since 1999 the Government have published an annual list of all visits overseas undertaken by Cabinet Ministers costing £500 or more during each financial year. The Government have also published on an annual basis the cost of all Ministers visits overseas. Details of travel undertaken during the period 1 April 2001 to 31 March 2002 were published on 24 July 2002,Official Report, 75W). The cost of Ministers visits overseas for 2002–03 will be published as soon as possible after the end of the current financial year. Copies of the lists are available in the Libraries of the House.

  All travel is undertaken fully in accordance with the rules set out in the Ministerial Code and Travel by Ministers, copies of which are available in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Campaign

  Advertising media

  Planned cost 2002–03 (£)

  Appropriately Prescribed Medicine (i.e. antibiotics)

  Women's press and TV listings

  350,000

  Nurse and other staff recruitment

  National/regional press and radio

  5,062,400

  NHS Direct

  Women's press, internet advertising

  795,000

  Organ donation

  Radio and six sheet posters, Asian TV and radio

  245,000

  Smoking cessation

  Satellite and terrestrial TV

  7,270,000

  Flu immunisation

  National TV, press, bus interiors, pharmacy bags and online

  2,145,000

  Sexual health

  Radio, men's/women's magazines, washroom posters

  1,500,000

  Teenage pregnancy

  Radio, teen magazines, washroom posters

  1,600,000

  Child immunisation (i.e. MMR)

  TV, radio, press

  1,080,000

  Royal Peculiars
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when he will publish his response to the report on the Royal Peculiars. [82077]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The plan to publish our response in October has been delayed pending further research; and consultations with interested parties. Once this is concluded, the Lord Chancellor will submit his recommendations to Her Majesty the Queen. The response will be published as soon as possible thereafter.

  West Wiltshire Magistrates Court
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, when he will make a decision on the future of West Wiltshire Magistrates Court. [84157]

  Yvette Cooper
  I shall make my decision as soon as practicable after considering representations made to me on this issue.

HEALTH

  Accident and Emergency
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the bed occupancy rate is in the accident and emergency departments of each hospital in the West Midlands. [84826]

  Mr. Lammy
  Bed occupancy figures are collected for in-patient beds, but patients in accident and emergency departments are not in-patients.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many new nurses have been recruited to each accident and emergency department in the West Midlands in each of the last two years. [84827]

  Mr. Lammy
  Figures for accident and emergency nurses are not available separately. Figures on new nurses in general are also not available because the non-medical workforce census currently measures net changes rather than leavers and joiners.

  Advertising Campaigns
  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on his planned expenditure in 2002–03 on major advertising campaigns broken down by(a) campaigns and (b) advertising medium. [83020]

  Mr. Lammy
  Major advertising campaigns planned by the Department for 2000–03 are listed in the table, giving details of advertising media and forecast expenditure.

  Ashford and St. Peter's Hospitals NHS Trust
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the overspending by the Ashford and St. Peter's hospitals NHS trust. [85224]

  Ms Blears
  Ashford and St. Peter's hospitals NHS trust is aware of the duty it has to ensure that sound financial management is practiced and also the need to achieve a break-even position at the end of the financial year. The current deficit is the subject of discussion between the trust's commissioning primary care trusts and the strategic health authority.

  On the question of the management of the trust's underlying deficit, I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 23 October 2002, Official Report, column 402W.

  Asylum-Seeking Children
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children seeking asylum who have arrived in the UK in the last five years have been placed in(a) care, (b) foster care, (c) adopted care, and (d) bed and breakfast accommodation. [82765]

  Jacqui Smith
  Information on the numbers of unaccompanied asylum seeking children looked after by local authorities was collected for the first time for the year ending 31 March 2002. The table shows the available information. Data on local children are included for comparison.

  The table only covers those unaccompanied children who are looked after by local authorities. It does not cover those who are supported without being looked after. The Children in Need in England survey, published by the Department in October, provides information about numbers of asylum seeking children receiving a service as children in need in a sample week in September/October 2001. However this survey does not distinguish between unaccompanied children and those with their families. Nor does it give details of the type of support, such as bed and breakfast accommodation, provided. The information can be accessed at www.doh.gov.uk/cin/cinlatables.htm.

  Number of children looked after by local councils at 31 March 2002 by placement and asylum seeking status—England

  Unaccompanied asylum seeking children

  Local children

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Foster care

  1,310

  60

  37,925

  66

  Placed for adoption

  —

  —

  3,585

  6

  Living independently1

  250

  12

  865

  2

  Other placements

  620

  28

  15,145

  26

  Total

  2,185

  100

  57,525

  100

  1 Living independently includes flats, bedsits, lodgings with no formal support and bed and breakfast accommodation.

  Note:

  All figures have been rounded to the nearest 5; "—" indicates a figure is less than 5 and has been suppressed for reasons of Confidentiality.

  Breast Cancer
  Jim Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the Government expect to receive the findings of 894W
  the Cancer Research UK study on the possible association between induced abortion and breast cancer. [84753]

  Ms Blears
  Departmental officials are in touch with the Cancer Research UK study, which is considering the full range of potential risk factors for breast cancer. This is an important and complex international research project. No firm time frame for the publication of results has been set by Cancer Research UK at the present time.

  British Medical Association
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he next intends to meet the Chairman of the BMA. [84453]

  Mr. Lammy
  Ministers and civil servants meet many people as part of the process of policy development and analysis. All such contacts are conducted in accordance with the "Ministerial Code", the "Civil Service Code" and "Guidance for Civil Servants: Contacts with Lobbyists". Some of these discussions take place on a confidential basis, and in order to preserve confidentiality, it is not the normal practice of Governments to release details of specific meetings with private individuals or companies.

  Cancer
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what level of cancer referral target times were being missed in each hospital trust in(a) 2002 and (b) 2001. [83310]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 25 November 2002]: The two week waiting time target from urgent referral by a general practitioner for patients with suspected cancer, to first out-patient appointment was introduced for urgent cases of suspected breast cancer from April 1999 and was extended to all other urgent cases of suspected cancer during 2000. Performance data against the standard for 2001 and the first quarter of 2002 have been placed in the Library. Data for non-urgent referrals are not collected centrally.

  Chernobyl
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what health studies have been carried out in the United Kingdom population on the impact of radiation, following the Chernobyl accident in April 1986. [84257]

  Ms Blears
  Two large European studies were commissioned in the early 1990s to study the possible health effects of Chernobyl fallout in the European childhood population. The United Kingdom population is included in these studies. The studies are known as the European Childhood Leukaemia-Lymphoma Incidence study (ECUS) and the European Childhood Abnormality Study (EUROCAS). The results produced so far show no health detriment linked to Chernobyl fallout. Results are consistent with current estimates of risk from radiation exposure. However, further work continues and more detailed results are expected in the future. The thyroid cancer research group, which made a valued contribution to the investigation of the increased incidence of thyroid cancer in children in Belarus, Ukraine and the Russian Federation following the Chernobyl accident, is
  895W
  planning a comparative study of childhood thyroid cancer between Britain, Poland and Belarus. Other much smaller studies have been drawn to our attention but the very small number of cases involved makes these studies very difficult to evaluate.

  Congestion Charging
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the policy is of his Department in relation to the reimbursement of Central London road user charges incurred by its employees. [81840]

  Mr. Lammy
  [holding answer 19 November 2002]: Staff who are required to drive vehicles on official business within the charging zone will be reimbursed the charge. All civil servants are responsible for payment of their own every day home to office travel costs.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will reply to the hon. Member for Esher and Walton's letter of 19 June PO ref: 1016938. [83715]

  Ms Blears
  A reply was sent on 19 November.

  Deep Vein Thrombosis
  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the delay in commencing the World Health Organisation's large epidemiological study into thrombo-embolic disease and air travel. [85196]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.

  Insufficient offers of funding were made to allow the full scope of the planned research to go forward (including the large prospective epidemiological study). Following a delay, as details of a new programme and the necessary contractual arrangements were worked out, contracts have now been signed and work is set to start on 1 January 2003.

  Delayed Discharges
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) acute trusts and (b) PCTs have set up pooled budgets with social services departments to tackle delayed discharge. [84589]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 2 December 2002]: 16 pooled budget schemes have been notified to the Department which explicitly address the reduction of delayed discharge as a target. Of these 13 involve both acute trusts and primary care trusts (PCTs), and three involve only PCTs as partners with local authorities. None involves only acute trusts and local authorities.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health(a) how many people and (b) how long over 75s experienced delayed discharge, broken down by (i) elective and (ii) emergency admissions in each region in the last quarter of 2002–03. [84598]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 2 December 2002]: The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Digital Television
  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what resources he intends to devote in 2002–08 to the rollout of digital television to aid the modernisation of the NHS. [83022]

  Mr. Lammy
  A programme of work is to begin to develop a version of NHS Direct for digital television and to make it available nationwide. This programme will commence in 2003 with national broadcasting by 2004. Expenditure in the first few years will depend on contracts yet to be awarded but is expected to be not less than £5 million a year. Expenditure in the later years of the period will depend on the success of the earlier years and on the range of services that are demonstrated to be attractive to the public, helpful to the national health service and good value for money.

  Doctor: Population Ratio
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the ratio of doctors to people is in England. [83288]

  Mr. Hutton
  Figures produced by the Department currently show figures for national health service doctors only. We are working with the Office for National Statistics (ONS) to determine the most reliable way to present data for all doctors, with a view to providing more representative figures for the international comparisons published by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).

  The table shows the ratio of NHS doctors to people in England.

  NHS doctors hospital, public health medicine and community health service (HCHS) medical and dental staff and general practitioners in England—at 30 September 2001

  Number

  All NHS doctors1

  100,320

  Of which:

  All general medical practitioners1,2

  31,840

  and

  HCHS medical and dental staff1,3

  68,480

  Population1

  49,181,340

  Doctors per 100,000 population4

  204

  1 Figures are rounded to the nearest 10.

  2 All practitioners include GMS unrestricted principals, PMS contracted GPs, restricted principal, assistants, GP registrars, salaried doctors (para 52 SFA), PMS other and GP retainers.

  3 Excludes hospital medical hospital practitioners and clinical assistants most of whom are GPs and will have been included already.

  4 Calculated using unrounded figures.

  Note:

  Population data are based on ONS 2001 census estimates.

  Sources:

  Department of Health medical and dental workforce census.

  Department of Health General and Personal Medical Services Statistics. Office of National Statistics.

  Drug Addiction Treatment
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people are receiving treatment for drug addiction in the West Midlands; and how many people were receiving treatment on 30 November(a) 1998, (b) 1999, (c) 2000 and (d) 2001. [84825]
  897W
  Mr. Lammy
  Information is not available in the form requested. The information available for drug users presenting to drug treatment agencies and general practitioners in the West Midlands in the six-month periods from 1 October 1998–31 March 1999 to 1 October 2000–31 March 2001 is given in the table.

  Six-month period ending

  Number of users

  31 March 1999

  1,741

  30 September 1999

  2,139

  31 March 2000

  2,381

  30 September 2000

  2,572

  31 March 2001

  2,655

  Note:

  The data are from the Department of Health series of statistical bulletins, "Statistics from the Regional Drug Misuse Databases" http://www.doh.gov.Uk/public/work_public_health.htm#SDD

  A 'census' of drug users in treatment was carried out in 2000 to estimate the number of drug users in England in contact with drug treatment agencies in 2000–01. The number of drug users reported as being in contact with agencies in the West Midlands was 8,843. These data were published in a statistical bulletin, "Statistics from the Regional Drug Misuse Databases on Drug Misuse in Treatment in England, 2000–01", in December 2001. http://www.doh.gov.uk/public/sb0133.htm.

  Elderly Care (Community Hospitals)
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many beds for the elderly in community hospitals are provided in each(a) strategic health authority and (b) local authority. [84020]

  Jacqui Smith
  The information requested is not collected for individual hospital sites. The data are collected by national health service trust, which could incorporate more than one hospital.

  Information on the number of beds by sector, including geriatric in each NHS trust, is available from the Department of Health's website at www.doh.gov.uk/hospitalactivity and has been placed in the Library.

  Flu Immunisation
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) pursuant to the answer of 25 November 2002, on flu immunisation, (ref. 83320), what the national average take-up by the over-65s of flu vaccinations was; [84897]

  (2) pursuant to the answer of 25 November 2002, on flu immunisation, Official Report, column 135W, what percentage of over 65s in west Sussex to be immunised against flu were over 85 years old; and what percentage this represented as a whole for the county. [84898]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 2 December 2002]: Nationally, the Public Health Laboratory Service (PHLS) monitor the uptake of flu immunisations in those aged 65 years and over only. The number of those aged 85 and over receiving a flu immunisation is not available. Surrey and Sussex strategic health authority has advised me that information is also only available locally on the same 65 and over basis.
  898W
  Monitoring figures from the PHLS at the end of October, show that the national average of those aged 65 and over receiving their free flu immunisation was 55 per cent.

  Foreign Nurse Recruitment
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the annual cost of running the NHS Overseas Nurses Advice Line was in the last six months. [83329]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 25 November 2002]: The annual cost of the national health service overseas nurses advice line will not be available until March 2003.

  Foster Carers
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 25 November 2002,Official Report, column 136W, regarding recruitment of foster carers, how many people requested information packs; how many people who requested information packs subsequently became foster carers; and whether there is a shortage of foster carers. [84760]

  Jacqui Smith
  Over 6,000 people contacted the call centre and were sent information packs. Of these, 1,000 were converted into completed expression of interest forms. It is unclear exactly how many foster carers were recruited as a result of the campaign, as local authorities subsequently had their own campaigns, and not all those who applied will have got to final approval. The Department does not collect figures on the number of approved foster carers.

  Health and Neighbourhood Renewal Guidance
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the cost was of(a) writing and (b) producing "Health and Neighbourhood Renewal: Guidance from the Department of Health and the Neighbourhood Renewal Unit-2002". [84093]

  Ms Blears
  Development of the guidance document cost £10,000, with a further £10,995 for producing and distributing hard copies. The guidance is also available on the Department's website at www.doh.gov.uk/healthinequalities and has been placed in the Library.

  Health Care (Tamworth/Sutton Coldfield)
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average amount of money allocated to the health care of residents in the(a) Tamworth and (b) Sutton Coldfield constituencies was in the last 12 months. [84177]

  Mr. Lammy
  Primary care trusts commission health care for their populations. The primary care trusts for Tamworth and Sutton Coldfield constituencies are respectively Burntwood, Lichfield and Tamworth and North Birmingham.

  Health authorities share their recurrent revenue allocations between their primary care trusts in line with guidance issued by the Department. Primary care trust shares of 2002–03 health authority recurrent revenue

  899W
  allocations per head of population are £718 for Burntwood, Lichfield and Tamworth and £773 for North Birmingham.

  Horton Hospital, Epsom
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the Government has changed the price at which it is offering to sell land at Horton hospital in Epsom to local housing associations during the past two years. [84273]

  Mr. Lammy
  Horton hospital is one of five former mental hospitals in the Epsom area.

  A proportion of the land from these sites will be for affordable housing. The planning permission provides that sale of the affordable housing to housing associations will be at 40 per cent, of the open market value—as land values change, the sale price for affordable housing will also change.

  Hospital Hygiene
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the last hygiene spot check inspection in English hospitals took place; and if he will publish the findings. [83294]

  Mr. Lammy
  The NHS Plan announced that all hospitals would receive unannounced inspections of cleanliness by independent inspection teams. Since 2000 the patient environment action team (PEAT) programme has been undertaking inspections against a range of environmental criteria, including cleanliness. The PEAT visit is not a hygiene inspection.

  This is a continuous programme of inspection, which has seen a massive improvement in the standards seen by patients and visitors alike. A programme of visiting to mental health and learning disabilities sites is currently under way.

  The last inspection of acute and community hospitals was undertaken between February and May 2002 and the results of this exercise will be published in due course on the NHS Estates website.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what improvement has been made by hospitals which had previously been put on special measures as a result of their poor hygiene standards. [83295]

  Mr. Lammy
  The NHS Plan said that hospitals would receive unannounced inspections of cleanliness by independent teams.

  Since autumn 2000 these inspections have been undertaken by patient environment action teams (PEATs), who assess hospitals against a range of 18 criteria, including standards of cleanliness at ward level and in common areas.

  Since August 2001 PEATs have confirmed that there are no hospitals where overall standards are less than acceptable.

  However, there are some hospitals where, although overall acceptable levels have been achieved, we felt that there were grounds for additional support to be provided to ensure that standards are maintained and any shortfalls identified remedied.
  900W
  Following the most recent PEAT inspections, 52 hospitals were identified where such support has been deemed appropriate. NHS Estates advisers have been working closely with these hospitals, to ensure that remedial action is taken and appropriate systems put in place to ensure that the improved standards achieved are maintained.

  To date this action has resulted in 24 of the hospitals being removed from the list of those requiring additional support. We continue to work with the remaining 28 hospitals to ensure that the standards in these hospitals reach and remain at levels which patients expect and have a right to receive.

  Hospital Security
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures he is taking to increase hospital security. [82994]

  Mr. Lammy
  [holding answer 2 December 2002]: It is the responsibility of individual national health service trusts to ensure that an appropriate security strategy is in place to provide a safe and secure environment for patients, staff and visitors in NHS hospitals. The procedures to be put in place are decided at a local level as they depend very much on the design and physical layout of individual hospital sites.

  The NHS Security Manual is a practical guide to addressing the full range of security issues within health care organisations. It is currently being re-written.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has allocated funding to hospital trusts to be spent on increased security measures for staff and patients in hospitals. [83297]

  Mr. Lammy
  It is the responsibility of individual national health service trusts to ensure that an appropriate security strategy is in place to provide a safe and secure environment for patients, staff and visitors in NHS hospitals.

  Procedures to be put in place are made at a local level, as they depend very much on the design and physical layout of the individual hospital sites. Additional funding is being made available to the NHS as part of the average annual real terms increase of 7.4 per cent., across England over the years 2003–08. Trust management will decide what funding levels will be needed to meet their security needs.

  The NHS Security Manual is a practical guide to addressing the full range of security issues within health care organisations. It is currently being re-written.

  Hospital, Pease Pottage
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the timetable is for assessing the proposal to build a new hospital at Pease Pottage. [84134]

  Blears
  The appraisal of this option is still continuing. At this time I cannot give the right hon. Member a firm date for completion of this process.

  Hospitals (Hotel Charges)
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list hospitals which charge for(a) television services, (b) telephone access and (c) internet access. [83345]

  Mr. Lammy
  Major acute hospitals are introducing bedside television and telephones (Patient Power) under the NHS Plan. The introduction of these services is free to national health service trusts. Patients pay a charge for the services. 61 hospitals now have an operational patient power system and of these seven currently have internet access. The following list shows these hospitals.

  Addenbrooke's Hospital

  Basildon Hospital

  Bishop Auckland General Hospital

  Broadgreen Hospital

  Broomfield Hospital

  Buckland Hospital

  Cheltenham General Hospital

  Chesterfield and North Derbyshire Royal Hospital

  Christie Hospital

  Churchill Hospital

  Cumberland Infirmary

  Darlington Memorial Hospital

  Eastbourne District General Hospital

  Epsom General Hospital

  Fairfield General Hospital

  Frimley Park Hospital

  Good Hope Hospital

  Homerton Hospital

  Horton General Hospital

  Hull Royal Infirmary

  John Radcliffe Hospital

  Kent and Canterbury Hospital

  Kingston Hospital

  Leicester Royal Infirmary

  Luton and Dunstable Hospital

  Mayday University Hospital

  Norfolk and Norwich Hospital

  North Tyneside General Hospital

  Northwick Park Hospital

  Poole General Hospital

  Princess Anne Hospital

  Queen Alexandra Hospital (Redditch)

  Queen Elizabeth Hospital

  Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother Hospital

  Queens Medical Centre, Nottingham University Hospital

  Rotherham District General Hospital

  Royal Bolton Hospital

  Royal Bournemouth Hospital

  Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital (Wonford)

  Royal Free Hospital

  Royal Hampshire County Hospital

  Royal Liverpool University Hospital

  Royal Marsden Hospital (Site 2—Fulham Road)

  Royal Surrey County Hospital

  Salisbury District Hospital

  Southampton General Hospital

  Southport and Formby District General Hospital

  902W

  St. Helier Hospital

  St. James University Hospital

  Staffordshire General Hospital

  The Alexandra Hospital

  The City Hospital

  The Royal Oldham Hospital

  University Hospital Aintree

  University Hospital of North Durham (formerly Dryburn Hospital)

  Victoria Hospital—Blackpool

  Walton Centre for Neurology and Neurosurgery

  William Harvey Hospital

  Worcester Royal Infirmary (Ronkswood)

  Wycombe General Hospital

  Wythenshawe Hospital

  Note:

  Hospitals in italic provide internet access.

  International Recruitment
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which developing countries have offered warm support, as stated by a Department of Health spokesman on 26 November, for the Government's approach to ethical international recruitment. [84891]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 2 December 2002]: The following developing countries have offered their support for the Government's approach to ethical international recruitment:

  Barbados

  China

  Egypt

  Georgia

  India

  Indonesia

  Iran

  Jamaica

  Philippines

  South Africa.

  Liverpool Blood Centre
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the work of the Liverpool Blood Centre. [84032]

  Ms Blears
  In 1999, the Government made a commitment to develop and expand the Liverpool Blood Centre. A new building to house the Liverpool Blood Centre is currently under construction. The centre at Estuary Commerce Park in Speke, Garston will replace the existing premises adjacent to the Royal Liverpool University Hospital. Completion of the construction phase is expected by mid-October 2003, and occupation is anticipated in summer 2004.

  Almost all services currently carried out at the existing premises will transfer to the new centre. Those services that have to be carried out in a hospital environment will remain at the Royal Liverpool Hospital. The new Liverpool Blood Centre will also house, for the first time, the largest National Blood

  903W
  Service tissue banking facility in the United Kingdom. Research and development facilities at the new centre will support both tissue banking and tissue engineering.

  Mental Health
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made towards implementing NICE guidance on the use of atypical anti-psychotic medicines for schizophrenia; and if he will make a statement. [83807]

  Mr. Lammy
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham, (Tim Loughton) on 27 November 2002,Official Report, column 356W.

  Mixed Wards (Epsom Hospital)
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the timetable is for the complete phasing out of mixed wards at Epsom Hospital. [84272]

  Mr. Hutton
  Epsom and St. Helier is working towards the elimination of mixed sex wards in order to provide patients with appropriate levels of privacy and dignity while in hospital. The trust is currently undertaking works to refurbish Nightingale wards for older people, which will provide privacy and peace within a single-sex environment. The trust's programme of works extends until April 2004.

  Mumps Vaccines
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether it is his policy that the Medicines Control Agency should limit the maximum number of authorisations for imports of MMR SepVax (Mumps) doses; what the equivalent is in daily individual doses of the number of authorisations of MMR SepVax (Mumps) vaccines which the MCA is approving; and if he will make a statement on(a) the availability of MMR SepVax (Mumps) in relation to demand for vaccination and (b) the delays which customers are experiencing in obtaining supplies of MMR SepVax (Mumps) vaccines. [82704]

  Ms Blears
  Single mumps vaccines being prescribed and administered, as part of single measles, mumps and rubella vaccination programmes such as MMR SepVax, are unlicensed imported medicines. Medicines legislation allows a doctor or dentist to prescribe an unlicensed medicine to meet the special clinical needs of his individual patients, on his direct personal responsibility. Importers of all unlicensed medicines, who are licensed by the Medicines Control Agency (MCA), must notify the agency on each occasion they intend importing an unlicensed medicine and there is a legal restriction on the maximum quantity they may import per notification. The MCA can object to importation if it has safety concerns or if an equivalent licensed medicine is available. This applies to all imported unlicensed medicines; there is no policy of specifically restricting unlicensed single measles and mumps vaccines.

  The average numbers of notifications per month received by the MCA to import all brands of single mumps vaccine during the last three years were as follows.
  904W

  Year

  Doses

  2000

  69

  2001

  1,483

  2002

  3,014

  These are the numbers of doses notified to the MCA for importation and do not necessarily relate to the number of doses actually imported.

  The current shortage of unlicensed single mumps vaccine and delays in their reaching patients are believed to be due to:
  An international shortage of single mumps vaccine, resulting from the halting of production by a major supplier, combined with;
  Safety concerns about vaccines containing the Urabe and Leningrad-Zagreb strains of mumps virus;
  Efficacy concerns about vaccines containing the Rubini strain of mumps virus;
  The recent need to obtain further information on the safety and efficacy of another unlicensed single vaccine claiming to contain a Jeryl Lynn strain of mumps virus.

  NHS Clinical Compliance
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he is taking to monitor NHS clinical compliance with NICE recommendations. [82922]

  Mr. Lammy
  It is not feasible to monitor centrally every clinical decision for consistency with National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidance. Clinicians have to make independent clinical judgments, taking due account of NICE'S advice and the strength of evidence which lies behind it. They may depart from the advice if in their view the circumstances of the individual patient justify doing so, but they will be held accountable (through clinical governance arrangements) for their clinical decisions.

  NHS Dentists
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the ratio was of NHS general dental practitioners to population; and how many NHS general dental practitioners there were in(a) Chesham and Amersham and (b) Buckinghamshire in each year since 1 January 1996. [85135]

  Mr. Lammy
  [holding answer 3 December 2002]: The number of general dental service (GDS) practitioners in Buckinghamshire health authority (HA) area at 30 September and the ratio of GDS practitioners per 100,000 population is shown in the table for the years 1996 to 2001.

  The number of GDS dentists and ratio of dentists per population in Chesham and Amersham are not centrally available.

  The total number of GDS dentists covers principals on a HA list, their assistants and vocational dental practitioners.
  905W

  General dental services: Number1 of GDS dentists at 30 September and ratio of GDS practitioners per 100,000 population2, 1996 to 2001—Buckinghamshire health authority.

  Number of dentists

  Year

  At 30 September

  Per 100,000 population

  1996

  238

  35.4

  1997

  265

  39.1

  1998

  260

  38.1

  1999

  281

  40.8

  2000

  272

  39.3

  2001

  294

  42.8

  1 Dentists are principals on a HA list, assistants and vocational dental practitioners.

  2 ONS 1996 to 2000 mid year population estimates based on the 1991 census. ONS 2001 mid year population estimate is based on 2001 census; using a population estimate based on 1991 census would change the 2001 dentists per 100,000 population figure to 42.0.

  NHS Estate
  Sir Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will publish the aggregated results of the Estate Return Information Collection annual condition survey for 2000–01 and 2001–02; for what reason publication has been delayed; and if he will publish results of future ERIC surveys within six months of the survey's completion. [83800]

  Mr. Lammy
  Since 2000, estate return information collection (ERIC) data can be entered on line, which provides trusts with 'real time' calculations of their performance indicator information together with comparative benchmarking data from trusts of the same type.

  A detailed analysis of performance data extracted from the ERIC is currently being undertaken with the view to publishing a hard copy report next year that will cover the three year period, 1999–2000 to 2001–02.

  NHS Land
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the value of land with development potential held by the NHS, broken down(a) by NHS trust and (b) by strategic health authority region. [82971]

  Mr. Lammy
  No such assessment has been centrally made.

  National health service trusts are responsible for the management and disposal of their estate. In preparing their estate strategies, NHS trusts will have regard to the current and future operational needs and will consider potential value for alternative uses.

  The spending review identifies the following receipts by NHS trusts from the sale of surplus land and buildings.

  £ million

  Year

  Receipts

  2002–03

  55

  2003–04

  158

  NHS Special Trustees
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what requirement there is on the special trustees of each of the London teaching hospitals to consider the health needs of(a) London as a whole and (b) the area of London the hospital services, when making decisions as to the use of assets and income under their control; [83130]

  (2) if he will introduce an equalisation scheme for the use of assets and income held by NHS special trustees; [83129]

  (3) if he will reform the system of special trustees operating in NHS hospitals to increase accountability for decisions on spending; and if he will make a statement; [83128]

  (4) if he will list the special trustees for each of the London (a) non-teaching NHS acute trusts and (b) teaching hospitals; how they are accountable for decisions; how they are appointed; what total value of (i) capital investments, (ii) other capital assets, and (iii) income they supervise; what projects over £100,000 they have financed in each of the last three years; what projects they intend to fund over £100,000 in the next three years; and if he will make a statement. [83127]

  Mr. Lammy
  Special trustees hold and administer charity funds in accordance with trust and charity law, which requires them to comply with the trusts on which they are held. They are regulated in England and Wales by the Charity Commission and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health quite properly does not have powers to amend these trusts. Decisions about how funds are to be applied rest with the trustees, who are accountable to the Charity Commission. Special trustees are only able to hold funds mainly or wholly for the hospitals for which they are appointed.

  NHS Trusts (Deficits)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS trusts ran financial deficits; and what the aggregate amount of the deficits was, in financial year 2001–02. [84591]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 2 December 2002]: 50 national health services trusts reported an income and expenditure account deficit in their 2001–02 annual accounts. These 50 deficits aggregate to £69,328,000.

  NICE
  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health by what criteria members of the National Institute of Clinical Excellence's Citizens' Council are selected; and how many members of the National Institute of Clinical Excellence's Citizens' Council are over(a) 60, (b) 70 and (c) 75 years. [83716]

  Mr. Lammy
  The recruitment to the citizens' council was carried out by an independent specialist company. This company advertised for applicants, then used a combination of random selection and telephone interviews, while also ensuring that the final council is
  907W
  representative of all age groups, social circumstances, ethnic backgrounds, regional differences and abilities in order to provide a cross section of opinion.

  Six members of the citizens council are aged over 60 years, one is aged over 70 years and one is over 75 years.

  Operating Theatres
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which was the first primary care based accredited operating theatre in the country. [83566]

  Mr. Lammy
  This information is not held or collected centrally.

  Organ Donation
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to promote voluntary organ donations and the carrying of donor cards. [84173]

  Mr. Lammy
  We are taking specific action to increase the number of donors available by investing in initiatives to raise public awareness and the benefits of organ transplantation, particularly in the ethnic populations where there may be a greater need for transplantation, implementing measures to ensure that potential donors are identified and that we increase the use of both living and non-heartbeating donation.

  Nearly £4 million is being invested in the national health service through UK Transplant to boost the number of life-saving organ transplants. This is funding 35 donor liaison schemes to improve procedures for identifying possible organ donors and the steps to take, so that relatives are approached and given the opportunity to decide about donation. It is also supporting 25 living donation programmes, 10 additional transplant coordinators and six non-heartbeating donor programmes.

  Overseas Nurses Advice Line
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many dedicated teams of staff with health careers expertise are working on the NHS overseas nurses advice line. [84896]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 2 December 2002]: There is a dedicated team of staff with health careers expertise who are able to offer advice on supervised practice and national health service careers to nurses who ring the NHS overseas nurses advice line.

  Oviedo Convention
  Jim Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his policy is on signing the Council of Europe Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Biomedicine (Oviedo Convention) [84612]

  Ms Blears
  The Convention covers a wide range of complex ethical and legal issues, many of which have been, and remain, actively under debate in the United Kingdom over recent years. The Government wish to consider the conclusions of these debates before reaching a final view on signature and ratification of the Convention.

  Pain Management
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent measures he has taken to ensure that local prescribing guidelines are in place governing the prescription of powerful pain relieving and sedative medicines throughout the NHS. [80115]

  Mr. Lammy
  Following the devolution of power to locally-run services, it is the role of primary care trusts (PCTs) to develop such local prescribing guidelines to suit their needs in conjunction with appropriate local clinicians. Local treatment guidelines, including those for powerful pain relieving and sedative medicines, should be in place and overseen by local drug and therapeutics committees.

  We are supporting good local prescribing in a number of ways. The systems for clinical and cost effective use of medicines are covered by the Department's medicines management performance management framework. This framework focuses on secondary care and has been developed recently to strengthen working links with PCTs. We have also commissioned the National Prescribing Centre to produce guidance on good practice in managing controlled drug issues in primary care in the national health service. It is hoped to publish the guide in spring 2003. In addition, we are developing a guide, for use by PCTs and out-of-hours primary care providers, which will contain a minimum list of drugs that patients should be able to access from all such providers during evenings, weekends and bank holidays.

  Perioperative Deaths
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the finding by the National Confidential Inquiry into Perioperative Deaths on the impact on patient care in the NHS the availability and maintenance of medical records; and what measures he plans to take to address this issue. [83454]

  Mr. Lammy
  The Department is aware of problems with paper based medical records including their lack of availability, legibility, difficulty in finding particular items of information, limited life-span and general lack of structure in them.

  The answer to these problems and others concerning the use of this type of record is to replace them with electronic ones.

  The delivery of electronic records is now being taken forward as part of the integrated care record service (ICRS), in implementing the national strategic programme, "Delivering 21st Century IT Support for the NHS".

  Prescriptions (Anti-malarial Drugs)
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many prescriptions were issued for anti-malarial drugs in the UK in 2001; and how many were NHS prescriptions. [85154]
  909W
  Mr. Lammy
  In 2001, 2,419,400 national health service prescriptions for anti-malarial drugs were dispensed in the community in England. We do not hold information on hospital or private prescriptions, or for the other United Kingdom administrations.

  Public Health Laboratories
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment has been made of how the outputs of Public Health Laboratory Service Groups of laboratories will be sustained from April 2003. [84252]

  Ms Blears
  I expect the outputs of those public health laboratory service laboratories that are transferring to national health service trusts to be sustained at the present level. They are being transferred with the resources necessary to maintain their outputs and the new posts of regional public health microbiologists will be positioned to facilitate their public health output.

  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what cost-benefit analysis has been carried out by his Department into laboratory transfers from the(a) Public Health Laboratory Service, (b) National Radiological Protection Board, (c) Centre for Applied Microbiology Research and (d) National Focus for Chemical Incidents to a Health Protection Agency. [84251]

  Ms Blears
  The bodies listed are all to be subsumed into the proposed Health Protection Agency in their entirety, after the public health laboratory service (PHLS) has transferred to national health service trusts some 30 of its laboratories that carry out general clinical diagnostic microbiology. These are the only laboratory transfers involved in creating the proposed Health Protection Agency.

  The benefits of transferring laboratories of the PHLS to NHS trusts include:
  They are essential to create a comprehensive, coherent surveillance system, as described in the Chief Medical Officer's strategy "Getting Ahead of the Curve".
  They will broaden the number of clinical staff required to report the occurrence of infectious diseases.
  They will place a duty of care on all microbiology laboratories to report for public health surveillance purposes.
  Generally, the transfers will bring public health activities within the mainstream of the NHS.

  The creation of the Health Protection Agency is to be carried out at no overall cost.

  Readmissions
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of patients have been re-admitted to hospital within two months of their discharge, in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [84232]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 2 December 2002]: The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Restaurant Menus
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations he has received requesting legislation to require restaurants to list the calorie content of food and drink on the menus. [84181]

  Ms Blears
  None, and neither the Government nor the Food Standards Agency has any plans to introduce legislation requiring the calorie content of food and drink to be given on menus.

  Social Service Care
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) children, (b) older people, (c) people aged 16–59 years with learning difficulties and (d) others, received social service care in (i) Northumberland, (ii) North Yorkshire, (iii) Cumbria, (iv) Herefordshire, (v) Shropshire, (vi) Rutland, (vii) Devon, (viii) Lincolnshire, (ix) East Riding of Yorkshire, (x) Wiltshire, (xi) Wandsworth, (xii) Southwark, (xiii) Camden, (xiv) Tower Hamlets, (xv) Hackney, (xvi) Lambeth, (xvii) Hammersmith and Fulham, (xviii) Westminster, (xix) Islington and (xx) Kensington and Chelsea, in 2001–02. [84160]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 2 December 2002]: The latest data for children can be found in the table B of the publication Children in Need in England: Results of a survey of activity and expenditure as reported by Local Authority Social Services' Children and Families Teams for a survey week in September/October 2001: Local Authority Tables', a copy of which will be placed in the Library. This publication is available on the Department's website at http://www.doh.gov.uk/cin/cin2001.htm.

  Local authority information for adults is available by client group for the age groups 18–64 and 65 or over from table P1.1 of the "Community Care Statistics 2000–01: Referrals, Assessments and Packages of Care (RAP) for adults". This publication is available on the Department's website at http://www.doh.gov.uk/public/comcare2001/ccstats2001.htm. This omits authorities which did not provide information for the 2000–01 RAP census. National data for 2001–02 will be published in 2003.

  Suicide
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many deaths from suicide were recorded of(a) doctors and (b) nurses, in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available [84971]

  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.

  Letter from Len Cook to Dr. Evan Harris, dated 4 December 2002:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question asking how many deaths were recorded of (a) doctors and (b) nurses, in each of the last ten years for which figures are available. (84971)

  911W
  Figures requested for each year from 1992 to 2001 are given in the table below. Occupations are coded by ONS using the Standard Occupational Classification. For deaths to 2000, the version first published in 1990 (SOC 90) was used. A revised and updated classification, SOC 2000, was used to code deaths for 2001 and is in current use. Figures for 2001 are therefore not comparable with those for earlier years.

  Number of deaths from suicide and injury undetermined whether accidentally or purposefully inflicted1, for doctors and nurses2, England and Wales, 1992 to 20013

  Year

  Doctors

  Nurses

  1992

  18

  56

  1993

  18

  52

  1994

  25

  64

  1995

  13

  61

  1996

  13

  54

  1997

  16

  55

  1998

  17

  56

  1999

  17

  56

  2000

  22

  74

  2001

  21

  37

  1 Cause of death defined using the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (1CD-9) codes E950–E959 and E980–E989 excluding E988.8 for the years 1992 to 2000, and, for the year 2001, the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (1CD-10) codes X60–X84 and Y10–Y34 excluding Y33.9 where the Coroner's verdict was pending.

  2 Last gainful occupation of the deceased for persons aged 16 to 74. For years 1992 to 2000 occupations defined using SOC 90 classification codes 220 (medical practitioners) and 340 (nurses). For 2001 occupations defined using SOC 2000 classification codes 2211 (medical practitioners) and 3211 (nurses).

  3 Figures are for deaths registered in 1992 and for deaths occurring in each calendar year from 1993 to 2001.

  Sustainable Development
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health 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. [83501]

  Mr. Lammy
  The Department contributes fully to the Government's sustainable development strategy and its policies are an integral part of, and fully compatible with, the aims of sustainable development.

  The Department's stated overall purpose is to contribute to the Government's objectives of building a fair, inclusive and economically thriving society which includes improving and protecting the health and social well being of the people of England.

  We are currently reviewing our existing sustainable development strategy and will be consulting the sustainable development commission as part of this process. In revising our strategy we will have regard to the discussions at the world summit on sustainable development (WSSD). We have recently published a new Department of Health sustainable development web page, which refers to the important outcomes of WSSD, at www.doh.qov.uk/sustainabledevelopment/index.htm.

  Voluntary Organisations
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which voluntary organisations and charities he and his 912W
  departmental Ministers expect to meet during December; and what issues they expect to discuss. [84038]

  Mr. Lammy
  Ministers and civil servants have meetings with a wide range of organisations and individuals as part of the process of policy development and analysis. As with previous Administrations, it is not this Government's practice to provide details of all such meetings. All such contacts are conducted in accordance with the Ministerial Code, the Civil Service Code and Guidance for Civil Servants: Contacts with Lobbyists.

  Walsgrave Hospital
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people were on waiting lists at Walsgrave Hospital in each month over the last three years. [84828]

  Mr. Lammy
  The information on in-patient day case waiting lists at the University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust is shown in the table.

  In-patient/day case waiting list at month end

  Number

  1999–2000

  April 1999

  6,988

  May 1999

  7,155

  June 1999

  7,535

  July 1999

  7,533

  August 1999

  7,600

  September 1999

  7,685

  October 1999

  7,609

  November 1999

  7,363

  December 1999

  7,405

  January 2000

  7,343

  February 2000

  6,470

  March 2000

  6,099

  2000–01

  April 2000

  5,834

  May 2000

  5,969

  June 2000

  6,100

  July 2000

  6,030

  August 2000

  5,729

  September 2000

  5,648

  October 2000

  5,676

  November 2000

  5,956

  December 2000

  6,070

  January 2001

  6,442

  February 2001

  6,287

  March 2001

  5,943

  2001–02

  April 2001

  6,358

  May 2001

  6,525

  June 2001

  6,651

  July 2001

  6,374

  August 2001

  6,498

  September 2001

  6,414

  October 2001

  6,533

  November 2001

  6,700

  December 2001

  6,729

  January 2002

  7,261

  February 2002

  7,242

  March 2002

  7,067

  913W

  In-patient/day case waiting list at month end

  Number

  2002–03

  April 2002

  7,150

  May 2002

  7,357

  June 2002

  7,408

  July 2002

  7,623

  August 2002

  7,775

  September 2002

  7,846

  October 2002

  9,114

  Source:

  Trust KH07ms Monthly Waiting List Returns.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of operations were cancelled shortly before they were due to be performed in the Walsgrave Hospital in the last year for which figures are available; and how many of these cancellations were due to a lack of beds. [84829]

  Mr. Lammy
  The number of last minute cancellations for non-clinical reasons at the University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire National Health Service Trust in the quarter to June 2002 was 133. As a proportion of activity, finished first consultant episodes, this was 1.5 percent.

  Information on the reasons for these non-clinical cancellations is not available.

  Source:

  University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many consultants were employed at Walsgrave Hospital in each of the last three years. [84830]

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

  Consultants in University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust 1999–2002

  Consultants

  1999

  162

  2000

  168

  2001

  185

  2002

  195

  Note:

  Data as at 30 September each year.

  Source:

  Department of Health Medical and Dental Workforce Census.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many of the consultants at Walsgrave Hospital have in the last 12 months been appointed. [84946]

  Mr. Lammy
  Since 1 April 2002, nine consultants have been appointed to the University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire National Health Service Trust—six as replacements and three in newly created posts.

  Source:

  University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust

CABINET OFFICE

  E-Envoy
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many consultants were used and employed by the e-Envoy in(a) 1999–2000, (b) 2000–01 and (c) 2001–02; and what they cost in each year. [85067]

  Mr. Alexander
  The Office of the e-Envoy's expenditure on consultancy projects was £5,046,618 in 1999–2000, £3,543,147 in 2000–01 and £4,602,142 in 2001–02. No information is available on the number of staff employed by the consulting firms in delivering these projects.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Benefit Take-up
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the report of the National Audit Office on the failure of pensioners to claim their entitled benefits. [83663]

  Mr. McCartney
  The National Audit Office Report entitled "Tackling pensioner poverty: Encouraging take-up of entitlements", recognises the good progress the Department has made in helping pensioners to take up their entitlements. The Government are committed to tackling pensioner poverty.

  We have already made substantial progress in taking forward the NAO recommendations, and welcome the contribution the NAO have made to informing the ongoing development of take-up strategies and the Pension Service more generally. Our strategies focus on overcoming the barriers to take up and one of our key mechanisms for driving take up is the Pension Service, a new customer focused organisation dedicated to the needs of pensioners. This provides a major opportunity to further enhance the quality of our customer service by actively promoting take up. In addition to processing pension entitlements, staff will be trained to identify possible entitlement to other benefits such as housing benefit and attendance allowance. Local service staff in particular will have a significant role in encouraging take up in local communities, and work in partnership with organisations that deal with older people, as the NAO proposes.

  We have introduced a range of initiatives designed to encourage take up activity among pensioners: for the minimum income guarantee (MIG) we have undertaken a national advertising campaign, which resulted in almost an additional 140,000 claims with an average gain of £20 per week; reduced the claim form from 40 to 10 pages; introduced a MIG specific leaflet, and we are identifying potential beneficiaries through key events, such as claiming retirement pension.

  A key priority, for both Government and the Pension Service is the successful take up of the new pension credit which will enhance and replace the MIG. It has been specifically designed to be easy for pensioners to claim and to be less intrusive. The weekly means test will be abolished for the over 65s and be replaced by a

  915W
  statement of their circumstances every five years. Capital rules will be relaxed and the upper capital limit abolished.

  In addition we have taken this opportunity to align the eligibility rules for housing benefit and council tax benefit with pension credit. DWP staff can now verify information on behalf of the local authority and we will be introducing legislation shortly that will enable local authority staff to do the same for DWP. This means pensioners will in time only need to report their changes in circumstances to one organisation (unless tenancy or dependant related). We are also removing the need for pensioners to re-claim housing benefit every 12 months. We will cut out duplicate claim forms so from April 2003, it will be necessary to complete just one housing and council tax benefit form. These changes are a significant step to simplifying the process and we are examining the scope for introducing further simplifications over the next few years.

  Our take up plan for pension credit is extensive and makes use of a range of channels. We will transfer existing MIG recipients to pension credit, ready for payments to be made from October 2003; write to all pensioners not already receiving MIG by June 2004 to alert them to possible pension credit entitlement, supported by a national publicity campaign; work with local partners to help support the communications to pensioners, and tailor marketing and communications activity accordingly. We are setting a demanding PSA target to be paying pension credit to at least 3 million pensioner households by 2006.

  With attendance allowance and disability living allowance (AA/DLA), we are trialling new claim forms to significantly improve the way claims are made. Both claim forms were reduced from 44 pages to 34 in 2001 and we are currently trialling a shorter attendance allowance 16 page form. We are also developing a new claiming process for DLA for working age customers. First tests of the new claim pack started on 26 November. The claim form will be personalised and be the minimum size necessary for that individual's needs. If successful this approach will be extended to pensioners.

  We have accepted the NAO's recommendations for making further progress. This demonstrates the importance that the Department attaches to tackling pensioner poverty.

  Table 1—pension entitlement assuming the fund remains in equities in all years

  Year started contributing

  Retire at end of year

  Years of contribution

  Lump sum built up (cash terms) (£)

  Lump sum in 2000 earnings terms (£)

  Annuity rate in last year of contribution (percentage)

  Pension at retirement (nominal terms, weekly) (£)

  Pension at retirement (2001 earnings terms, weekly) (£)

  1956

  1986

  31

  17,681

  38,694

  14.1

  48

  105

  1957

  1987

  31

  21,066

  42,786

  14.0

  57

  115

  1958

  1988

  31

  23,845

  44,503

  13.7

  63

  117

  1959

  1989

  31

  25,578

  43,792

  14.0

  69

  118

  1960

  1990

  31

  27,866

  43,460

  15.2

  82

  127

  1961

  1991

  31

  34,243

  49,608

  14.6

  96

  139

  1962

  1992

  31

  41,169

  56,297

  13.2

  105

  143

  1963

  1993

  31

  53,666

  71,268

  11.7

  121

  161

  1964

  1994

  31

  47,497

  60,865

  11.6

  106

  135

  1965

  1995

  31

  57,034

  70,893

  11.3

  124

  154

  1966

  1996

  31

  60,718

  72,850

  11.0

  129

  154

  Adult Disadvantage
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will re-calculate the figures in the table in the answer of 27 June 2002,Official Report, column 1050W, assuming (a) that the fund remains in equities until the annuity is purchased and including also figures assuming retirement on 31 December 2001 and 30 September 2002, (b) retirement on (i) 31 December 2001 and (ii) 30 September 2002 and (c) that the fund remains in equities until five years before the annuity is purchased when half is satisfied into gilts and the remainder remains in equities until retirement, including figures assuming retirement on 31 December 2001 and 30 September 2002 [83135]

  Mr. McCartney
  The available information, is in the tables. Table 2, includes the data underlying the graph on page 19 of 'Modernising Annuities' published by Inland Revenue and the Department for Work and Pensions in February 2001.

  It is not possible to provide information, where the date of retirement is after December 2001. This is due to data and model restrictions.

  Although a stylised model, it is the data in the second table that we believe best characterises the investment strategy of many pension funds.

  Investors will also be interested in expected pension income throughout their retirement and not just the income in the first year. The information does not give an indication of how this first figure may have increased for successive cohorts of pensioners due to increased life expectancy.

  The following assumptions have been made.
  A person contributes to a pension fund for 31 years;
  Contributions are made at 10 per cent, of gross earnings;
  Earnings in each year are £20,000 in 2000 earnings terms. The earnings growth index was supplied by the Office for National Statistics;
  50 per cent, of each year's contributions are made at the start of each year and 50 per cent, at the end of each year;
  The return on equities is in line with the FTSE 30. The same figures were used as PQ61084 to enable consistency with that answer;
  The return on gilts is in line with the Barclays Capital Total Return Index. The same figures were used as PQ61084 to enable consistency with that answer;
  A 1 per cent, fee is deducted at the end of each year
  Upon retirement on 31 December of the given year, an annuity is purchased at the prevailing rate in that year, and as indicated in the tables. The source of this Annuity Direct.
  917W

  Table 1—pension entitlement assuming the fund remains in equities in all years

  Year started contributing

  Retire at end of year

  Years of contribution

  Lump sum built up (cash terms) (£)

  Lump sum in 2000 earnings terms (£)

  Annuity rate in last year of contribution (percentage)

  Pension at retirement (nominal terms, weekly) (£)

  Pension at retirement (2001 earnings terms, weekly) (£)

  1967

  1997

  31

  71,040

  81,762

  10.4

  141

  163

  1968

  1998

  31

  85,598

  93,743

  9.4

  155

  169

  1969

  1999

  31

  80,168

  83,738

  8.9

  138

  144

  1970

  2000

  31

  85,438

  85,438

  9.1

  149

  149

  1971

  2001

  31

  83,928

  80,340

  8.9

  143

  137

  Table 2—pension entitlement assuming the fund switches from equities to gilts over the last 10years of growth. An extra 10 per cent, is invested in gilts in each successive year

  Year started contributing

  Retire at end of year

  Years of contribution

  Lump sum built up (cash terms) (£)

  Lump sum in 2000 earnings terms (£)

  Annuity rate in last year of contribution (percentage)

  Pension at retirement (nominal terms, weekly) (£)

  Pension at retirement (2001 earnings terms, weekly) (£)

  1956

  1986

  31

  19,209

  42,037

  14.1

  52

  114

  1957

  1987

  31

  20,987

  42,625

  14.0

  56

  115

  1958

  1988

  31

  21,803

  40,693

  13.7

  57

  107

  1959

  1989

  31

  26,910

  46,074

  14.0

  72

  124

  1960

  1990

  31

  28,666

  44,707

  15.2

  84

  131

  1961

  1991

  31

  35,404

  51,291

  14.6

  99

  144

  1962

  1992

  31

  40,730

  55,695

  13.2

  104

  142

  1963

  1993

  31

  46,840

  62,203

  11.7

  106

  140

  1964

  1994

  31

  49,102

  62,921

  11.6

  109

  140

  1965

  1995

  31

  53,289

  66,238

  11.3

  116

  144

  1966

  1996

  31

  56,810

  68,161

  11.0

  120

  145

  1967

  1997

  31

  61,245

  70,488

  10.4

  122

  140

  1968

  1998

  31

  71,329

  78,116

  9.4

  129

  141

  1969

  1999

  31

  79,658

  83,206

  8.4

  137

  143

  1970

  2000

  31

  75,946

  75,946

  9.1

  133

  133

  1971

  2001

  31

  72,927

  69,810

  8.9

  124

  119

  Table 3—pension entitlement assuming that 50 per cent, of the fund is invested in gilts in each of the last five years of growth

  Year started contributing

  Retire at end of year

  Years of contribution

  Lump sum built up (cash terms) (£)

  Lump sum in 2000 earnings terms (£)

  Annuity rate in last year of contribution (percentage)

  Pension at retirement (nominal terms, weekly) (£)

  Pension at retirement (2001 earnings terms, weekly) (£)

  1956

  1986

  31

  20,109

  44,007

  14.1

  54

  119

  1957

  1987

  31

  25,475

  51,741

  14.0

  68

  139

  1958

  1988

  31

  23,487

  43,835

  13.7

  62

  116

  1959

  1989

  31

  29,432

  50,391

  14.0

  79

  136

  1960

  1990

  31

  29,460

  45,946

  15.2

  86

  135

  1961

  1991

  31

  33,095

  47,946

  14.6

  93

  135

  1962

  1992

  31

  34,374

  47,005

  13.2

  87

  120

  1963

  1993

  31

  41,056

  54,521

  11.7

  92

  123

  1964

  1994

  31

  44,523

  57,054

  11.6

  99

  127

  1965

  1995

  31

  46,351

  57,614

  11.3

  101

  126

  1966

  1996

  31

  52,045

  62,444

  11.0

  110

  132

  1967

  1997

  31

  57,518

  66,199

  10.4

  114

  132

  1968

  1998

  31

  67,337

  73,745

  9.4

  122

  133

  1969

  1999

  31

  74,250

  77,556

  8.9

  128

  133

  1970

  2000

  31

  69,928

  69,928

  9.1

  122

  122

  1971

  2001

  31

  61,342

  58,720

  8.9

  105

  100

  Belgium (Employment)
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of impediments to employment faced by British workers in Belgium. [84575]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding answer 2 December 2002]: We are not aware of any specific impediments which face British workers in Belgium. The UK embassy produces information materials for UK nationals working in Belgium.

  Employers' Liability Insurance
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will hold an inquiry into the operation of employers' liability insurance; and if he will make a statement. [82829]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding answer 25 November 2002]: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in his statement on the pre-Budget report on 27 November that, in response to concerns about rising insurance costs, the Department

  919W
  for Work and Pensions will lead a formal review of the operation of employers' liability insurance.

  Switzerland (Employment)
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what assessment he has made of the effect of the freedom of establishment treaty between Switzerland and the EU on employment opportunities for British workers in Switzerland; [84577]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the barriers to employment faced by UK workers in Switzerland [84578]
  920W
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding answer 2 December 2002]: The freedom of movement and employment of UK workers in Switzerland is governed by an agreement between the European Community and its member states, and the Swiss Confederation which came into force on 1 June 2002, with final implementation in 2007.

  The agreement accords UK workers a right of entry, residence and access to work as employed persons or the right to establish themselves on a self-employed basis.

  Given the short period of time since it came into force, no assessment has been made of the effect of the agreement.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  British-Irish Council Summit
  The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. John Prescott)
  The British-Irish Council's fourth summit was held in New Lanark on 22 November. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House led the UK delegation on my behalf, as I was unable to attend due to the current fire dispute. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and my right hon. Friends the Financial Secretary to the Treasury and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Northern Ireland Office were also members of the UK delegation.

  The Council noted with regret the suspension of the Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive and looked forward to the restoration of the devolved institutions in Northern Ireland, established under the Agreement, as soon as possible in advance of the scheduled elections.

  The main issue for discussion was Social Inclusion, with a particular focus on Financial Inclusion, and the Council agreed a programme to take forward joint working in this area. I have placed a copy of the Council's communique in the Libraries of the House.

  COMMUNIQUÉ
  The British-Irish Council established under the Agreement reached in Belfast on Good Friday 1998 held its fourth Summit meeting today in New Lanark, Scotland. The meeting was chaired by the First Minister the Rt Hon Jack McConnell MSP.
  The Irish and British Governments were represented by the Taoiseach, Mr Bertie Ahern TD and the President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons, the Rt Hon Robin Cook MP respectively
  The Welsh Assembly Government was represented by the Rt Hon Rhodri Morgan AM, First Minister.
  The Isle of Man was represented by the Hon Richard Corkill MHK, Chief Minister of the Isle of Man Government, Guernsey was represented by Deputy Laurie Morgan, President, States of Guernsey Advisory and Finance Committee and Jersey was represented by Senator Pierre Horsfall OBE, President of the States of Jersey Policy & Resources Committee.
  A full list of delegation members is attached.
  The British-Irish Council is a forum for its Members to exchange information, discuss, consult and endeavour to reach agreement on co-operation on matters of mutual interest within the respective competencies.
  The Council noted with regret the suspension of the Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive and looks forward to the restoration of the devolved institutions in Northern Ireland, established under the Agreement, as soon as possible in advance of the scheduled elections.
  Social Inclusion
  The main focus of today's meeting was the issue of Social Inclusion and, in particular, Financial Inclusion, on which the Scottish Executive and the Welsh Assembly Government take the lead within the BIC. The Council recognised that the problems of
  76WS
  social and financial exclusion affect communities throughout all BIC Administrations and the meeting highlighted the range of strategies that Members are working on to combat these problems. Members reiterated their commitment to promoting social inclusion across the Member Administrations of the Council.
  In order to address the challenges in this important area, the Council agreed that future work on Financial Inclusion will include promoting best practice by creating opportunities for practitioners and policy makers to share ideas and information on aspects of financial inclusion. This work would include the identification and promotion of practical financial inclusion measures at the community level, including, for example, the use of credit unions. Members agreed that there should be greater exchanges on promoting access to appropriate financial products and encouraging savings.
  In addition, the Council agreed that the promotion of financial literacy is an essential element in tackling financial exclusion. In order to promote best practice, Members agreed to exchange information on the most effective methods of imparting basic skills and budgetary advice. Given the importance of the role played by intermediary organisations across the BIC, including those based in the community, the Council agreed that considerable benefit could be derived from the exchange of experience among members on how such organisations could best be supported.
  The Council also noted that the Scottish Executive and Welsh Assembly Government hosted a conference on Financial Inclusion for practitioners and policy-makers in September of this year in Glasgow as part of preparatory work for this Summit.
  Following the discussion on Social inclusion, the Council was updated on work being undertaken in other British-Irish Council areas by relevant Administrations.
  Drugs
  Ireland is the lead Administration within the Council on the Misuse of Drugs. Since the last Summit in June, a number of events have taken place including a seminar on the UK's Positive Futures initiative, which provides sporting programmes for youngsters at risk, and a conference on drug and alcohol strategies which took place in the Isle of Man. Following the successful conference on the exchange of information on Assets Confiscation in Guernsey in May of this year, a second conference on the issue is to take place in the near future. Scotland and Ireland are scheduled to host a seminar on education, training and employment opportunities for recovering drug misusers later this year. A further Ministerial meeting in Dublin is scheduled to take place in February 2003.
  Environment
  The UK is the lead Administration on the environment. Work has continued on waste management, climate change, Sellafield and radioactive waste. Since the June summit, the Waste Management Working Group has met to discuss a range of issues, share experience, exchange ideas and identify scope for co-operation. The sub-group on Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation met as part of their continuing exchange of information and experience. Technical work on the development of the new climate change scenarios covering all BIC members is underway. A public awareness seminar on the matter is scheduled to take place in November.
  The UK Government will host a further meeting of Environment Ministers in the near future.
  Transport
  Northern Ireland is the lead Administration on Transport. Work on the initial priority areas identified by Ministers in Belfast in December 2000 is continuing. On integrated transport, the group is coordinating work looking at transport links between BIC Administrations, approaches to the development and implementation of environmentally sustainable transport policies and the integration of land use as well as transport policy and practice. The issues of the use of Public Private Partnerships in

  77WS
  relation to transport infrastructure; co-operation on road safety issues and regional air links, of particular concern to a number of Members are also under consideration.
  Knowledge Economy
  The issue of the Knowledge Economy, on which Jersey is the lead Administration, was the main item on the agenda at the last BIC Summit in June 2002
  Since then, officials have met to continue the development of the work mandated by the Council, focussing on broadband provision, the switchover to Digital TV and a range of internet access issues, including physical access to equipment and services, encouragement of public use of technology, and the skills and learning issues that might inhibit such practice. As proposed at the Jersey summit, a seminar on research issues, which allowed Members the opportunity to exchange information on matters of mutual interest was held earlier this month
  Health: The Application of Telemedicine
  The Isle of Man is the lead Administration on the application of Telemedicine and e-health. Officials have met on a number of occasions to share information on telemedicine initiatives in each Administration and discuss some of the issues encountered in getting e-health accepted in routine healthcare. There have also been BIC study visits and presentations on telemedicine facilities in Scotland and Wales.
  The focus of the work in this area is on how Telemedicine and e-health projects can be most appropriately implemented, and on identifying successful projects and methodologies which it is hoped would prove of interest within BIC Administrations.
  Tourism
  Guernsey has taken the lead on tourism within the BIC. Officials have met on a number of occasions to discuss how best to take forward work in this area. The group is focusing on exploring issues of common interest and mutual benefit to all Administrations. Work to date has concentrated on methodologies for data collection within BIC Administrations. The environment and tourism, transport access, and staff training and recruitment issues, including the opportunities for exchange schemes, also form part of the work programme for the Group
  Minority and Lesser-Used Languages
  Further to the Council's agreement last BIC Summit meeting in June 2002 that the Welsh Assembly Government should take the lead on Minority and Lesser-Used Languages, a preparatory meeting of officials is due to take place shortly to discuss how to take work forward in this area
  Future Summit Meetings.
  The Council noted that Northern Ireland and Wales are scheduled to host summits in 2003

  British-Irish Council

  22 November 2002

  www.British-IrishCouncil.org

  List of Delegates

  SCOTLAND

  First Minister

  The Rt Hon Jack McConnell MSP

  Minister for Social Justice

  Margaret Curran MSP

  Permanent Secretary, Scottish Executive

  Sir Muir Russell, KCB

  IRISH GOVERNMENT

  Taoiseach

  Bertie Ahern TD

  Minister for Social and Family Affairs

  Mary Coughlan TD

  Minister of State at the Department of Finance with special responsibility for the Office of Public Works

  Tom Parlon TD

  BRITISH GOVERNMENT

  President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons

  The Rt Hon Robin Cook MP

  Secretary of State for Northern Ireland

  The Rt Hon Paul Murphy MP

  Financial Secretary to the Treasury

  Ruth Kelly MP

  Parliamentary Under Secretary of State at the Northern Ireland Office

  Des Browne MP

  WELSH ASSEMBLY GOVERNMENT

  First Minister

  The Rt. Hon Rhodri Morgan AM

  Deputy First Minister

  Michael German, OBE AM

  Minister for Finance, Local Government & Communities

  Edwina Hart MBE AM

  JERSEY

  President of the Policy and Resources Committee

  Senator Pierre Horsfall OBE

  Chief Executive, Policy and Resources Department

  John Mills

  GUERNSEY

  President, Advisory and Finance Committee

  Deputy Laurie Morgan

  Chief Executive, Advisory and Finance Committee

  Mike Brown

  ISLE OF MAN

  Chief Minister

  Hon Richard Corkill MHK

  Minister for Health and Social Security

  Hon Clare Christian MLC

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Hazardous Waste
  The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Margaret Beckett)
  As a country we produce a significant amount of hazardous waste each year— some 5 million tonnes in England and Wales alone. Against a background of significant change in the legislation affecting hazardous waste, it is the Government's aim to see that amount reduced, and to ensure that any hazardous waste produced is managed safely.

  To achieve our aims we need to work together with waste producers, the waste management industry, regulators and ensure the views of the public and environmental interests are taken on board.

  I am today announcing, therefore, the proposed membership and draft terms of reference of a new forum to advise on the reduction and safe management of hazardous waste.

  The Forum will have a strategic role of considering the demands on industry of existing and forthcoming legislation, to consider targets for hazardous waste reduction and recovery, and to provide a means for bringing all relevant sectors together to work towards the goals of hazardous waste reduction and managing it safely. It's key objectives will be:

  (A) To advise within 6 months on the way ahead over the next 5 years to achieve hazardous waste reduction and environmentally sound management of such wastes, including advice on key decisions to be made, the timing of those decisions and encompassing consideration of targets for hazardous waste reduction.

  79WS

  (B) To identify opportunities to reduce the production of hazardous waste and the recovery of that which is produced.

  (C) To consider the impacts of existing and forthcoming legislation, and advise on the content and dissemination of Government and/or Environment Agency advice and guidance to waste producers and waste managers about that legislation; and

  (d) To provide a better basis for forward planning by providing up to date and reliable data on hazardous waste production and management, and make any relevant recommendations about how data collection and analysis could be improved.

  Membership of the forum is drawn from a wide range of organisations and members are being invited to a first meeting in the next few weeks. Copies of the draft terms of reference of the forum, including a list of the proposed members has been placed in the library of both Houses.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Courts Bill
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Yvette Cooper)
  The Courts Bill, which was introduced in the House of Lords last Thursday, includes provisions to enable the government to fulfil the commitment made in the White Paper Justice for All, to establish an executive agency with responsibility for the administration of all the courts in England and Wales, except the House of Lords.

  The Lord Chancellor has today placed in the Libraries of both Houses a statement about the principles which will form the basis of the agency's Framework Document.

TRANSPORT

  London Underground
  The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Alistair Darling)
  On 8 May 2002 London Regional Transport signed contracts with the two preferred bidders for the London Underground Public Private Partnerships to modernise the Tube.

  Completion of the contracts was dependent on the satisfaction of various conditions. These included securing approval by the Health & Safety Executive of London Underground's revised Railways Safety Case and the necessary regulatory clearances from the competition authorities.

  With the relevant conditions now satisfied, the two bidding consortia have begun to put in place the necessary finance to enable the contracts to become effective. I expect the Infraco JNP contract (covering the
  80WS
  Jubilee, Northern and Piccadilly lines) to come into force at the beginning of next year, and those for Infraco BCV and Infraco SSL (covering the Bakerloo, Central and Victoria lines and the Sub-Surface Lines, respectively) in the Spring.

  One of the pre-conditions for the PPP contracts related to state aid clearance. This was achieved on 2 October when the European Commission adopted a Decision confirming that the notified PPP arrangements did not constitute state aid.

  Commercial agreement between the preferred bidders and London Underground has now been reached.

  The Mayor of London told me shortly after the European Commission announced its Decision that he would not be appealing against it. However, subsequently the Mayor sought and secured authority from the Board of Transport for London to launch an appeal of the Commission's Decision in the European Courts. This latest legal action follows two unsuccessful actions for judicial review in the English courts, the latest of which collapsed during the hearing itself.

  I am not prepared to see this crucial investment delayed while the Mayor of London engages in further legal challenges. I have therefore agreed that London Regional Transport should offer the preferred bidders and their financial backers an indemnity against the material adverse consequences of any legal challenge in relation to the Commission's state aid Decision. I propose in turn to guarantee London Regional Transport's indemnities in accordance with my powers under the London Regional Transport Act 1984.

  I have also agreed against this background that, while the full debt required to fund the bidders 1 obligations will be committed at financial close, London Underground will not require it to be drawn down in the early months of the contract. This will mean bringing forward direct payments by London Underground in the early months of the next financial year. It will not increase the sum of those payments next year, or in any subsequent year.

  The PPP contracts also envisage a statutory Arbiter whose key role is to decide the fair price for work to be undertaken in future years. I can announce today the appointment of Chris Bolt, formerly a Director of Transco pic and of Lattice Group, and a former Rail Regulator, as the PPP Arbiter. He will take up post upon financial close of the JNP contract.

  In the light of recent statements by the Mayor of London which indicate that he may be seeking to challenge the decision of the European Commission that the PPP arrangements do not constitute state aid, it is appropriate for me to set out my intentions regarding the transfer of London Underground to Transport for London under the provisions of the Greater London Authority Act 1999.
  81WS
  I do not consider that the transfer of London Underground Limited to Transport for London could take place against the background of threats of further legal challenge by the Mayor of London and/or Transport for London or while such proceedings were in progress.

  When the Mayor withdrew his legal challenge to the PPP arrangements in July this year it was my intention that the transfer of London Underground to Transport for London should take place following the completion of the PPP Agreements. However, I do not think that it would be appropriate for the transfer to take place while the threat of a further legal challenge by the Mayor exists. As I result I do not propose to make any transfer under section 409 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 of London Underground Limited to Transport for London, nor will I direct London Regional Transport to
  82WS
  make any such transfer scheme until after the period for lodging any appeal against the Decision of the European Commission has expired without any such appeal being lodged; and if an appeal is lodged, the appeal having been finally determined.

  The same position applies in relation to any legal challenge in the English Courts.

  The Mayor of London's actions leave me no alternative but to take this course of action. The Tube needs investment— and the PPP means that £6 million a day, £16 billion over 15 years, will go into much needed improvements to the benefit of London.

  In accordance with the guidance set out in Government Accounting, I am today notifying Parliament of the contingent liability arising from my decision to guarantee London Regional Transport's indemnity.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Portsmouth.

Euro: Price Convergence
Baroness Wilcoxasked Her Majesty's Government:
What has been the impact of the introduction of the euro on price convergence in the euro-zone.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government said that they will complete an assessment of the five economic tests within two years of the start of this Parliament. The preliminary analysis supporting the five tests assessment—that is, technical work needed to enable the assessment to be completed within two years—is well under way. The 6th September paper for the Treasury Select Committee on the Treasury's approach to the preliminary and technical work made clear that that work, which will be published alongside the assessment of the five tests, will include a supporting study on price differentials. Further details can be found in the 6th September paper, a copy of which is in the Library of the House.
Baroness Wilcox: My Lords, I thank the Minister for answering my Question. Can he give the House some concrete examples of where prices have already come together?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, a very detailed report was produced and published in July this year. It describes the whole process of adoption of the euro. It is called EPR6–6th Report on Euro Preparation. I recommend it to the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox. As to the effect on prices, I believe that the best evidence comes not from the Government but from Eurostat, which, in its most recent report on 18th November, estimated that the effect of the changeover on inflation was between 0.0 and 0.2 per cent.
Lord Taverne: My Lords, the evidence relating to the impact of the euro seems to be somewhat ambivalent. Small prices—that is, for items such as cups of coffee—have risen since the introduction of the euro but big prices—for major goods such as cars and so on—are likely to go down. Is it not important that we are part of a system in which price transparency has led to a great deal more competition, and are the Government not keen to promote competition?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Yes, my Lords. The argument for the euro has always been one of transparency of prices leading to keener competition. The euro having been in place for only 11 months, I
1134
believe it is a little early to be as definite as the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, appears to be about the detail. However, certainly the aggregate effect has not been one of inflation, as reported in a number of Euro-sceptic British newspapers. I am as confident as the noble Lord that, in due course, there will be better evidence of the beneficial effects of transparency.
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, was not one of the benefits of the euro said to be that the greater transparency offered would lead to more common standard prices across Europe? The reason I ask is that if, around the euro-zone, one took a taxi to the airport where one bought a book and had a cup of coffee, the taxi fare per kilometre would cost 3 euros in Brussels and 1 euro in Stockholm; a top-10 paperback would cost 7 euros in Madrid and 23 euros in Paris; and the Nescafe would set one back 8 euros in Frankfurt and 4 euros in Rome.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as always, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, on the detail and quality of his research, and I should be grateful if that could be passed on to his researcher. Of course, price standardisation does not occur immediately and will not occur to the extent that prices affected by, for example, different levels of VAT will come together. In general, the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, is right. Transparency will in due course—not immediately and certainly not within 11 months—lead to a better deal for the consumer.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his original, very detailed Answer to the Question. I thought that it covered the points very well. Perhaps I may also be allowed to congratulate the researcher of the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi. I do not know what on earth he was doing with that research, but perhaps my noble friend can help us. Whether it showed inflation in the euro-zone to be higher or lower, the Eurosceptics would still attack it. That applies to the view of the research expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi. Does my noble friend accept—from what he says, I believe that he does—that, since its inception, the euro-zone has gone very well indeed?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that is what the 6th Report on Euro Preparation, which we published on 17th July, says. It states that, despite all the predictions of doom and gloom before and immediately after the introduction of the euro, the changeover went extremely well. A period of two months was allowed for the changeover. However, from my experience, and as reported in EPR6, the changeover took place within two or three days. It is possible to make such changes without great disruption.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, the noble Lord's Answer to my noble friend who asked the Question concerned inflation. Is he saying to the House that, thus far, there is no sign of price convergence?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Yes, my Lords. I am saying that the element of inflation which has taken

1135
place and which, according to Eurostat—the European statistical office in Luxembourg—can reasonably and legitimately be attributed to the changeover to the euro is minimal. It is in the range 0.0 to 0.2 per cent. There are two different issues. One is convergence of prices across European countries and the other is the general level of prices. I believe that it is fair to distinguish between the two, although both are clearly important.
Lord Richard: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I read the same table as, I believe, did the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, in either the Telegraph or the Daily Mail showing comparative costs of taxi rides? Is my noble friend further aware that the most expensive taxi ride in the European Union is in this country, which, if my memory serves me correctly, is outside the euro-zone?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is worse after midnight.

Drug Treatment Centres
2.43 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Iltonasked Her Majesty's Government:
How many residential drug treatment centres there are in England for people aged under 17.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, there are currently two residential drug treatment centres in England exclusively providing services to people aged under 17. They provide intensive and specialised services for young people with complex needs, but the majority of young people who need drug treatment are supported by a range of other appropriate services.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply. Is she aware that more and more people aged 15 and 16 are entering young offender institutions? It is much more difficult for them when they come out and are sucked back into the drug culture. Will she closely consider the matter and try to get some of the new money promised for young people? I am sure that everyone who has had teenage children will know that that is a difficult age group.
Baroness Andrews: Absolutely, my Lords. The Question is extremely timely. Young people leaving young offender institutions when they are over 18 have access to adult residential services—there are about 300 bed spaces. But if they are in juvenile accommodation because they are younger than that, it is felt that when they come out, unless they have exceptional needs, they are better supported in the community, where their parents can be supportive and they can receive intensive treatment.
The drugs update Statement made yesterday made it clear that young people are at the heart of our strategy and that the additional money to be made
1136
available during the next three years will go towards new services and treatment. The noble Baroness will want to know that some of that money will be spent on better after-care services.
Lord Williamson of Horton: My Lords, although I appreciate the points made by the Minister, will she tell us directly whether the number of drug rehabilitation centres is sufficient?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, as I have said, it depends on the situation of young people—their needs, their family situation and whether they are vulnerable with complex needs. In some cases, especially those involving long-term drug addicts, residential accommodation is clearly appropriate. The question of whether provision is sufficient is always extremely difficult to answer. We do not have sufficient drug treatments. Part of the emphasis of the updated strategy published yesterday is to ensure that during the next three years double the current number of people enter treatment. Among the new provision will be residential accommodation.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, given that treatment in the community is so much cheaper because education is already provided, and in view of the increasing number and falling age of young people taking drugs—a report published this week states that 10 per cent of 11 year-olds are taking drugs—what additional resources do the Government intend to devote to alcohol education in schools and, in particular, to support and help for parents of children at risk, to help them to help those young people?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, to deal first with parents, as a result of yesterday's Statement, we have a new communications strategy that will have at its focus informing and supporting parents and helping them to enable their children. That will be a three-year strategy. In addition, the Department for Education and Skills is consolidating educational guidance, so that it all sends the same message. I am sure that the noble Baroness knows that the alcohol strategy is at present the subject of consultation. When that is completed, by the middle of next year, we will know better how to use resources. Many children who abuse drugs are also alcohol abusers.
Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords, I must declare an interest as chair of the National Treatment Agency for substance misuse. My organisation and I appreciate the Government's concern for young people, but does my noble friend agree that many different drugs are involved, that each case must be treated individually and that residential care is not the only solution for treating drug use? Does she further agree that local co-ordination of treatment is key? How is that occurring and being improved?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I pay tribute to the work of the National Treatment Agency, which has been in existence for only 18 months but is making a

1137
terrific impact, and to my noble friend's work as chair of the NTA. Part of its major task is to improve coordination on the ground. We must face the fact that until about two years ago there was virtually no such co-ordination. Drug action teams had extremely variable standards of provision and action. The NTA has been able to bring guidance to bear on the DATs, so that there is now a much more even and optimistic prospect. Co-ordination is an issue across the whole field. Locally, we need more integration of children's services. Nationally, we need departments to work together, as they now plan to do as a result of the drug strategy.
My noble friend is right to say that residential care is not always the answer. Especially when focusing on vulnerable young children, many of whom have been in care, we need individual solutions.
Lord Taverne: My Lords, I welcome the general drift of government policy on the treatment of addicts. I also appreciate the difficulty of providing residential places for under-17s. Addicts under 17 are more expensive to treat than those over 17 because of the need to provide educational facilities.
I agree with the Minister that residential treatment is not the only effective treatment, but there are occasions on which residential treatment is important. There is a great shortage of places. Does not the situation call for a special capital grant to deal with such special cases?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, one of the reasons for separating children and adults is that long-term, chronic addicts have different needs and different treatment modalities. We must make sure that we do not confuse treatment for children with the sort of things that we put in place for adults.
There is an additional £40 million for treatment for next year. By the end of the third year, there will be £98 million. It may well be that some of that money will be spent on capital building and residential treatment.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, does the Minister agree that young offender institutions are residential institutions? Therefore, many young people are in residential care. The local authorities do not want to pick up the bill; they pass it on to the Home Office.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, we must bear in mind that the pooled budget that covers drug treatment, is, of course, ring-fenced and should be used only for that purpose. I would like to see an extension of inreach and outreach work in young offender institutions, so that those young people connect with the community when they come out. They must have appropriate treatment to bring them off drugs when they are in prison.
Earl Howe: My Lords, is the Minister aware that certain drug users are, in general, under-represented in drug treatment centres—for example, crack cocaine
1138
users, women and addicts from ethnic minorities? That point came out in yesterday's White Paper. What kind of strategies do the Government have in mind for targeting support on the groups that most need it?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, clearly, crack is a problem. It is the one element of drug use that is increasing among young people. More young people are using it. In January, there was the first of a series of meetings on the development of a new strategy for crack and cocaine. That will be followed by new guidance. We are having a close look at what can be done urgently.
We have a problem with training professionals to work with black and ethnic minority users, who have specific needs. I am pleased to say that one of the things that the National Treatment Agency has done in the past few months is put forward a programme for training black and ethnic minority drugs workers. That will come into effect in April, and 50 people have already been recruited.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords—
Lord Grocott: My Lords, we are well into the seventeenth minute.

Turkey
2.53 p.m.
Lord Aveburyasked Her Majesty's Government:
What was the outcome of their discussions with Mr Recep Tayyip Erdogan, leader of the Justice and Development Party in Turkey.
The Minister for Trade (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, on 20th November, the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and Mr Erdogan discussed AKP's plans for government and commitment to reform, particularly in the area of human rights. The Prime Minister underlined the United Kingdom's strong support for Turkey's EU candidature. He stressed that there was now a unique opportunity, ahead of the Copenhagen summit, to make progress over European defence issues and to resolve the problem of Cyprus on the basis of the United Nations Secretary-General's recent comprehensive proposals.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, considering that the European Commission has just found that Turkey does not fully meet the political criteria for membership and that many of the reforms have significant limitations, does not the noble Baroness agree that it would be inappropriate for the Copenhagen summit to set a date for the start of accession negotiations? Will the Government do their best at the Copenhagen summit and elsewhere to press Turkey to have a proper internationally approved plan for the return of several hundred thousand villagers

1139
who were displaced from their homes in the southeast? They are still waiting to return, despite the fact that the European Court has ruled in their favour, and no compensation has yet been paid to them by the Turkish Government.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the Turkish Government are moving towards the Copenhagen criteria, and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, will be pleased to know that yesterday the Turkish Cabinet passed a further package of reforms, which has been sent to the Turkish Parliament. The reforms are designed to address the shortcomings highlighted in the Commission's report, to which the noble Lord referred. They deal with issues such as human rights, torture and ill treatment, incommunicado detention and rights of access to lawyers and many others.
The reforms will, we hope, be passed before the Copenhagen summit, which is next week. I understood from a conversation that I had with Her Majesty's Ambassador in Ankara only this morning that a further reform package was expected to be on the way.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, in contrast to the view of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and the view of the ex-president of France, Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, should we not strongly welcome the fact that Turkey has, for the first time in many years, a strong majority government? Should we not recognise that, far from being a burden on the European Union, Turkey can, in the longer term and at the appropriate time, be a major security and economic bulwark for the European Union? Should not Her Majesty's Government take every possible step to encourage the offering of a firm date, in due course, to Turkey at the Copenhagen summit?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will be delighted—and not too embarrassed—to know that his views are entirely consonant with those of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister said:
"I hope that it will be possible to make a commitment to that country"—
Turkey—
"at the European Council in Copenhagen. I hope that we will set a firm date for negotiations, that they will form part of a package to lay to rest some of the outstanding difficulties on European defence and that we shall at least find a proper way forward on Cyprus".—[Official Report, Commons, 25/11/02; col. 44.]
The noble Lord is giving me the thumbs-up, so I reckon that he is very much in agreement with my right honourable friend.
Lord Elton: My Lords, as one whose thumbs are firmly horizontal at the moment, I ask the Minister whether what is going on in Turkish-occupied Cyprus is a matter of relevance and concern. What views are
1140
the Government expressing to the Turkish Government on how that should improve before their admission to the Community?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, as my right honourable friend made clear in the statement that I just read, we hope that the issue of Cyprus will be resolved. The new Turkish Government have signalled clearly that they want to solve the Cyprus problem as soon as possible. For our part, we are urging them to do all that they can before the European Council meeting next week, for the sake of all those in Cyprus.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, will the noble Baroness answer the second question that I put to her? Will the Government press the Turkish authorities to allow the displaced villagers of the south-east—who number between 380,000 and a million, according to Human Rights Watch—to return to their original villages and pay them compensation for the disturbance that they have suffered?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I cannot tell the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, whether that issue is addressed in what I understand to be 36 key legislative changes going before the Turkish Parliament or whether it will be addressed in the smaller package of reforms that, I understand from our ambassador, will be brought forward shortly. I will certainly make the noble Lord's views clear to my right honourable friend in another place who deals with those issues.
I hope that the noble Lord will acknowledge that what has happened in the past 24 hours or so in Turkey will be significant in making reforms in areas about which, I know, he has strong views.

Israel: Settlement Expansion
2.58 p.m.
Lord Wright of Richmondasked Her Majesty's Government:
What representations they have made to the Israeli Government about the continuing expansion of illegal settlements on Palestinian territory.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we have consistently called on the Israeli Government to freeze all settlement activity, including the "natural growth" of settlements, as recommended in the Mitchell report.
On 5th November, my honourable friend Mike O'Brien raised settlement activity with the Israeli ambassador. On 18th November, our ambassador in Tel Aviv conveyed to Prime Minister Sharon's office the Foreign Secretary's concern at reports that the Israeli Government were considering extending settlements in Hebron, which we consider to be illegal

1141
and an obstacle to peace. Those points were reiterated at official level to the Israeli Ambassador on 20th November.
Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. I particularly thank her for her report of the expressions of concern that have been conveyed to the Israeli Government. Is she aware that subsequent to those expressions of concern the press have reported that 15 Palestinian families have been told that their property is to be demolished to make way for settlers' access to certain shrines; that the settlers in Hebron have announced that they propose to erect a building of 1,000 flats in Hebron; and that the so-called separation fence has already absorbed a great deal of property on the east of the 1967 line, extending to as much as five kilometres in some places?
In those circumstances, does the Minister agree that a viable Palestinian state—to which the European Union, President Bush and, indeed, Prime Minister Sharon are explicitly committed—is becoming, clay by day, less and less practicable or viable? Cannot the Prime Minister persuade President Bush to use his undoubted influence to compel the Israeli Government to halt and to reverse this illegal and disastrous settlement process? I would argue that it is not in the interests of Israel itself and it is certainly undermining any progress in the peace process.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that at a time when there is a firm international consensus on a two-state solution—comprising as it does the Arab League, the United States and the European Union—it is alarming that the practical basis for this solution is in jeopardy. The fence is indeed worrying because it involves the destruction of Palestinian farmland. We have protested about the fence through our ambassador in Tel Aviv. As I indicated, we have made representations on the settlement activity. We have talked, and we continue to talk, to the United States about these concerns. We hope that Israel will see that settlement building threatens its own vital interests in a two-state solution.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that there is no benefit whatever in inferring that all the blame lies on one side in a situation which is very parlous? Does she further agree that the right answer is to ensure that constructive talks take place between the parties rather than an escalation of violence? Does she also agree that the proposed talks between my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and the new mayor of Haifa are to be thoroughly welcomed?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I agree that the only way in which this appalling situation will be solved is through discussions. That is why we have been keen advocates of the discussions being undertaken by the quartet, which we hope will agree a road map for progress towards a comprehensive settlement by 2005. Of course it is axiomatic that the blame lies on both sides of this
1142
terrible conflict. There was an appalling massacre in Hebron which exacerbated the situation over settlements. The Israeli Government took a decision over those settlements in retaliation for what happened in Hebron, and since then we have seen a further appalling massacre. The only way forward for the terrible position in Palestine and Israel is on the basis of discussions. We hope that the discussions undertaken by the quartet will be successful.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, is the Minister aware that visits made from this country on behalf of the Churches to communities in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip persistently and unanimously report a growing sense of despair and isolation among the Palestinian people—and among younger people a very dangerous growth in anger—about the present situation? There is a feeling that the isolation means that they have few friends in the international community and that the international community is powerless to act. Can the Minister give some assurance that Her Majesty's Government will exercise all of their influence on our American friends to act with greater equity in these matters?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, one cannot fail to be aware of the growing despair among many Palestinians. Currently, 1.5 million are in receipt of food aid; 50 per cent are unemployed; two-thirds are at the poverty level; 600,000 are directly affected by curfews; and 600,000 children do not go to school regularly. These are appalling statistics for the Palestinian people. We shall do everything that we can in the discussions being undertaken by the quartet, as I did when I met the Alexandria Committee on 23rd/ 24th October under the auspices of the then Archbishop of Canterbury. I hope that we shall see a way forward through the United States, the EU, the UN and Russia agreeing a comprehensive settlement plan for 2005.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, does the Minister agree—
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, using the—
Lord Grocott: My Lords, we will have time to hear from both the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, so I suggest that we hear them in that order.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, using the identical terms of the Question on the Order Paper, what representations are Her Majesty's Government making to the Palestinian Authority in regard to the harbouring of suicide bombers and other terrorists on its own territory?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we have made many representations to the Palestinians and to Mr Arafat that they should not only place people under arrest when they know that they have been responsible for these atrocities but should also

1143
keep them under lock and key. As I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, knows, we have helped in that respect by taking into custody, and helping to look after, some of those we believe to have been responsible for these atrocities. We are even-handed on that matter.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, does the Minister agree that one of the problems is that in the areas around the settlements which become secure areas occupied by the military, there is very great interference with economic activity within the territory of Palestine? In particular, many roads are closed, which makes employment, shopping and other transactions extremely difficult and sometimes involves civilian deaths. Does she accept that many of us recognise the extraordinary vitality of Israeli democracy? The new leader of the Labour Party, Mr Mitzna, is backing a withdrawal of the settlements in Gaza and is calling for a new security zone in which he believes can be based a new international settlement, allowing Israel to be secure and the Palestinian territory to emerge. Many of us who criticise the present Government of Israel would like it to be widely known, in this House and outside, that in no way does that suggest that we do other than admire many of the achievements of Israel and the Jewish people.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the noble Baroness has summed up the position rather well. The problem is very difficult because the settlements are growing. There have been 69 new outposts established between 1996 and now, and we have seen 34 new settlements in the past 12 months That fuels Palestinian anger and tends to confirm their fears that Israel is not genuinely interested in ending the occupation. We admire a great deal of what the Israeli nation has done. It is battling against terrible odds. I cannot imagine what it would be like to put a child on a school bus in the morning and for that child to be killed during the course of the day. It is an unimaginable horror that many Israeli citizens have to face. The tragedy is that these horrors are visited on civilians of both sides. Until both sides can accept that there is no way forward through violence but only through discussion, there will not be real progress.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, while totally agreeing—
Lord Bramall: My Lords, does the Minister—
Lord Grocott: My Lords, it is the turn of the Cross Benches. We are also into the 33rd minute, so I suggest that we are brief.
Lord Bramall: My Lords, very briefly, does the Minister agree that the only way to stop these appalling suicide bombers is for the Israeli Government to say that if the bombers do stop, they
1144
will start to dismantle the illegal settlements in Palestine? That will give the Palestinians some hope instead of absolutely none.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, while the Israeli Government continue with these illegal settlements, Her Majesty's Government's view that they are a barrier to peace will remain true.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, said what I was going to say. It is absolutely correct that, although the suicide bombers are atrocious, for the Israeli's to extend their settlements now must be both self-defeating and idiotic. Can we not, with the Americans, express a much stronger view that Israel should call a halt to the expansion of settlements?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will be pleased to know that we hope that the road map for progress will be published at the quartet principles meeting on 20th December. I hope that at that point we shall have a clearer view as to the way forward.

UK Entrants: Medical Tests
3.10 p.m.
Lord Acknerasked Her Majesty's Government:
What medical tests, if any, are mandatory in relation to those seeking asylum or seeking to immigrate to the United Kingdom; and, if none, why this is so.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, under the Immigration Act 1971, immigration officers are able to refer persons seeking leave to enter the United Kingdom to medical inspectors at ports of entry. The Immigration Rules state that immigration officers should refer anyone who mentions health or medical treatment as a reason for coming to the United Kingdom or who appears not to be in good physical or mental health. In addition, those seeking leave to enter the United Kingdom for a period of more than six months should normally be referred. This action during the immigration process is complemented by work done by the National Health Service at local level. It is our intention that asylum applicants who go into an induction centre on arrival will undergo a basic health screening.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I express the appropriate gratitude for that rather un-illuminating reply. Is it not vital that one should have the earliest possible diagnosis of anyone entering this country who is HIV positive? The Minister is no doubt aware that I asked a Question about the near epidemic that is now occurring as a result of the increase in the number of immigrants who are HIV positive. Why is not medical examination made mandatory?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, this is a delicate and sensitive matter. That much is plain. The Government understand the importance of the issue raised by the noble and learned Lord. Medical tests have not been mandatory in the past. Understanding the concerns, the Government take the matter very seriously. The Department of Health, the Foreign Office and the Home Office are presently examining the situation because of its sensitivity and its importance. We take great care in these matters. Important questions are asked at ports of entry. We need to be aware that some two-thirds of those who seek asylum in the United Kingdom do so in-country rather than at the point of entry.
Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, how many people entering this country last year as asylum seekers were H IV positive or had AIDS? What will be the cost to the National Health Service for those people each year?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am not in a position to provide the noble Lord with data and information in that form, partly for the reasons that I have explained. But it is right that people who are here, whether or not they are asylum seekers, should receive treatment. The actions taken by staff at ports of entry when it is revealed that someone has an illness of that nature are to ensure that the person is given a full medical inspection and that he or she is appropriately referred on to receive treatment.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, I appreciate the human rights problems to which this question gives rise, but is it not the case that not only do many immigrants to this country carry the HIV/AIDS infect ion but that there has been a worrying increase in the number of individuals carrying drug resistant tuberculosis? Many other countries impose strict medical conditions on entry. Fifty years ago, when I went as a young researcher to the United States, I had to take with me an X-ray to show that I was not suffering from tuberculosis. Why do we not have mandatory health checks on all potential immigrants?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, as I made plain at the outset, we take this matter very seriously and are continuing to review the situation. The noble Lord has drawn attention to the fact that there are practices abroad that are different from our own. But it is worth saying that those countries that have different practices are those that have had long periods of inward migration such as the United States, Canada and Australia. This is an important area for debate. It needs to be kept continually under review. I should not want to leave noble Lords with the impression that initial checks are not undertaken at ports of entry—where appropriate, they are.
The Lord Bishop of Durham: My Lords, will the Minister give a categoric assurance that for asylum
1146
seekers with chronic illnesses who are already in this country medical facilities are as freely available as they are for a United Kingdom citizen?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the right reverend Prelate makes an important point. Of course we ensure that that is the case. People must have equal access to treatment—not only for their own benefit but for the wider benefit of society. If that were not to be the case, we should not be providing proper protective and anticipative healthcare.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords—
Lord Greaves: My Lords—
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the Liberal Democrats have not yet asked a question.
Lord Greaves: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, will be aware of a report published recently by the BMA entitled Asylum Seekers: Meeting their Healthcare Needs, which covers a wide range of issues, including those at ports of entry. Do the Government intend to respond to this important and interesting report; and, if so, when and how?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, we keep matters carefully under review and are well aware of the report. We need to take it on board in considering the health needs and concerns of immigrant populations and asylum seekers. I cannot give a date as regards a response, but, if the noble Lord wishes, I shall happily write to him on the matter.

Business
Lord Grocott: My Lords, I should like to make a brief statement about business on the last day on which the House is sitting before the Christmas Recess; namely, Thursday, 19th December. The usual channels have agreed that the House should sit at 11 a.m. on that day, with Starred Questions as first business and with no lunch break.
As your Lordships will be aware, this is the normal pattern of a Sitting on the last day before a Recess and has been indicated in the Forthcoming Business since last Thursday. I should advise the House that the new Standing Order 41(1), which provides for the new-style Thursday Sittings, allows us this flexibility.

Business of the House: Debates this Day
3.17 p.m.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, on behalf of my noble and learned friend the Leader of the House, I beg to move the first Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.

1147
Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Lord Dholakia set down for today shall be limited to two-and-a-half hours and that in the name of the Lord Roper to one-and-a-half hours.—(Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Business of the House: Standing Order 41
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, on behalf of my noble and learned friend the Leader of the House, I beg to move the second Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order 41 (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be dispensed with tomorrow to allow the Motion standing in the name of the Baroness Noakes to be taken after the Motion of the Earl of Onslow.—(Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Crime Prevention
3.18 p.m.
Lord Dholakia rose to call attention to the role of local communities and of penal institutions in preventing crime and in rehabilitating offenders; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the links between social exclusion and crime are crystal clear. We only have to look at the characteristics of people in prisons. These are grim statistics. Over half the young people in custody have been excluded from school, two-thirds were unemployed before imprisonment and 40 per cent have been in care. Sixty per cent of prisoners have literacy and numeracy skills at or below the lowest basic skill level. Over 40 per cent have drug problems and the proportion of psychiatric problems ranges between 40 and 75 per cent. These trends may vary from time to time but overall the pattern remains fairly constant.
Today's prison numbers stand at record levels: 72,522 incarcerated as of last week. The number of sentenced young prisoners between 15 and 17 stands at 2,090, and the number of young offenders between 16 and 20 at 6,770. There are 3,718 women in prison compared with an average of 1,560 in 1993. These include 623 young female offenders and 3,330 sentenced women. We now have to accommodate inmates in police cells, a practice that we discontinued some years ago. We must now seriously rethink the public protection role of our custodial institutions.
Almost all who are in prison will one day come out. It is here that we have to accept that incarceration and resettlement are the two faces of the same coin. We must address what happens when prisoners are in prison, and, more fundamentally, how to resettle them when they are released so that they do not reoffend.
1148
The simplistic statements "prisons work" and "tough on crime" are attractive slogans but they seldom make good policies. Crime affects everyone. We have either been victims ourselves or have known someone who has. Reducing crime improves quality of life. We all have a part to play. It is in that regard that the role of the community in crime prevention is vital. We cannot rely solely on the criminal justice process to solve society's ills. Less than 50 per cent of crimes are reported to the police and only a small proportion result in a caution or conviction. The community must involve itself in building opportunities for people to lead law-abiding lives as well as reducing opportunities for crime to be committed.
Of course, prevention is the best answer to crime. The direct and indirect costs of the criminal justice system are large. We spend over £10 billion on the criminal process but less than £500 million on crime prevention. The key to crime prevention is to deal with youth crime. Most crimes are committed by the young. We can do a lot about that. If we create the right environment for young people to grow up in, and if we respond in the right way if they get into trouble, most of them could be diverted from a criminal career. Locking up young people is not a solution; it brands them as criminals for the rest of their lives and reduces even further their prospects of doing something useful with their lives.
I have been a member of a board of visitors and have visited many young offenders' institutions. The experience of prison is traumatic for vulnerable people. It often leads to self-mutilation and suicide.
A wide variety of penalties that meet the public's requirements for punishment is available to the courts. Victims of crime, in particular, often vent their anger and frustration that the criminal justice system has failed them. There is now a recognition that the high cost of running our prisons, the number now in our penal institutions and the difficulties of meeting prison objectives are counter-productive because, although they may bring the short-term relief of safety, over a long period they do not help.
Community penalties are an effective alternative and are to be commended. They require offenders to face up to what they have done, change their behaviour and try to make good the damage they have done to their victims and communities. More importantly, community penalties enable offenders to serve a punishment without also losing their jobs, families and community roots. Offenders who lose those things through being sent to prisons are less likely to lead law-abiding lives on release.
I do not want to give the impression that we are out to abolish prisons. The annual budget for the Prison Service and the probation service is around £2.3 billion. It is estimated that the average cost of keeping a person in prison in the year 2001–02 was £37,000. It is important that we never lose sight of the fact that imprisonment is not only the most serious penalty available to courts but also the most expensive. It should be imposed only if the offence is so serious that only a prison sentence can be justified, or where there is a need to protect the public from serious harm.

1149
The Lord Chief Justice drew attention to the issue when he overturned an eight-month prison sentence imposed on a single mother convicted of deception who had no previous convictions. The noble and learned Lord. Lord Woolf, expressed the view that judges and magistrates should take into account the female prison population before sentencing women offenders. He urged that custody should not be used for first-time offenders convicted of dishonesty, especially if they had children.
Let me quote from a report by the Social Exclusion Unit on reducing offending by ex-prisoners:
"Prison sentences are not succeeding in turning the majority of offenders away from crime. Of those prisoners released in 1997, 58% were convicted of another crime within two years. 36% were back inside on another prison sentence. The system struggles particularly to reform younger offenders. 18–20 year old male prisoners were reconvicted at a rate of 72% over the same period, 47% received another prison sentence".
An ex-prisoner's path back from prison is extremely costly. A re-offending ex-prisoner is likely to be responsible for crime costing the criminal justice system an average of £65,000.
We send people to prisons as punishment, not for punishment. When people are deprived of their liberty and freedom of choice by being sent to prison, nothing is gained by imposing additional punishment by holding them in deplorable conditions. During my membership of a board of visitors, I was often struck by the decaying state of our prisons, which hold people in cells for more than 20 hours a day with nothing to do. When will we realise that such conditions cause despair? They take away the only dignity that prisoners have left.
In Martin Narey we have one of the most progressive and reforming Directors-General of the Prison Service. In Ann Overs and Rod Morgan, we have an effective Chief Inspector of Prisons and Chief Inspector of Probation. They have a difficult task, and we should all support them. But we must never lose sight of the fact that prison and our parole system can best serve our society by releasing people who are more likely to lead law-abiding lives and can deal with the practical problems that they will face on release. For this to happen, prisons must set an example to offenders by dispensing justice fairly and with humanity. They must allow prisoners to maintain ties with their families and communities. They must also provide for purposeful regimes so that prisoners can use their time constructively and prepare properly for release.
Public confidence is shaped by the quality of service that the criminal justice system provides. That is the only way in which it can retain the confidence of all sections of the community. But the Government cannot work alone; they need the co-operation of the community. There is a wide range of voluntary organisations. large and small, throughout the country whose contribution to the reduction of crime and the rehabilitation of offenders is both crucial and collectively enormous. In the time available to me, I can list only a few examples but I know that other noble Lords will refer to other examples in their
1150
speeches. Instead, I shall concentrate on some key issues relating to partnerships between central and local government and the voluntary sector.
Let us look first at the role of the voluntary and community sector in the types of community regeneration that are so crucial to reducing crime. The voluntary and community sector has become vital in the delivery of regeneration programmes in such key areas as education, health, community safety, crime reduction, employment and training. Voluntary organisations and community groups have been invited to participate in such developments as Best Value, local strategic partnerships, the National Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal and the New Deal for Communities.
There has been a growing recognition that voluntary and community organisations can be best placed to deliver front-line services to socially excluded communities in a manner that reflects and strengthens the social fabric and cultural diversity of that community. All the research into regeneration programmes shows that a community-led approach is the only effective way of turning crime-ridden, disadvantaged and demoralised communities into thriving, low-crime areas. As a result, voluntary and community organisations are being encouraged to become increasingly involved in service delivery. The report of the recent Treasury review into the role of the voluntary and community sector in service delivery recognises that the capacity of voluntary organisations needs to be increased if they are to do this effectively—that means more Government funding. The report of the review said:
"The Government needs a voluntary and community sector that is strong, independent and has the capacity where it wishes to be a partner in delivering world-class public services. To help achieve this,"
I note the following statement:
"the Government will increase funding to build capacity in the sector and increase community participation".
The report announced the new futurebuilders investment fund of £125 million over the next three years to help build capacity in the voluntary and community sector. This is a very welcome development. However, that will be for one-off expenditure only, and voluntary organisations also need continuing funding arrangements to enable them to provide high-quality services. Of particular importance, therefore, is the recommendation in the report that contracts for services with voluntary organisations must recognise the need for an element of payment towards those organisations' core management costs. If that is not done, voluntary organisations will be effectively subsidising the Government department for which they provide a service, as the real costs are never fully funded.
Examples across the country demonstrate how communities can help. I commend the work of Crime Concern and Norwich Union partnerships in neighbourhood safety apprenticeship schemes in three communities in England. It is estimated that 40 per cent of all recorded crimes take place in only 10 per cent of neighbourhoods in England and Wales.

1151
These neighbourhoods are often marked by high rates of repeat victimisation, harassment, disorder, antisocial behaviour and drug dealing. Their crime and disorder problems are usually closely linked with a range of other social and environmental issues. Recognising this, Crime Concern brought together experts from crime prevention, policing, housing and other fields to look at what works in creating safer neighbourhoods. The key themes are important factors in reducing crime.
There are other examples. My noble friend Lady Williams of Crosby, in responding to Her Majesty's Gracious Speech, drew our attention to a project in Islington. I should perhaps add that I take no credit for the fact that Islington council is now controlled by the Liberal Democrats. Tough measures to tackle antisocial behaviour pioneered on Islington's council estates are proving so successful that they are being used in 173 different parts of the country. Interest in setting up acceptable behaviour contracts (ABCs) has come from police as far away as South Africa and Germany.
I should like at this stage to declare my interest in NACRO. I chair that organisation, which is involved in a wide range of activities relating to the prevention of crime and the rehabilitation of offenders. We work to reduce crime in three ways. We do so, first, by preventing crime—not by locks, bolts and bars, but by working for the social inclusion of disadvantaged and marginalised people who would otherwise be at risk of offending. We do so, secondly, by working for a just, effective and non-discriminatory criminal justice system. We do so thirdly by giving ex-offenders the resettlement support that they need to lead crime-free lives in the future.
Over the past year, our achievements in all these areas have been striking. We have trained more than 13,000 people in our education and employment centres, housed more than 3,000 people in our housing projects, given 8,000 people resettlement advice through our Resettlement Plus Helpline, involved 7,500 young people in our youth activity projects, and our prison-based workers have provided resettlement help to more than 6,000 prisoners. Our consultancy work in the fields of crime reduction, mental health, youth crime, race equality and prisoner resettlement has increasingly been in demand.
The Prison Service has also developed a range of recommendations which if implemented should address many of these issues. However, it is notable that the strategy relates only to prisons, meaning that the voluntary sector will continue to have to deal with prison and probation separately. It is in this matter that we have to establish partnerships with other agencies. One important development is the establishment by the probation service of a National Partnership Centrally Led Action Network which is working to develop a code of practice for effective partnership working between the National Probation Service and voluntary organisations.
1152
The reality today is that we are shamed by policies which have incarcerated more than 70,000 people in our prisons. An upward trend cannot he halted by the Government alone; we need the participation of all communities. Our civilised values depend on how we tackle our overcrowded prisons. Prisons have too often in the past played a central role. They need the community to assist them. We cannot afford to fail.
My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.33 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, for inaugurating this apt and timely debate—on a day, as it happens, which marks the publication of a series of essays on criminal justice in honour of the former right reverend Prelate and former Bishop for prisons, Bob Hardy. A seminar in Church House is under way as we speak, presided over by the new Archbishop of Canterbury.
I speak as the Bishop of a city which has one of the few prisons dedicated to work with life sentenced prisoners. HMP Kingston is an old Victorian prison in Portsmouth which was recently inspected by the Inspectorate, in February 2001. I am glad to say that the Inspectorate was able to report that the prison,
"was a small, stable community with markedly good relationships between staff and prisoners".
It is the only prison in the country that has a unit for the elderly. This, of course, is because many such prisoners are considered too dangerous to release. The report points out that,
"there was a substantial proportion of high-risk violent offenders".
The work of the chaplaincy was described as impressive and the chapel was seen as a sanctuary in which prisoners could find peace and quiet.
Some prisoners will never be released. In the press coverage that followed Myra Hindley's death, our society considered the difficulty of someone ever atoning for their crimes. However, it is the nature of Christian belief that no one is put outside the power of the redemptive love of Christ. On that view, it is possible that some life sentenced prisoners will achieve sufficient rehabilitation to make their release possible.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester, in his distinguished maiden speech in this House nearly two weeks ago, spoke of the fact that,
"as a society, we have no mandate to give up hope on anyone; and that redemption and rehabilitation are concerns that merit the attention of all of us".—[Official Report, 21/11/02; col. 491.]
I echo those words and repeat his call for a culture of firm and demanding compassion. That culture must demand nothing less than achieving the full potential of every one of us; but it also recognises the obstacles on the journey that many people face.
The right reverend Prelate also spoke of the burdens faced by the hard-pressed and committed servants of the Prison Service who find themselves placed under perpetual pressure. In their report on the resettlement activities at Kingston prison, the Inspectorate referred to frustration and the sense of fighting a losing battle

1153
because of the amount of paperwork in monitoring targets—a matter that covers other aspects of life, as we all know well. However, the Cognitive Self-Change Programme was felt to be demanding and worth while. The Home Office is also conducting research through the University of Oxford Centre for Criminological Research on the work of the probation service in the resettlement of discretionary life sentenced prisoners. All that is to be commended. What is less reassuring is that the Public Accounts Committee in another place reported on 5th September 2002 that some prisons were not succeeding in their resettlement work. The issues of jobs and housing remain problematic.
There is, of course, a great difference between the release of a prisoner who has served a short sentence for burglary and the release of a prisoner who has committed a violent crime. It is good that the Parole Board is able to bring its wisdom to bear on the release of those given life sentences, an issue that will become more serious after the Anderson judgment, which removes the Home Secretary's power to set the tariff for mandatory life prisoners. My concern today, however, is to illustrate the difficulties which life sentenced prisoners face on their release, if that happens. They return to a world which they left many years ago, even if the Prison Service prepares them for this with day-release visits. They return to families who may have been deeply affected by the person's crime, especially if that crime was against a member of the family. In that situation, there is a challenge to all of us who speak of repentance, of hope, and of resurrection, however difficult that may be, if it is to cut any ice in the somewhat frozen-over culture which we are addressing this afternoon.
A former Member of these Benches, George Bell, wartime Bishop of Chichester, once remarked that,
"without forgiveness there can be no regeneration".
It is good that that rather theological term has achieved a much more social focus in recent years. I have never believed in the well-known saying, "forgive and forget". They are not the same thing, and both the victims, relatives and friends, and the perpetrators of murder, are scarred for life—literally for life—by what has happened. Institutional forgiveness for society and for any organisation within it, including the Church, is a very difficult process.
I am told that it is more expensive to send people to prison than it is to send them to Eton. I would not like to try to get the Minister—who, like me, started off at the Edinburgh Academy—to remark that Eton, as Horace Rumpole remarked, is a "rural penal colony". However, it is none the less a statistic that is worth pondering.
I should like to end by drawing attention to the importance of making the best possible use of prison, in the hope that rehabilitation in the community on release can become rather more of a reality than it is now.
3.40 p.m.
Baroness Linklater of Butterstone: My Lords, this debate addresses one of the most pressing, important and difficult issues we have to face in Britain today. It is widely acknowledged that our prisons are in a state of real crisis as overcrowding has reached intolerable levels. The issues of law and order and crime and punishment are now the subject of regular headlines in both the tabloid and broadsheet newspapers.
The Lord Chief Justice recently said:
"Everybody thinks our system is becoming soft and wimpish. In point of fact, it is one of the most punitive systems in the world".
The director general of the Prison Service, Martin Narey, has talked, rightly, about our "love affair" with custody. Thus, while the number of offenders coming before the courts has remained almost constant in the past 10 years, the proportion sentenced to custody has almost doubled.
There seems to be a fatalism abroad which accepts that this increase will continue. The present all-time high of the prison population of more than 72,500 is predicted to rise to more than 80,000 by 2005. It will take a massive effort of political will on the part of the Government, a major re-adjustment of sentencing policy and practices, and, above all, a serious rethinking of the delivery, administration and funding of community penalties to alter the trend.
Overall, we have more sentencing options than any equivalent jurisdiction in western Europe. We have an enormous range of community penalties available to the courts. At present, 485 convicted offenders begin community sentences every day in England and Wales.
Sentences served in the community are infinitely preferable to imprisonment for all but the most serious offenders. They do not further disrupt and damage the already disrupted and damaged lives of offenders through the loss of jobs, homes and relationships which makes reoffending so likely. They also make possible realistic reparation and restitution and all the elements of restorative justice that are the constructive and creative responses to crime. But it is clear that community penalties do not always command the greatest confidence of the sentencers or the public. They are seen by some as inadequately tough, particularly when the reoffending rate is currently roughly the same as for custody. That is one part of it. The relevance of what is delivered to both the offender and the offence is another. I have visited and seen some projects that come under the heading of community penalties where provision is clearly inadequate and irrelevant in all these respects. There is certainly room for improvement.
I must declare an interest as chair of an initiative called Rethinking Crime and Punishment—a modest goal—which is funded by the Esmee Fairbairn Foundation, of which I am a trustee. Its aims are to raise the level of public debate on how we deal with offenders, to increase public understanding and involvement and to inject some fresh thinking into these fascinating and complex issues. Specifically, we are setting up an inquiry to look into community penalties, to see what works and why, and what does

1155
not work and why, to try to illuminate the gap that exists between rhetoric and reality, with the aim of making some really useful and practical recommendations.
The role of the probation service is central to any change as it is the main agency delivering community penalties. Extension of its role will require a massive and speedy new commitment of funding and resources. The probation service is clearly committed to the Government's policy of a strengthened focus on the victims of crime and in the strict implementation and enforcement of the terms of community orders. The conditions attached to a community order and how they are implemented are the key to the effect that a community order will have on the offender and society. With two breaches of an order, such as, for example, being late for an appointment, the offender will be sent to prison.
The reality of offenders' chaotic lives means that simple things like keeping appointments are extremely difficult. Enforcement of the breach of failing to keep two appointments and therefore sending someone to prison is a real possibility. Some inmates are now known as "two-strike prisoners". Worryingly, community penalties are becoming more interventionist and punitive. Even low level offending, which 10 years ago might have been dealt with by a fine or a conditional discharge, is being drawn up the tariff scale. Worse, current trends show that an increased proportion of offenders who are subject to court reports from the probation service are being recommended for custodial penalties, and the proportion being breached for non-compliance with community sentences is also increasing.
We should do well to remember the shocking example of America where breach of community penalties is the single biggest reason for being in prison. Community penalties are not of themselves enough. The quality of what they offer and the way in which they are used are of equal and vital importance.
Other community-based strategies have great potential for expansion. Tagging has been highly successful where used. It was intended significantly to reduce the prison population, but, in general, has been greatly under-used. The use of the fine has collapsed in the past 10 years. Many experts are now urgently arguing for the restoration of the day fine, and also of allowing fines to be commuted into unpaid work. Those are realistic, practical and effective sentences that could, at a stroke, have a real impact on prison numbers. They would have a restorative rather than a criminalising effect. Youth offender panels, which have been introduced to deal with first-time young offenders, provide an excellent model for involving the local community in resolving local crime problems.
I greatly favour those strategies that involve major elements of reparation and restitution—of paying something back to victims and the community which has been offended against. Such strategies restore dignity and confidence. Penalties that divorce the offender from the offence and the victim—notably prison—cannot achieve that, thereby leaving only
1156
retribution as the outcome of punishment. The phrase "restorative justice" has occupied reams of written and verbal rhetoric, but where it exists it can truly restore. I have seen it in action in restorative conferencing in Wandsworth prison as part of the Justice Research Consortium's work, and real justice is done. The governor told me that having started as a deep sceptic, he is now a strong supporter of the process.
Finally, I urge the Government to look seriously at the possibility of developing widespread partnerships with the voluntary sector. We heard much about that from my noble friend Lord Dholakia. There are many examples of excellent practice with highly successful outcomes in terms of greatly reduced re-offending, often at a fraction of the cost of custody. That should be drawn on and widely developed. I serve on the Scottish committee of Barnardo's where remarkable work is being done in several projects with young offenders. One example is Chosi in Dundee where the reoffending rates are down by a huge 80 per cent. I refer also to the preventive work of Matrix involving early intervention with younger children and families. There are wonderfully successful outcomes, and the long-term savings to society are beyond price. The potential for rolling out similar programmes for all ages is great and necessary.
We must balance retribution with restitution and rehabilitation. Community penalties must he expanded and improved if we are to reduce re-offending and achieve a truly safer society.
3.48 p.m.
Lord Warner: My Lords, I, too, welcome the opportunity of this debate provided by the noble Lord. Lord Dholakia. I know well the contribution that he has made to reform in this area, especially through his work with NACRO and the support that he has given to youth justice reform.
He is right to emphasise the contribution of voluntary organisations and volunteers. I should at this stage declare an interest as chairman of both the National Council for Voluntary Organisations and the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales. My contribution today will be based on my time as chairman of that board for the past four years, overseeing the youth justice reforms that have produced greater community involvement with young offenders and changed the juvenile parts of young offender institutions for the better, through the board's commissioning role.
It is worth reflecting briefly on what was happening in youth justice before these reforms. The youth justice system in the mid-1990s was struggling and was preoccupied with process rather than trying to achieve beneficial outcomes for young people and their communities. There were few effective community preventive programmes and little work with victims or parents. Frankly, until the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, anti-social behaviour on the part of young people was hardly on the agenda.
What we have now is a clear statutory aim for those working in youth justice of not punishment but preventing offending by children and young people.

1157
That is the mission statement. There are 155 multi-agency youth offending teams—which include health and education not just the criminal justice agencies—well established across England and Wales working with local communities and local courts. The sentencing framework has been reformed with new community sentences. Individual assessment of young offenders is being systematically undertaken so that the programmes provided fit their needs and are not just the ones that happen to be available. There are many more intervention programmes—often using local volunteers or paid staff from local cornmunities—that tackle the identified problems going wrong in these young people's lives. A new robust community alternative to custody—the Intensive Support and Surveillance Programme—has now been provided to 2,700 young people and is supported by local courts, local communities and local police.
I should mention that many of the youngsters on ISSPs receive the support of a mentor or advocate drawn from the local community to help bring them back on to the straight and narrow. As a result, youth courts are receiving a better service and are now working well with youth offending teams without in any way prejudicing their independence of judgment.
There is broad and growing support for this new system. Home Office research into the initial effect of the new community disposals from an analysis of juvenile offenders convicted in July 2000 showed a 14.6 per cent reduction against predicted reconviction rates for the group after one year. That was before the full roll-out of a year of the reforms. Ministers have recognised this as a significant achievement. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice in his Rose Lecture at the end of October endorsed the new approach saying that the changes to the youth justice system gave an illustration of the changes that could be promoted in the wider criminal justice system. It is worth quoting briefly from his lecture:
"The Youth Justice Board has the principal aim of preventing (rather than punishing) offending. This does not mean that there is no need to punish. It means that it should be recognised that punishment is only part of what is to be achieved. The punishment should be constructed to make it clear that crime does not pay, but it must also be constructive and result in the offender, at the end of his punishment, being less likely rather than more likely to reoffend".
That seems to me to be the message that needs to be worked on consistently as we approach this issue.
I have given this brief picture of the youth justice reforms and the quotation from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice not for reasons of personal vanity or territorial aggrandisement but to show what can be achieved when there is a clear mission statement, when public agencies work together, and when there is more creativity in the responses to offending and local communities are much more engaged with the problem. The heroes of these changes are not the Youth Justice Board but the youth offending team managers and their staff who have been real social entrepreneurs; the approaching 10,000 local volunteers, sessional workers and voluntary organisations who are now providing far more
1158
responsible adult face-to-face contact with young offenders than in the past—we should never underestimate the impact of that face-to-face contact—and the local youth courts (again volunteers) who have been willing to believe that young people could change and to use the new community programmes far more extensively.
I want to mention briefly a few particular changes that highlight this greater community involvement. About 25,000 young offenders a year receive a referral order. This means that they go before a youth offender panel composed of two trained local volunteers and a youth offending team worker. The panel agrees a contract for change with the young offender with an element of restorative justice and reparation. If this contract is completed, the effect can be that the conviction is treated as spent so there is an incentive to change. About 5,000 local community people are now members of these panels and in effect administer community justice.
Although the Government can take great credit for the advances that have been made, there is still a lot more to be done to prevent offending by young people and to apply the lessons of these reforms to the adult population, particularly those aged 18 to 20 who have many similarities to juvenile offenders but are trapped in a less responsive system. Even with these improvements we still have far too many young people in custody, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice has recognised. The Youth Justice Board would like to see the Intensive Support and Surveillance Programme converted into a proper order of up to 12 months as a rigorous alternative to short custodial sentences, which are highly ineffective. I hope that progress can be made on this issue in this parliamentary Session. If I can help the Minister by moving an amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill when it arrives from the other place, I shall be delighted to be of service to the Government in that matter.
As the Government have recognised, the improvements for juveniles have brought into sharp relief the unsatisfactory state of regimes for 18 to 20 year-olds in young offender institutions and the paucity of robust community programmes like ISSP for young adults. We need major changes—a paradigm shift—in the way we deal with young adult offending, with far more of them being supervised by multi-agency teams (not just the National Probation Service) in the community on ISSP-type programmes rather than making it impossible for the Director General of the Prison Service to improve regimes due to overcrowding.
Finally, I should like to say a few words about prevention. The Youth Justice Board and local agencies have made great strides with youth inclusion programmes and Summer Splash Schemes targeting high risk youngsters on high crime estates and with great involvement on the part of local organisations and volunteers. This summer, possibly as many as 100,000 youngsters took part in Summer Splash Schemes and the decrease in youth crime in these areas was significant. These programmes are low cost. It is

1159
crucial that we continue to invest in that kind of programme giving local people the opportunity to bring about change in their communities. Departments in Whitehall need to get their act together on this matter as regards organising funding streams more effectively and should try to achieve the co-ordination that the Prime Minister has brought to the street crime initiative. We are seeing strong progress being made with young offenders but we need to apply those lessons to the wider criminal justice system.
3.58 p.m.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, I, too, wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, for initiating today's timely debate.
I entered your Lordships' House in 1973, a very long time ago, but I waited until 1974 to make my maiden speech on prisoners' wives. Then, as now, my party was in opposition. That debate was initiated by Lord Longford and Lord Gardiner wound up.
In the late 1960s and early 1970s I helped an organisation, the Prisoners' Wives Service, which was set up by a redoubtable lady, Lady Chancellor, and still exists today under a slightly different name. It is entirely manned by volunteers. I understand that about 70 people work voluntarily for it. Having talked to that organisation today, what is depressing is that so little has changed since that time. In those days wives or partners—in those days they were mostly wives—had one paid visit to a prison per month. Now it is two and those on state benefit can seek financial assistance for such visits. However, as stated in the House yesterday, many prisoners are now located far away from their homes and families. Apparently, there is also a lack of communication and an apparent unwillingness on the part of prisons to inform a prisoner's partner that the prisoner has been moved. That seems to me extremely distressing for all concerned.
I am sure that noble Lords are aware that visitors have to telephone before they make a visit. In this day and age, when telephones are very busy, sometimes it is virtually impossible to get through. What happens then? A visit cannot be made. A woman in Italy had a son in prison here and had booked her flight. She never got through to the prison so she was unable to visit. That is appalling and worries me considerably.
At Wandsworth it takes three months for a prisoner to receive a parcel. I do not know what happens to it in that time. It takes nine days for a first-class letter to reach a prisoner. So how can they keep in touch with their families?
The noble Lord, Lord Quirk, mentioned education yesterday. Various other noble Lords have spoken about it. It is obviously essential to enable people when they leave prison to find a job and not return to prison. There are many writers in residence, as the noble and learned Lord informed me. A trust which I ran in the 1980s supported it. I believe that we were the first, besides the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, to do such a
1160
thing. We provided the money to bring a writer in residence into Lewes prison. It proved a great success. I have a book produced by Sir David Ramsbotham describing what people have written while in prison under such a system.
Another problem is that the shortage of staff means that prisoners cannot always be let out of their cells in time to attend lessons. Over a weekend in October, 350 men were prisoners in police cells because there was no room in prisons. Over a weekend they have no rights, no visits, no exercise and, what is possibly worse for them, they are not allowed to smoke.
I feel very strongly that matters have deteriorated considerably. It is not just a question of numbers. I believe that conditions and everything else have deteriorated considerably since the 1970s. When the noble and learned Lord replies I hope that he will consider the points I have raised.
4.2 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I wish to concentrate most of my remarks on dyslexia and the problems with which it confronts the Prison Service. About 17.5 is the lowest percentage point for dyslexic prisoners and that figure rises to about 50 per cent. I appreciate the Minister's position because estimates vary. I have looked at most of the figures: as a rough guide about one-third of the prison population suffers from dyslexia at a meaningful level.
It is appropriate that I declare a couple of interests. I am dyslexic myself. I am a vice president of the British Dyslexia Association, patron of the Adult Dyslexia Organisation and also vice president of the Apex Trust. If noble Lords believe that that series of titles confuses most people, just think what it does to a dyslexic with a bad short-term memory!
Most of the problems of dyslexia inside the Prison Service are not exclusive, but merely magnify the situation. I believe that that is now fairly well recognised. When the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, was at the Home Office he visited the DiSPEL project, which is concerned with the probation service and its dealings with dyslexic prisoners. He was very impressed and surprised by the work being done.
Prison education, which might help some of these people to break the cycle of offending, is not yet really capable of dealing with a high percentage of the clients. If we accept that 60 per cent of the prison population has a problem with literacy—the percentage may well be higher—the prison education service is going to be dealing with a very high number of dyslexics. Even if the figure is lower, as I mentioned earlier, it must be a major part of the work of the prison education system.
The Government say that they will deal with basic skills. The first problem begins here. Dyslexia is a disability which means that people have problems with the language areas of the brain; written symbols are particularly difficult for them. Suddenly, the Government's attainment targets of reaching X level of literacy are almost irrelevant to a very high proportion of the people concerned. If one has a major

1161
disability it means that the brain does not function in certain ways. Even with correct tuition one may improve, but one will probably never attain in this area. Therefore, the Government have a major problem in their thinking.
I know that people like to have attainable targets which they can talk about. But the Government have to begin thinking in a more coherent way about this issue. Most of the people we are talking about will have had a had school record; they may even have not attended for a very large part of their school life. They most certainly will not have attended for a part of their school career. They will have had the attitude that the classroom was a place where one either disrupted the class so one was not shown up to be unable to function or one kept quiet and hoped that the problem would go away. That is the basic problem.
If that is taking place the question is whether this approach to basic skills is relevant at all. I suggest that the Prison Service must address this question. If GN V Q Level 2 is seen as the employable level, how do we square with the idea of cutting down offending and making people more employable? I believe that that is the brief of the education department of the Prison Service. The fact of the matter is that one may have to change tack slightly and concentrate more on how one handles the disability problem and disclosure.
Mentoring was mentioned by a previous speaker who is no longer in his place. That may well be a real way forward. For some people, faced with the classroom situation. nothing will be changed or very little and comparatively slowly. One must therefore try to apply more emphasis to the problem. Under the current arrangements the prison education service is not really geared up for the task.
I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us that the Government are at least thinking about the problem. I go against my usual habit and offer a quotation. The Prison Service Standard on disabled prisoners states:
"The Prison Service will ensure that prisoners with physical, sensory and mental disabilities are, as far as practicable, to participate equally in prison life".
It further states that,
"establishments must take positive steps to ensure that disabled prisoners have access to education facilities and programmes and that their communication needs are met".
It would appear that the prison education service is way off beam in this matter. It is not geared up to the problem. I hope that the Minister will tell me that things are going to get better in this department.
I do not say that dyslexia is any excuse for offending, but an educational failure who comes from an underprivileged social background will not receive the support that used to be addressed to the "middle-class disease", as dyslexia was referred to a few years ago. In that situation one does not expect one's child to achieve. he does not do so and finds himself incapable of meeting the basic literacy requirements of the most menial of jobs. That might even include writing his name or filling in a timesheet. Then crime becomes a real option. I have not yet added my name to Adult Dyslexia Access. It discovered that when it was dealing
1162
with people involved with New Deal prospects, 52 per cent of its client base was dyslexic. The connection between employability and criminal activity is well proven because, regardless of what the tabloids tell us, most crimes are concerned with economic empowerment—getting money—and crimes against property.
Unless the Minister can tell me that the correct type of assessment and monitoring for dyslexics is built into virtually every programme relating to literacy in prisons, and that that is not simply a case of reaching X number of spelling levels, which certain people will not be able to do, the policy is failing. If it is failing at this level, it might be better to admit that we cannot do it and try to establish something else, rather than wasting a great deal of time and money and raising false hopes.
4.10 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I had several engagements this afternoon, but I decided not to go to them as the debate of the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, follows on so well from my Question about drug treatment centres for young people under 17.
For many years, I was a member of a board of visitors at a young offenders institution in Yorkshire. There were hardly any drug users or pushers when I started, but I saw a huge increase in my last years there—an increase not only of those involved in drugs, often mixed with alcohol, but also of the younger age group of 15 to 17 year-olds. That is a difficult age group. Those people often have more problems when they are discharged and back in the community, ready to be sucked again into the drug culture that destroys lives and disrupts communities.
Many mothers of those people are desperate to know what to do. A short time ago, I watched the Prime Minister on television, taking questions from a group of people who brought their problems to him. The meeting may have taken place in Downing Street. The Prime Minister did well until he was faced by the mother of a teenager who had committed suicide in prison and had been involved with drugs. He had a problem giving the mother a suitable answer.
We must do all we can to stop suicides and bullying in the penal system and find something more suitable that will rehabilitate young people who get involved with drugs. Hard drugs are the scourge of society. To feed their habit young people often have to steal or raise money by prostitution. For some years, I chaired a drug rehabilitation organisation called Phoenix House, which often serves as an alternative to prison. The residents live in family-like houses, of which there are several throughout the country. Before leaving, they are encouraged to go to college and, if possible, are found suitable accommodation. They are given a foundation and hope for the future and not simply turned out into a difficult environment.
Phoenix House did not cater for the younger group of teenage children. If local authorities had to pay for their time in prison—or young offenders institutions—the story might be different. They might set up some

1163
young people's rehabilitation centres with education services. Those young people should be in whole-time education; we need them to be healthy and useful, not ruining their lives and destroying any family life they might have had. It is a challenge for the Government and for everyone, but I believe that an easy way out is for local authorities to let those children go to penal institutions because they do not have to pay and they are relieved of the problem for some months.
I hope that there will be an improvement when there is more National Health Service input in prisons. That would be very welcome. Every time I visit I come away feeling very concerned about the number of mentally ill people in male and female prisons. I saw them mixed in with the physically ill at the prison health centre at Wandsworth prison. That is a dangerous situation and creates more work for the staff.
I was on the board of the Yorkshire regional health authority when the move to close mental health hospitals took place some years ago. I said, am sure many of these patients will land up in prison". Well, that has happened. What plans does the Minister have for those people when they leave prison? What aftercare is there for mentally ill prisoners? If there is none, the local communities to which they return will be fearful and not welcoming. Medical records need to follow the prisoners who need a GP and forward planning before being released into the community. I do not think that that happens often these days.
This morning, I attended a meeting in the other place about the growing problem of tuberculosis. In London, it is becoming serious. Many foreign-born people are developing the disease. Brent, Newham, Hackney, Ealing and Tower Hamlets have the highest numbers; they can be compared with those for some Asian countries and Russia. I hope that the health service in prisons will keep a close watch on overcrowding, because prisons could become ideal places for the infection to spread. We are very short of critical lung specialists. Communities and prisons could easily become linked and pass TB on to each other. It has been said that some people have been misdiagnosed when TB has been mistaken for asthma.
I am pleased to say that a halfway house for prisoners returning to the community was named after me. Masham House in Hull is run by Dick Pooley, who was in prison himself, and his wife. It has been very useful in rehabilitating ex-prisoners into the community and keeping them from drifting into trouble. There is a need for more rehabilitation facilities for those returning to the community.
The Prison Service has a difficult job, but I hope that people working in it do not forget that they are working with people and not just with numbers. Some very good activities take place in prisons, such as horticulture and drama, which can give hope to people who have lost it and enable the depressed to see a glimmer of light. Prison is not just being locked up in a cell. Those who return to the community need more than to walk out of the prison gates with no one to meet them. They need resettlement and a helping hand.
4.18 p.m.
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, on introducing the debate. Last month, the Queen's Speech offered some hope of improved co-ordination between our criminal justice services. These government intentions are much to be welcomed and encouraged. Yet that may currently be as far as we can go. Improved co-ordination on its own may not achieve very much, unless it is allied to clear objectives. Today, and through the reference of his debate, the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, delivered clear objectives. Far better results must be achieved in rehabilitating offenders and in preventing crime in the first place. To achieve those ends, different and wiser measures must be deployed and co-ordinated between the community and penal institutions.
The first glaring anomaly, of course, is that, while crime overall is falling, the prison population is ever-rising. Therefore, the challenge to the Government becomes not only to cause a reduction but to achieve a dramatic reduction in the prison population. I am sure the Minister will agree with that and that he will want to meet that challenge.
At the same time, as my noble friend Lord Hurd strictured yesterday, in the Queen's Speech there was hardly a reference to the crisis of prison overcrowding, let alone to the priority of its redress. In that context, it was fitting that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester should have invited and urged the Minister to convene an initiative in order to alleviate the unnecessary and intolerable burden currently imposed upon the Prison Service.
The next anomaly concerns sentencing policy itself. Despite the availability of non-custodial sentences, these have coexisted with a huge rise in the number of custodial sentences and with a large increase in the number of prisoners from 46,000 in 1991 to more than 72,000 at present and a predicted figure of 83,000 by 2008. The Government say that there will now be new guidelines for magistrates and Crown Courts and their sentences. However, does the Minister concur that far too many young people, both below and above the age of 17, are still detained for minor crimes and that, in the majority of cases, their detention is as futile as it is counter-productive? Can he also confirm that, not only in theory but also in practice, new sentencing guidelines for this category of offending will in fact influence the courts to replace custodial sentences with non-custodial ones?
Then there is the inconsistency concerning the design of non-custodial sentences. Often they have proved to be ineffective owing to their poor design. The Government deserve credit for having recently introduced the youth justice supervision scheme and. to some extent, detention and training orders. Nevertheless, non-custodial penalties still leave a great deal to be desired. What further plans do the Government have for widening their range and improving their quality in order to reduce reoffending and encourage employment, confidence and purpose?

1165
In connection with that, and whether they subsist within penal institutions or within the community, a number of indicators and patterns are always easy to recognise and enable us to predict an outcome. The challenge to government and to criminal justice thus becomes that of being prepared to recognise those signs in advance and then to act upon them. Thus far, there has not been much success in that exercise or even much attempt to embark upon it at all.
One such example is the pattern of post-detention homelessness, which, allied to unemployment, almost always leads to reoffending. Equally, as a number of your Lordships have stressed, within the community it is far more likely that young people will turn to crime if they have had problems with school learning and within their homes than if they have not. Correspondingly, a wide range of responses and expedients may be deployed. These can assist to deter, guide and inspire into constructive purpose and away from crime.
Certainly much useful work in this field will continue to come, as it already does, from charities, the private sector and from individual effort and initiative. Yet if the Government are really in the business of criminal justice co-ordination, not least through partnership and in other ways, they should develop a more hands-on approach within the community towards crime prevention and, post-detention, towards the prevention of reoffending. Does the Minister support that view and, if so, what type of action are he and the Government prepared to take?
Finally, it must also now be the Government's task to remove the inconsistency between two related fields. We are still much admired for our record on democracy and human rights. Yet our current poor results from criminal justice lower our reputation for competence internationally as they undermine confidence and morale within the country. Now at last, the resolve must be to achieve proper results where the past 30 years have failed and, from Britain, to set a good and lasting example for justice and stability.
4.25 p.m.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I should like to concentrate my remarks today on young offenders. I also add my compliments to my noble friend Lord Dholakia for introducing this very important debate. Here in the UK we lock up more young people in penal institutions than any other country in the Council of Europe apart from Ireland, Albania, Romania, Macedonia and Turkey. Currently about 2,600 young people under the age of 18 are held in 25 prisons in England and Wales—90 per cent more than 10 years ago. There are no young offender institutions for girls. They are held in adult prisons, despite the commitment made by the right honourable Jack Straw in April 2000 that they would be removed. Perhaps the Minister will be able to tell us when that objective will be achieved.
We have the lowest age of criminal responsibility in the Eli except for Ireland—a matter severely criticised by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child when
1166
it reported two months ago on the UK's track record on children's rights. Do the Government have any plans to change that?
However, we are not here today to consider the reasons why so many young people commit crimes, although that is an important matter for another day. We are here to consider what we as a society do with them when they have done so. The fact is that we lock them up in overcrowded penal institutions. We do not find out enough about them to be able to help them properly. We put overworked, inexperienced and inadequately trained people in charge of them. We give them inadequate education while they are inside and little or no support when they come out. And we wonder why they reoffend.
Last week, I saw a programme on television about a young boy who came out of prison after being inside for drug offences. He had been a crack addict. He had only his mother to rely on. There appeared to be no programme in place to follow him up and to get him back on the straight and narrow with a worthwhile life to lead, apart from a weekly meeting with a probation officer. What a failure. I fear for that young man. He and his mother will have to be very strong and determined if he is to stay away from drugs and crime. Why do not all young offenders leaving prison have an action plan to help them to avoid reoffending, and why do they not have the help and professional support to implement that plan? I cannot think of anything that would be more cost-effective than that, in either economic or human terms.
We know that the processing of individual children through prison is haphazard. Despite the ASSET standard assessment tool, vital information about their history of mental health, drug misuse, family and educational difficulties is rarely available. However, we know quite a lot about them as a group. We know that nearly half of young people in young offender institutions—average age 17—have literacy and numeracy levels below those of the average 11 year-old and that more than a quarter have the numeracy level of a seven year-old. We heard from my noble friend Lord Addington about the high levels of dyslexia. We know that many have mental health and family problems and we know that a high proportion of them are addicted to hard drugs.
However, Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Prisons has described the education service in prisons as an "impoverished service". Ironically, the basic skills courses were the least satisfactory of those inspected. The inspectorate recommended an increased focus on entry level and level 1 courses to line up with the identified need. New money is available but prisons have to bid for it.
I believe that the system should be turned around completely so that young offenders have an entitlement to an education appropriate to their specific needs. The money should follow the child, not be dependent on the lottery of where children are sent after sentence and how good they are at bidding for new money. Although many young people receive fairly short sentences, their new education plan should

1167
be carried on after they leave prison. Prisons should be responsible for that, in the same way that hospitals have to ensure that old people have appropriate care to go to after they leave hospital.
Most young people in penal institutions receive an average of only 15 hours education per week at present. I am aware that the Youth Justice Board aims by March 2004 to provide them with 30 hours of learning opportunities per week. However, by then hundreds of young people will have left and we will have missed giving them a second chance at education. We know that a large number of them truanted or were excluded from school, so having them in a penal institution is a valuable opportunity for them to try again. However, as my noble friend Lord Addington said, many prisons do not have expert special needs teachers. That area requires emergency input.
What also concerns me is the environment in which young people find themselves when they are given a custodial sentence. In most cases, it sends them out more damaged, angrier and more alienated than they were when they came in. Children in prison are routinely treated in a way that in other circumstances would trigger a child protection investigation for abuse. For example, between April 2000 and January 2002, solitary confinement was used on juveniles 4,437 times; 976 of those children were locked up alone for more than a week. Bullying and self-harm are common and, sadly, five children have taken their own lives since April 2000 while in the care of the Prison Service, despite the best endeavours of many committed and caring individual professionals in the service.
As we have now had it clarified in a recent High Court case brought by the Howard League that the Children Act 1989 applies in prisons, many young offenders should now be referred to social services. Currently, not a single social services department visits its local prison to monitor the treatment of children there. The Howard League and six major national children's charities believe that a child, even one who has broken the law, is a child first and foremost—and a vulnerable child at that.
We are failing them. The reoffending figures described by my noble friend Lord Dholakia alone tell us that. Parents can hardly be held responsible for their children while they are in custody. If they were in residential care, the local authority would be in loco parentis. In prison, they are disowned—de-parented. They are neither children in their own right nor children under the protection of their parents or children's legislation.
The Government's response to the High Court judgment given by the prisons Minister, Hilary Benn, talked about the need to change one sentence in the Government's policy on children in prison. He also painted a very much rosier picture than anyone else of the conditions for children in prison and the guidelines for their care. But guidelines are one thing and actual practice another. When is that one sentence to be corrected? Does the Children Act 1989 need to be
1168
amended? If so, when? What is being done to ensure that all guidelines are being followed and adequate resources provided to ensure that they can be?
The judge in the case, Mr Justice Munby, said:
"the State appears to be failing and in some circumstances failing very badly in its duties to vulnerable and damaged children."
In his response, Mr Benn mentioned the great improvements that have been achieved at Feltham young offender institution as a result of increased investment. In response to that clear evidence, do the Government intend to make a similar level of investment in both capital projects and human resources in other, similar institutions? Human resources seem to be one of the most critical factors and prison officers themselves are painfully aware of the shortcomings.
It may be cheaper in the short term to underinvest in those young people, but it is certainly not cost-effective in the long term. We know what needs to be done. Prevention is the best solution, by investing in education, parental support and social services to stop young people offending in the first place, but when young offenders are in our care, we must grasp the opportunity to try to correct past mistakes and not fail them again.
4.34 p.m.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords. I join noble Lords who have congratulated the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, on introducing this debate on a subject of fundamental importance. Many noble Lords have spoken brilliantly and supported their arguments with a mass of statistics, but they have mainly concentrated on the issue of prisons. I read the Motion and perhaps misunderstood it, but the words "local communities" sprang out at me. I shall ponder for a moment on local communities and the causes of crime.
My first reaction on reading the Motion was to ask, "What communities? Do we really have local communities?" Certainly, in the leafy suburbs we do. but they are mainly middle-class people protecting their rights and ensurine, that no one undesirable comes to live in their area. There are other kinds of communities, such as those of ethnic and religious minorities—the Islamic community in Tower Hamlets, for example, which I know well, is extremely strong. Then there are special project communities, such as the youth justice boards referred to by the noble Lord. Lord Warner, in which a specific group of people within a neighbourhood come together to achieve a particular goal.
But are there actual communities—groups of people who, because they live in the same village or the same block of flats, are a community? I do not see them. Such communities could have a marvellous role to play in helping prisoners to return and be rehabilitated, providing jobs and housing, supporting ex-offenders, getting them back to work and giving them opportunities to make restitution—all issues mentioned by noble Lords, including the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth. If we had local communities, they could work together with

1169
youth organisations to create diversion from crime—youth work, sport and similar activities, which have been decimated during the past 10 or 20 years by local authorities (because local communities did not persuade their representatives that there were votes in them).
If we had local communities, they could create an environment for families bringing up young children that gave them the support that they need in the early years, so that those children grow up self-confident, knowing how to love and to be loved and how to relate to other people, having sufficient self-esteem to be able to integrate positively into school and gain an education, having been taught boundaries to acceptable behaviour and having learnt how to control their emotions and understand the emotions of others. Children who have learnt those lessons are much less likely to drop out of school or be drawn into crime. I have made a note at this point to say that I am not being soft and sentimental. I recognise the need for punishment when crime is committed, but it would be much better if we could prevent those crimes in the first place.
The fundamental question is: what makes young people turn to crime? Is it nature or nurture? Is it the environment in which children grow up? Those issues are under constant review and the subject of constant research. It is worth mentioning that my noble friend Lady Greenfield is at the leading edge of research in that area. The answer is probably that genes play a part. but the evidence increasingly shows that the environment in which the child grows up in its first years—even from year one—is crucial.
I have given the Minister notice of this question, but it may be difficult to answer: what percentage of those serving prison sentences were born into dysfunctional families? I read last week in a book by a retired prison officer that 90 per cent—nine out of 10—of prisoners come from dysfunctional families. Now, that sounds awfully high to me, hut, even if the figure is 50 or 60 per cent, it is an important factor in what we do about the prevention of crime.
There is no doubt that there is a causal relationship between inadequate or inappropriate parenting in the very early years and a tendency to be drawn into crime later. Whether it is a direct causal relationship or whether the two derive from a common cause remains to be seen. It is in the family, in the very early years, that a child learns or does not learn the self-confidence to give and receive love, the ability to relate to others and to be aware of their concerns, an understanding of his emotions and those of others and the ability to control anger and violence.
Even in the womb, a child learns to recognise his mother's voice, and his mental and emotional development can be damaged by drugs and hormones in the mother's blood. When a child is born, it is projected into a strange and threatening world, and it needs a cocoon of love and security, which usually takes the form of a loving attachment to its mother or surrogate mother, then to the father and other adults, as time goes on. Without that interaction and that
1170
cocoon of love in the first months, the child will tend to grow up insecure and disadvantaged. A child who has never interacted with his parents has not learnt to interact with others. A child who has been subject to instability and violence in the family will have angry, frustrated and violent reactions. If the child's brain becomes hard-wired to such patterns of thought and emotion in the early years, they may be difficult to dislodge later.
That could be where local communities come in. The Government are fond of saying—probably rightly, I think—that it is not the business of the Government to interfere in the way in which individuals live their life. That may well be true, but, if children suffer because of the way in which individuals lead their life, local communities might be able to set an example by helping and encouraging, by finding ways in which they could influence the family environment in which children spend their very early years.
I have no time to develop those ideas; I did not expect that I would. I shall make a little "commercial": I hope that my noble friends on the Cross Benches will give me a debate that will give your Lordships the opportunity of discussing the matters further later in this Session.
4.43 p.m.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, I did not submit my name for inclusion in this debate because I cannot be here after six o'clock. However, in view of the fact that the debate has proceeded so quickly, I shall intervene briefly.
Hearing my noble friend Lady Sharples say that things had got worse since 1970 made me realise that we have been in exactly this situation before. In 1970, when I became a junior Minister in the Home Office under Mr Maudling, the first paper we received was one from the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale—Sir Philip Allen, as he then was—on the problem of prison overcrowding and on what would happen if we took no action. The only difference is that, then, the figure was 40,000. We were told that disaster would strike at 45,000. Today, there are 72,000 people in prison, and the figure is growing. It is leading inevitably to enormous and difficult problems associated with overcrowding.
We must remember that the only purpose of sending people to prison, as the Gladstone committee said, is to attempt to reform them so that they come out—they will come out—better men and women. But overcrowding limits the opportunities for education and makes the time for such matters as drug rehabilitation more difficult to find.
There is only one answer to overcrowding. It is not by building more penal institutes; that takes too long. The answer is to reduce the number of people being sent to prison or the sentences that those who are imprisoned must serve. That means further alternatives to imprisonment. In the 1970s, we introduced community service; that needs a further boost today. I join the noble Earl. Lord Dundee, in

1171
asking the Government what their proposals for non-custodial sentences are and when we will see them in action. I remember that the Minister was keen about the proposals in the Criminal Justice Bill, but I rather gathered from what he said afterwards—on television, I think—that the money was not perhaps available for their immediate implementation.
We must change the philosophy that prison works. Prison does not work and is not working today. Of course, it works in the sense that it keeps those who commit crimes out of trouble while they are in prison. But the appalling reconviction rates show that overcrowding works against the reformative aims of prisons. So prison is not working.
The most encouraging speech I have heard on the matter for a long time was that made by the noble Lord, Lord Warner, on what is being done with the youth institutions. I hope that we will hear from the Minister the Government's proposals for a solution to overcrowding. Rather than talk about the philosophy that prison works, we should say that, in fact, prison is the final example of the failure of other methods of reformation.
4.47 p.m.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, this afternoon, we have dealt with some of the most difficult issues that we face as a society. In introducing the debate, my noble friend Lord Dholakia showed that the issues of crime and the rehabilitation of offenders are too important to be left to the criminal justice system alone.
As the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle of Bucklow, reminded us, we were told years ago that, if we allowed overcrowding in the prisons to continue, it would be a serious hindrance to any programme for rehabilitation. We heard that from my noble friend himself, who said that it was impossible to deliver a purposeful regime in the present state of overcrowding, and from my noble friend Lady Linklater of Butterstone, who said that overcrowding had reached intolerable levels. The noble Baroness, Lady Sharples, gave an example of how impossible it is to deliver educational programmes when the prisoners are banged up in their cell for 23 hours a day and there are no officers left to escort them to classes. Such examples reveal a desperate position in our prisons, and it is remarkable that so much success is achieved, through the hard work of prison officers and other staff, who try to help prisoners to deal with offending behaviour and alleviate some of the causes, including addiction to drink and drugs, illiteracy and difficulties with communications. However, it is impossible to deliver effective offending behaviour programmes with the overcrowding that we face.
My noble friend Lord Addington mentioned the problem of dyslexia. I ask the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, to tell us whether anything has happened as a result of the survey conducted by Professor Karen Bryan of speech, language and communication difficulties among young offenders at HMYOI Swinfen Hall. She found
1172
that large numbers of young persons there had significant problems that would hinder them from getting jobs or fitting into society generally.
At the time, the then Minister for Prisons, Beverley Hughes, told me that the Prisoners Learning and Skills Unit was aware of those findings, had reported them to the Health Policy Unit and that they had been incorporated into the health needs assessment toolkit for prisoners. But there was no standard approach to the screening of young offenders for speech, language and communication difficulties and they were going to discuss rolling out the model that had been used at Polmont YOI in Scotland.
As Professor Bryan found that many of the problems that she assessed could be mitigated with appropriate professional intervention, this was obviously a way in which young offenders could be helped to regain a foothold in mainstream society. When he comes to reply, perhaps the noble and learned Lord will say what has happened as a result of that work.
Reference has been made to the probation service and the huge increase in workload that it faces. My noble friend Lady Linklater asked for a massive new funding of the probation service, even in the light of the £70 million increase in its budget for next year, which amounts to between an 8 and 14 per cent rise in the budgets of the 42 probation areas. That sounds good on the face of it, but it should be seen in the context of the major reorganisation of the probation service. It should be related to the number of people it has to supervise, the number of breach actions it has to take and the number of court reports it has to submit.
The probation service has done remarkably well in reducing the reoffending rate by 3 per cent at the same time as this reorganisation. I hope that this can be sustained on the resources it has been given. But there also has to be a corresponding rise in the contribution of other agencies if offenders are to be kept out of prison.
The Chief Inspector of Probation, Professor Rod Morgan, states in the introduction to his annual report, which contains a lot of good ideas, that "What Works" programmes—that is the cognitive-behavioural group work programmes—only work in the context of effective case management which tackles the whole range of criminogenic factors such as drug and alcohol abuse, accommodation problems, lack of education and vocational skills, unemployment and debt, which characterise most supervised offenders.
In the light of this—it seems so obvious as not to need re-statement—I was alarmed when we heard yesterday at the All-Party Penal Affairs Group meeting that of the 90,000 prisoners released in England and Wales this year, a third had nowhere to go on release. A Home Office study found that 71 per cent of the prisoners with no place to go had received no housing advice while they were inside. But, according to Paul Cavadino of NACRO, people discharged into stable housing are 20 per cent less likely to reoffend than those who are homeless. They

1173
are also more likely, he said yesterday, to stay on drug rehabilitation programmes, to get jobs and to continue with sex offender treatment programmes.
Yet the courts have ruled in two recent cases in Lambeth and Hounslow that prisoners who lost their homes—as a third of them do as a direct result of their prison sentence through not being able to pay the rent or the mortgage—had made themselves homeless intentionally. This may have been true at the time of the offence, but I do not think that Parliament intended it to continue after the sentence had been served. The Guidance on the Homelessness Act states that a person has a priority need for accommodation if he or she is vulnerable as a result of a custodial sentence, but then adds that only a minority of ex-prisoners arc likely to be vulnerable because the probation service is responsible for seeing that their accommodation needs are met. That is not a realistic proposition and I invite the Government to reconsider that policy.
We heard yesterday also at the penal affairs group from Marie McNicol of the St Giles Trust, who said that her organisation was providing housing advice and help to prisoners at Wandsworth prison. For instance, in November alone, it saw 55 prisoners, helped Five to keep their tenancies and referred 24 to other agencies. The trust is also training long-term prisoners to give advice to others. In doing so, they can acquire an NVQ, which will be useful when they finally come out.
Another example of good practice is the service provided by the Anglia Care Trust at Norwich prison, quoted in the Social Exclusion Unit's report Reducing Re-offending by Ex-prisoners. The trust negotiated with landlords on behalf of prisoners to allow them to keep their tenancies and advised them on debt management. Ultimately, only 5 per cent of the prisoners leaving Norwich had nowhere to go. Surely it would pay to have similar advice services throughout the whole of the prison system in terms of reducing the homelessness of ex-prisoners and hence reducing reoffending.
If local authorities are not going to take any responsibility for the needs of the homeless ex-prisoners, then at least there should be specialist accommodation available to them such as that mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham—that is, the hostel in Hull which is named after her. I congratulate her on that and the fact that it is run by an ex-prisoner.
There is surplus accommodation in many northern towns which might be suitable for conversion to small units for ex-prisoners without family ties. The French have such a network. I spoke on Monday to a man who I have corresponded with for many years, who had come out that day after spending 29 years and four months in prison. He was discharged to a hostel in Nancy as a condition of his release. This man started in Parkhurst years ago and I continued to correspond with him when he was transferred to the French system. He did not mind being offered a place in a hostel miles from his relatives—he was only too
1174
delighted to come out after such a length of time, I can assure your Lordships. The same might be true here. If we use the space available in the northern towns we could build small hostels which would accommodate those who had nowhere else to go on release. That would prevent a great deal of reoffending.
The Halliday reforms mean that fewer people will be sent to prison in future for short periods. It is obviously hoped that correspondingly fewer will lose their homes. The implementation of Custody Plus will lead to the supervision of all prisoners on release—including those given short sentences who, up to now, have been left to sink or swim. But there will be far greater demands on services in the community and the money should be provided out of the savings in prison costs.
That brings me to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne—what is the community going to do? On the face of it, enormous amounts of money are available to accommodate the demands in the community arising from the Halliday reforms. There is the Single Regeneration Budget, which has among its objectives the reduction of crime and drug abuse and the improvement of community safety. The Neighbourhood Renewal Fund of £900 million over three years also has as an objective the reduction of crime.
The Community Empowerment Fund is a pot of money for the voluntary and community sector to help it to get involved in local strategic partnerships, where the authorities receive money from the NRF. The Neighbourhood Renewal Community Chest is another fund to provide support for setting up community organisations in NRF areas, and that could include offender support programmes.
The Time Limited Development Fund is designed to inspire local people to get involved in voluntary activities that tackle social exclusion, including, again, the social exclusion of offenders. The New Deal for Communities is a programme that gives the poorest areas the resources to deal with multiple problems, including high levels of crime. Several noble Lords have referred to the Futurebuilders Fund, which was criticised by either my noble friend Lady Linklater or my noble friend Lady Walmsley because it is a one-off fund of £125 million which does not allow for any continuity in the capacity building of the voluntary and community sector.
In this jargon jungle there is a bio-diversity of steering groups, voluntary sector consortiums, community champions and "community planning managers" competing for money, but it is not easy to identify the end product in terms of delivering services that will reduce the amount of re-offending and attack the causes of crime, such as alcohol and drug abuse and addiction, or with helping offenders in the community to overcome problems such as illiteracy or lack of social skills. I ask the Minister to what extent any voluntary agencies aiming at these specific problems have submitted bids under each of the headings, and what is their record of success?

1175
My noble friend Lady Walmsley spoke about the lottery of provision for young people in the community after discharge. When there is a radical change in direction by the Government in terms of sentencing policy, which in turn requires a corresponding realignment of both statutory and voluntary services provided in the community, leaving it to the luck of the draw in the bidding for these funds is not likely to produce an optimum solution. The Social Exclusion Unit says that there should be a national rehabilitation strategy to include the widened availability of offending behaviour programmes—education and training; mental health programmes; drugs and alcohol programmes; and family support—and that that strategy should have its own budget instead of being dependent on bids made incidentally under the variety of programmes already mentioned.
I hope that the noble and learned Lord will comment on the lack of co-ordination in all these systems of support within the community, and that, as a result of this debate, there will be a greater focus on measures to help the community itself to deal with reoffending and the rehabilitation of offenders.
5 p.m.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, there are four key phrases in the Motion introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, and each merits a debate in itself. But they are all subtly tied together in the noble Lord's frame.
Let me begin with the role of local communities. Local communities are, as the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, suggested, not as strong as they used to be. They have lost their supporting pillars in the post office, the corner shop, church and chapel—and not just in the country but in the towns as well. Neighbours are strangers to each other in many places. The "local community" in our parlance is, I suspect, the community of local authorities and service providers.
Policing in the community has changed a great deal. I was rather surprised by the number of speakers in the home affairs debate on the Address in the other place who complained about inadequate policing in their constituencies. It is not surprising when one considers that over the past 10 years some 730 communities have lost their police stations and are now policed solely by patrol cars.
The key point is that the police are our first line of defence against crime in the local community, be it urban or rural, and police performance is inevitably variable. There is scope for improvement.
Part of the answer must lie in improved recruitment of special constables and self-help schemes such as neighbourhood watch and other voluntary schemes. We must, of course, beware of the vigilante tendency and make sure that people invested with a semblance of authority do not abuse it. We must also ensure that anti-social behaviour orders really work. We know of the difficulties and delays in obtaining them. Seeing to it that they are not disregarded is another matter, and the same is true of other behaviour orders.
1176
The Government set great store by their crime and disorder reduction partnerships. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer. told me in a Written Answer on 19th November that,
"CDRPs are key to the local delivery of reductions in crime and disorder".
He went on to say:
"We have a large programme of work in hand to assess and improve partnership performance".
The Minister stated:
"There are currently 354 crime and disorder reduction partnerships (CDRPs) in England and 22 in Wales".
All that is good news for crime prevention in local communities and we shall follow the progress of CDRPs and study their effectiveness with keen interest.
With regard to the contribution of local communities to rehabilitation, we are all aware of the importance of the family and the workplace in this context. Ideally, rehabilitation should be a natural process of restoration of the individual wrongdoer to self-respect and a respectable place in the society whence he came. We know that the reality is different. Too often, the offender is returned to the poor social conditions that may have led him to criminal activity in the first place and it simply leads to a repetition of earlier behaviour.
Implicit in all of this is the vast transformation that is required to improve the quality of life in our most deprived communities, where housing is deplorable, normal family life is under severe strain, sink schools abound and decent work is hard to come by. A drugs culture aggravates the situation. Anti-social behaviour becomes the norm rather than the exception.
I was saddened to read that the Schools Health Education Unit reported that the proportion of boys aged 14 and 15 who said that they had tried cannabis had risen from 19 per cent in 1999 to 29 per cent in 2001 and the proportion of girls of the same age had risen from 18 per cent to 25 per cent. We all know how drug addiction leads to other crimes to support the habit and all too frequently to imprisonment. Drug addicts need treatment for their rehabilitation. I am glad that the updated drugs strategy document published today recognises this.
The probation service has been much mentioned in the course of the debate. It is under pressure—so much so that I understand the staff are being balloted on strike action. The chief inspector, Mr Rod Morgan, blames the magistrates for,
"clogging up jails with petty offenders when a sting in the wallet would do".
The chairman of the council of the Magistrates' Association, Harry Mawdsley, has denied the charge and quoted recent figures showing 75 per cent of offenders receiving a fine compared with only 4 per cent receiving a custodial sentence. Millions of fines remain unpaid. Yet the Government appear to favour this remedy for anti-social behaviour. Will fines work, even with enforcers, or will they be ignored?

1177
When we turn to the penal system, the outstanding fact is that our prisons are bulging at the seams with the highest population ever of more than 72,500. Do the Government expect the prison population to rise still further in the years ahead, with all the consequences of overcrowding which are already glaringly obvious? I should be grateful for an answer to that question. In our debate on the Address on 21st November, the noble Lord, Lord Corbett of Castle Vale, presented us with an analysis of that figure. It struck me that more than half of the inmates serve short sentences of three months or less. There are nearly 5,000 mentally ill people in prison. It is clear that the Prison Service cannot hope to perform its functions properly in the current circumstances.
It is not surprising that the Social Exclusion Unit reported that. in 1997, 58 per cent of prisoners released were reconvicted within two years—a fact brought forward by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia. Eighteen to 20 year-old male prisoners were reconvicted at the rate of 72 per cent over the same period—and the prison population then was 10,000 fewer!
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, made wide-ranging recommendations for the reform of the prison system in 1991, after the Strangeways riot. Among his recommendations was the development of community prisons, which I certainly support, bearing in mind the importance of family visits and support for prisoners in the rehabilitation process, as my noble friend Lady Sharples mentioned.
The Prison Reform Trust's review of prison visitor centres in January this year strongly recommended that prisons should be located in places readily accessible to visitors. I know that the Government intend to build two prisons, but have they totally abandoned the recommendation of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, in this matter? If so, I believe that their judgment is at fault.
There is a touch of "authoritarianism in an Armani suit" about some of the Government's proposals. My noble friend Lord Kingsland attributed the sentiment, if not the words, to the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws. I suppose it is the outcome of the Prime Minister's pledge to be tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime. But the Government must be tough on themselves, too. They must seriously question the likely efficacy of their proposed remedies.
Arresting recidivism plays a very important role in reducing crime. Like the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, I was impressed by the summary given by the chief executive of NACRO, of which the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, is chairman. It stressed the importance of jobs, accommodation, family support, literacy and numeracy. In the light of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, we can add dyslexia to that category.
We in the Conservative Party are particularly concerned about persistent young offenders and getting them off what my friend in the other place Oliver Letwin describes as the conveyor belt of crime. I note the great interest of the noble Lord, Lord Warner, in this area. We have proposed long rehabilitative sentences for persistent young offenders. Those would
1178
include not only imprisonment but, beyond that, a long period of active rehabilitation and reform. The sentencing framework, which is being consulted upon widely, would comprise a period of imprisonment and, where necessary, detoxification; a period of intensive rehabilitation in conditions of open custody; and a prolonged period during which offenders would be closely supervised and given support to ensure that they found and kept appropriate accommodation and a useful occupation. That is a worthwhile policy. It is an area of work that has its rewards, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Warner, will agree. That policy promises a better future not only for those young people hat for society as a whole.
5.12 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, I join noble Lords in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, on obtaining this debate and on the quality of his contribution both in this debate and in his work on resettlement and penal issues in his various roles. I agree with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth that this is a particularly significant day on which to hold the debate, given the discussion in another place, chaired by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury, when a wider audience examined all these issues. It has been an excellent debate for several reasons.
I start with the opening proposition of the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia: there is plainly a connection between social exclusion and crime. I shall also quote the statistic he gave that 40 per cent of crimes are committed in 10 per cent of communities. The noble Lord is right to start the debate by asking what is the effect on communities.
We will never deal with the problem of crime simply by looking at the prison population or at what happens in the criminal justice system. We must look much wider. The Government have been doing that methodically since they came to power in 1997. First, it is necessary to seek to provide intervention for those who are likely to go into crime to try to divert them from it. Programmes such as Sure Start seek to deal with that, as do others run by individual agencies, voluntary and community groups. I have seen in Durham how the police are taking proactive and helpful steps to provide alternative activity for families they identify as ones that might go into crime.
The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, asked me—and he gave me warning of his question—to what extent one can tie up dysfunctional families with those who commit crime. I cannot provide a precise figure, but I can give three indicators. Two per cent of the general population have been taken into care as children, compared to 27 per cent of those who commit crimes. Eleven per cent of the general population have run away from home as a child; the figure for male and female sentenced prisoners is 47 and 50 per cent respectively. Sixteen per cent of the general population have had a family member convicted of a criminal offence compared with 43 per cent of prisoners. Those statistics indicate the areas to which the noble

1179
Lord referred. We can identify people who may commit crimes and we should try to intervene as quickly as possible.
It is not just about those interventions; it is about taking steps to try to prevent crime in other ways. As the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, and others said, that is not just a matter for the criminal justice system. Crime and disorder reduction partnerships, on which the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, was kind enough to congratulate us, are important because they recognise that it is not just the police, the courts and the prosecution who must contribute to the reduction of crime, but also the local authorities, health authorities and the community and voluntary sector. They must consider such matters as where street-lighting should be improved to reduce crime and assess the priorities of individual communities for reducing crime—for example, by improving transport and providing better healthcare. Crime and disorder reduction partnerships should do that.
Another aspect of crime reduction or prevention was highlighted by my former noble friend—he is now a Cross-Bencher—the noble Lord, Lord Warner, in relation to the Youth Justice Board. It has made a remarkable and effective contribution under the noble Lord's leadership to dealing with crime prevention among young people. Not only does it deal with those who are already in the criminal justice system; its work includes youth inclusion programmes such as Summer Splash which reach a significant number of young people. The noble Lord, Lord Warner, referred to the number of crimes that may well not have been committed as a result of those programmes. It is right that this debate should be rooted in the community, so that we can identify the fact that much work is being carried out on diversion and crime prevention.
Another important element—the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, referred to this—is fighting degeneration and hoping to improve regeneration. That involves neighbourhood renewal funds and New Deal for Communities. If one goes to areas where those programmes exist, one discovers that, almost invariably, communities are most concerned about crime and anti-social behaviour. The number of New Deal for Communities programmes that have invested money in community policing, CCTV and local measures to prevent and reduce crime indicates the extent of communities' concern.
The problem of drugs overarches much of the issue. Communities, particularly deprived ones, fear that drugs will make local residents' children victims, offenders or both. We must address the problem of drugs. Yesterday's updated drugs strategy does precisely that by seeking to ensure that more treatment is available—for offenders as much as anyone else. It seeks to offer those who offend the opportunity of taking treatment to get rid of the causes of crime. But if they do not accept treatment, they should rightly expect the consequences of the criminal justice system to fall upon them at the bail hearing, the sentencing
1180
hearing and thereafter in sentencing. It must be clear that treatment should be offered where it is available. That is the aim of the updated strategy.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, will the Minister extend his remarks to alcohol, given that it is an even more important factor than drugs in the etiology of crime?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, alcohol is an important factor, but drugs are becoming an increasingly important factor.
Those who confront the problem of crime in deprived communities expect the criminal justice system to be effective when someone is put in its hands. It is important to underline that the more that people have confidence in the criminal justice system, the more they will feel secure in their homes and communities. It is a vital point.
I turn to the criminal justice system. Obviously, crime will never be eradicated. Once defendants have been convicted in the criminal justice system. that system should aim in part to reduce reoffending. Effective community penalties are one vital way in which reoffending will be reduced significantly. The National Probation Service, which has had significantly increased funding since 1997, is developing programmes for what works in reducing reoffending behaviour, and early published results suggest that some progress is being made. The reconviction rate among the cohort who started receiving What Works programmes in the two years following 1999 has been more than 3 per cent lower than predicted.
People have to know that progress is being made in community sentences so that courts are willing to sentence offenders to community sentences where appropriate. The more that community sentences work, the less it will be necessary to send people to prison. As all noble Lords will accept, however, it is necessary to send certain categories of offender to custody. Broadly, those categories are dangerous, violent and sexual offenders, and seriously persistent offenders to whom every opportunity for rehabilitation has been offered but who have not taken it. The community must have some confidence that custody will be imposed after every reasonable opportunity has been offered but not taken.
The noble Baroness, Lady Linklater of Butterstone. mentioned "two strikes and you're out" in relation to breaches of community penalties. If the courts are to be confident about imposing community penalties, a balance must be struck whereby an appropriate response follows a breach. If we do not mete out an appropriate response in such cases, what is the point of having community penalties with attached conditions? Although there is no automaticity whereby a custodial sentence is immediately imposed after two strikes, there must be a sense that the conditions will be enforced. Nevertheless, the conditions will be enforced proportionately.
Apart from the above categories of offender—dangerous, sexual or violent offenders, and those who are seriously persistent—the court should consider the

1181
range of alternatives now available to sentencers, such as the wide range of community penalties; the wider range of tagging options; and the drug treatment and testing orders which have been imposed now on just under 10.000 people. On the face of it, it looks as if those alternatives arc producing results in dealing with drug offenders. Although it is too soon to ascertain the results by means of reconviction rates, those are the right sort of community penalties. They provide hope that some progress will be made in relation to reconviction rates. I make it clear, however, that custody is the inevitable and appropriate result for certain categories of prisoner to ensure not only the required punishment but also public protection. I think there is no escape from that fact.
I shall try to deal with some of the many points that have been made. I fear that, because of time, I shall not be able to deal with all of them. I thoroughly endorse the comments by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, about the involvement of community and voluntary groups. He mentioned Crime Concern, NACRO and other groups, all of which do exceptional work. He also mentioned the need for core management funding, which is absolutely vital. He mentioned too the cross-cutting review on the voluntary sector, which draws out many of the points he raised. The message coming out loud and clear from the review is that voluntary and community sector groups can do so much which state-funded organisations cannot do, due to the inevitable inflexibilities of statutory organisations, and which the private sector has no interest in doing. The Government accept that their role is vital in that respect. The noble Lord also cited the example of acceptable behaviour contracts in the London borough of Islington, where the voluntary sector has played a vital part. That scheme, of which I thoroughly approve, has now been rolled out more widely.
The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, and various other noble Lords referred to the current overcrowding in the Prison Service. One should, however, not lose sight of what the Prison Service has achieved. I have been asked in this House by the noble Lord, Lord Hurd, how many prisoners are currently sharing cells. I gave the figure of 21 per cent. In 1991, however, the figure was 29 per cent. Until 1994, in a significant number of cases, three people were sharing a cell.
The quality of education in prison has improved dramatically. although much still has to be done. The Prison Service has a humane and dedicated reformer in Martin Narey. One should not underestimate the extent of the achievement. Noble Lords such as the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle of Bucklow, will recall visiting prisons five years ago. I am sure that their impression from more recent visits will be very different. Although much still needs to be done, we should not even remotely put the debate in the context that nothing has been improved.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth raised the issue of life prisoners and referred to their problems on release. Life prisoners raise particular problems. We are dealing in a significant number of cases with crimes in which the
1182
victims themselves will suffer for the rest of their lives. Frequently, the life sentence has to be for punishment and for people to realise that society must extract a penalty through the criminal justice system so that there is confidence in the criminal justice system.
I have already referred to many of the issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater. I thoroughly endorse the work, under her chairmanship, of Rethinking Crime and Punishment, which was funded by the Esmee Fairbairn trust. I suspect that that will be a significant contribution to the debate. It is important that such work is undertaken. The noble Baroness drew attention specifically to tagging and restorative justice, both of which can bring great progress in suitable alternatives to current penalties. I endorse her support for the idea of widespread partnership with the voluntary and community sector.
As I said, the noble Lord, Lord Warner, referred to a number of the alternatives to custody such as ISSP—a very important alternative which provides a robust and effective intervention that can have an effect on offenders' reoffending behaviour.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sharples, referred to the problems of prisoners' wives and contact with prisoners. I agree entirely with the proposition underlying her remarks—namely, that prisoners who maintain contact with their family have a better chance of not reoffending. Other noble Lords also made that point. The Prison Service accepts the point. although putting it into practice becomes more difficult as the number of prisoners in custody increases. The proposition, however, is accepted.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sharples, also identified the lack of communication and cited some examples, such as a three-month wait for delivery of a parcel and a nine-day wait for a first class letter. As I said, we accept the principle she outlined. We seek to promote communication, which is so important in reducing reoffending.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, in view of what the Minister has just said, will he clarify the point about community prisons? Do the Government accept the proposal from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, or have they abandoned it?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am not precisely clear about what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, had in mind in relation to community prisons. The Criminal Justice Bill makes provision for intermittent custody, which would allow an offender to be in custody for a period—at the weekend, for example—while being able to hold on to a job. I am not sure whether that goes as far as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, suggested in his report. But it goes some way towards allowing an offender to hold on to a job and at the same time spend time in custody.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, raised an important point about dyslexia The prisoners' learning and skills unit is seeking to improve the identification of dyslexia and other learning needs. A new national diagnostic indicator is currently on trial.

1183
As well as identifying dyslexia, the prisoners' learning and skills unit is supporting the teaching of basic skills by providing prisons with practitioner guides on training those with learning difficulties and providing accompanying training. I am sure that that does not go as far as the noble Lord would wish, but I suspect that the significance of seeking to identify those with dyslexia goes some of the way.
Lord Addington: My Lords, there seems to be great emphasis on achieving certain targets in literacy. However, will the Minister consider the idea of having teachers explain dyslexia to others, as some of those targets will be unattainable by many of those with the condition?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I shall write to the noble Lord in that respect.
The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, raised the issue of drugs, which I have dealt with. She asked about the plans for those who come out of prison who are mentally ill. That is an important issue. The Prison Service is looking at development work on prison health. Recommendations have been made in the social exclusion unit report and the Government are looking to address the shortfalls in the service provided. Development work on prison health in the past two years has included new investment to rebuild or refurbish some of the worst prison healthcare centres to try to improve the position before the prisoner is released. New NHS mental health in-reach teams, as part of the NHS Plan, are expected to cover around half of all prisons by March 2004. We are trying to make sure that there is some support when prisoners come out. That is not the position in the vast majority of cases, but it is the aim, as set out in the social exclusion unit report.
The noble Earl, Lord Dundee, raised similar issues. He referred in particular to overcrowding and the dramatic increase in the prison population. He called for more community sentences to be imposed, which is what we are seeking to do, by providing a wider range of community sentences and by providing evidence that community sentences work. He also referred to action to divert people from the criminal justice system, which we all agree is extremely important.
The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, raised a number of points. She drew attention to the problem of the number of girls in prisons where there are no proper facilities. She referred to the commitment made by my right honourable friend Mr Straw some time ago. She also referred to inadequate education in prison. More could be done, but I emphasise that progress has been made. She referred to the Children Act decision by Mr Justice Mumby last week which the prisons Minister. Mr Hilary Benn, welcomed. I cannot give a date as to when the relevant sentence—the sentence in the guidance—will be amended, but I shall write to the noble Baroness.
With regard to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, I have answered his first question. I agree that the debate should be about how the
1184
community can help by supporting prisoners when they come out, as well as recognising that a penal policy must address the needs of the community as a whole.
The noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, said that we have been here before, and that he was there when prison overcrowding became a problem. He said that the only purpose of prison is to reform. I think that there are certain prisoners who have to be imprisoned because if punishment is not meted out to such defendants, people will not have faith in the criminal justice system as an adequate and proportionate response to certain sorts of crime. He said that we should reduce the number of people sent to prison and the time that they spend there. We are seeking sensible alternatives to prison in relation to community penalties while recognising that certain categories of defendant will need a custodial sentence.
The noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, asked whether we would change our philosophy in relation to prison. The Criminal Justice Bill contains a range of alternatives. It contains the fundamental approach that sending people to prison for a short time and then providing them with no support afterwards does little to reduce reoffending. That is why the custody-plus approach has been introduced. As the noble Lord identified, by implication if not explicitly, that requires additional money for the probation service to provide the support that is necessary. The figures have been set out in the accompanying financial memorandum to the Bill.
Everyone engaged in these issues agrees that support is vital for people who come out of prison—especially for those who have gone into prison because of drugs. If support is not provided immediately, they will quickly drift into crime again. We must focus on that important issue.
I am afraid that my time is up. It has been an extremely significant and important debate, and I hope that we shall have similar debates in the future.
5.36 p.m.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I thank all the noble Lords who have participated in the debate, and many who wrote to me because they could not do so because of other commitments. I also thank the noble and learned Lord the Minister for his comprehensive reply.
Two clear issues have been identified: the non-custodial alternative and community participation in programmes. I hope that the Minister for prisons will reflect on this debate.
I conclude by quoting Winston Churchill's famous words when he was a Minister in the Home Office. He said:
"The mood and temper of the public in regard to the treatment of crime and criminals is the most unfailing test of the civilisation of any country".
We need to secure a decisive shift in the public's perception of crime and punishment. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Emergency Planning
5.37 p.m.
Lord Roper rose to call attention to the need for more effective planning for emergencies between government departments, local government and the other bodies concerned; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I apologise to the House for the relatively limited notice for this debate, but we on these Benches felt that the House should have an opportunity to consider the important issues of the arrangements for planning for civil emergencies and the liaison between Government departments, local government and the other bodies concerned.
We are enjoined each day at the beginning of our work here at Prayers to work for the "peace and stability of the realm". That requires us to consider the question of effective planning for emergencies—those occasions when the realm and its peace are disturbed. It is important for this House to have the opportunity to hear from the Government what has been done and to ask questions about the things that have not yet been done.
There is no doubt that the events that occurred in the United States 14 months ago on 11th September have transformed the range of emergencies that it is now necessary for our Government at all levels to plan for. There was an initial reaction of the need for a substantial change in the machinery of Government—perhaps the creation of a department with an overarching responsibility for these matters, which was perhaps parallel with the arrangements made in the United States in the department now headed by Governor Ridge. There are arguments for and against such a change.
But in this country the more one looks at the matter and the more one becomes aware of the range of departments of central government that are involved, of the important and central role of our local authorities, and, indeed, of many other bodies, the more one can understand why the Prime Minister has decided against such a change in the machinery of government. I do not feel that there is a great deal to be said for re-opening that question today.
However, it is necessary to point out that there are some drawbacks in the present situation. It is not altogether clear to noble Lords in this House or to people elsewhere where the responsibility for these matters lies. We are aware of the various committees, including, at the highest level, the War Cabinet chaired by the Prime Minister, which have responsibilities for these matters and of the committees chaired by the Home Secretary. But no Minister gives his prime attention to these issues. There is always, therefore, the risk that these important issues—I shall return to this matter in terms of resources and legislation—may not get the priority that they deserve. That makes the question of parliamentary accountability difficult. When I tabled the Motion I was not sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Tradeston, or the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, would reply. The noble Lord,
1186
Lord Rooker, may have responsibility for the matters I am discussing given the range of departmental concerns involved.
In looking at what has been achieved over the past 14 months I am reminded of the story of a glass being half empty or half full. One feels that a number of matters have not yet been tackled but one should also be impressed by some of the matters which. have already been addressed by central government, by authorities in the London area and by some other local authorities. In its sixth report published in July the House of Commons Defence Committee drew attention to a number of problems. The Government outlined the position in their response to that report and in the Cabinet Office's useful progress report of 9th September entitled, The United Kingdom and the Campaign Against International Terrorism. It was, however, unfortunate that that progress report did not constitute a parliamentary paper. I shall want to return to the question of whether the Government should submit an annual report to Parliament detailing what they have achieved in this area, the resources they have spent and what their strategy is for the future.
The National Audit Office produced a report on 15th November on NHS emergency planning. I refer also to the report of my noble friend Lord Carlile of Berriew on the operation during 2001 of the Terrorism Act 2000. My noble friend commented on problems with regard to access to seaports and airports where he feels that there is a need for increased security activity.
All of that is encouraging. However, I fear that from time to time it is also discouraging. I am encouraged by the fact that much has been done. In some areas performance is good. However, there are also areas where there is room for considerable improvement. On a positive note, I very much welcome the appointment of Sir David Omand as the security and intelligence coordinator. Given his previous experience and qualities he is uniquely fitted to the post.
However, I am discouraged by the significant variations in performance between different areas. There are also real gaps in our preparedness, as _I shall indicate. I refer to a number of the issues raised in earlier studies. How much progress has been made on those issues? The Government's response to the House of Commons Defence Committee mentioned the need for mutual aid agreements between the emergency bodies and referred to the development of a national mutual aid agreement between the fire authorities which it was intended should be completed by the end of this year. I hope that in spite of the other incidents affecting the fire authorities the Minister will tell us that it will be possible to have such a mutual aid agreement in place by the end of this year.
I refer to a further question that needs to be answered. What resources are now being devoted to training those who have responsibilities in these areas? How far has Easingwold been given a new role as a college to train those involved in emergency planning—a new role in a new situation? What are the Government's targets as regards the number of people who will undertake training courses in the next two years?

1187
It seems to me that if one has such a complex structure, from time to time there is a need for the relevant personnel to undertake high-level exercises. That should be done not only in the various departments of state and, indeed, not only in London but throughout the country. I should be glad to know what plans there are for such exercises.
I quote from the Government's response to the House of Commons Defence Committee:
"The Government recognises the importance of keeping the public informed, reassured and engaged".
That is an excellent sentiment but I should be glad to know what the Government's strategy has been to carry that into effect.
The Territorial Army will now be linked with the civil emergency authorities. I should be interested to know what progress has been made as regards the announcement made in another place on 31st October by the Minister, Mr Adam Ingram, who indicated,
"There will be some 280 new reserve posts in Army … headquarters to provide regional planning, liaison and command and control".—[Official Report, Commons, 31/10/02; col. 1026.]
That link between our Territorial Army and our civil emergency services is essential. When do we expect the new arrangements to become operational?
The central issue behind a number of these detailed issues is that it is not clear, in the absence of specific ministerial responsibility, that the Government are giving enough priority to these questions. Unfortunately, there is a suspicion that there is more than a little truth in the remark of one senior official that his job was little more than "the management of complacency". The failure of the civil contingencies Bill to appear in the gracious Speech and the lack of any significant increase in resources for civil defence, as reflected in the Written Answer given by the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, in Hansard of 3rd December, suggest that perhaps we have not had the significant increases which are needed.
The Government were aware of the need for a new legislative framework before the terrorist attacks. The Cabinet Office progress report of 9th September states:
"Proposals for new legislation will be introduced as soon as parliamentary time allows".
However, there is nothing in the gracious Speech about that. The most recent information that I have indicates that we are likely to have another framework document for consultation early in the New Year followed by a draft Bill by the summer of 2003. Almost two years will have passed between the attack on the United States and the new legislation. The Local Government Association believes that that legislation is essential.
I refer to resources. The figures announced today of only £19 million for all our local authorities means that effectively expenditure in this area will have been static for seven years. Emergency planners are convinced that that is not enough. It is a ridiculous amount. The
1188
increase for each local authority for next year will be all of £386. That does not seem to be a serious way to address the issue.
The noble Lord, Lord Healey, once described defence as the first form of social security. The preparations that we now have to make to meet the new challenges of international terrorism are certainly central to the security of our society. This House and the other place have therefore a responsibility to hold the Government to account in these critical fields.
My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
5.50 p.m.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, I do not propose to make a long speech. I look forward to hearing my noble friend's response to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Roper, not least those relating to questions of relationship and links. I also want to offer a word of reassurance.
I believe most people recognise that the Government are right to give high priority to seeking to defeat terror and to maintain through positive action and by intelligence the means of defeating terror. But at the same time, even though that priority is maintained and devoted work proceeds, there can be no guarantee that there will not be an outrage or outrages in this country at some point. It is therefore right that we see adequate provision in all our areas for response to need.
Bearing in mind that local authorities, like all other human institutions, are not infallible, I said to my ward counsellor friend who is the mayor elect of Rotherham that I should like to see what arrangements have been made in my own local authority. Immediately, arrangements were made for me to go to the Rotherham emergency suite. I am not always impressed when I make visits in the area, but I left that meeting enormously impressed, not least because the authority had had the wit to appoint a very able man: Alan Matthews, who had just retired as regimental sergeant major for the Coldstream Guards.
It is perhaps unsurprising that we have a lean, efficient, well organised unit there. He has worked with neighbouring authorities and the emergency organisations and produced sheets of paper so that in my area there is every reasonable arrangement that can be made. I do not think they need more than another £396, but I leave that for the local authority to decide; it would probably like more.
Where authorities act wisely, local communities can sleep more safely in their beds. It is not likely to mean that we reduce the risk of an outrage or a disaster, but I think we have put the right people in place to respond, although I have one query.
Mr Matthews' appointment is significant because we do not make adequate use of people who retire from Her Majesty's Armed Forces. They have usually had high quality training; extremely relevant experience; and at a relatively early age they will have learned some of the arts of leadership and man management. We tend to forget that. People like Mr Matthews can be usefully employed in this area at

1189
no great cost; they nearly all have some sort of pension, even if military pensions are not as generous as they should be.
There need to be adequate links and relationships between the services and local authorities. In my area we have carried out exercises, sometimes only on paper, but they can also be valuable. We do not want everyone to be disturbed and subject to upheaval every five minutes.
I understand the arrangements are that if there is an outrage or a disaster, as soon as a police officer appears on the scene he takes command. That may be generally worth while. It may be useful and appropriate for a police officer to be in charge; he has authority in his uniform. But let us think of a situation in which the first officer on the scene is a police constable with only a few months' or weeks' service. He will be expected to take charge, and experienced local authority officers or people from the Territorial Army or the fire service—when it is functioning properly—will have to comply immediately with that police officer's commands.
If it is an officer with significant experience and weight, I see no problem; in most cases there would not be one. But there is always a difficulty in having a general rule which prevents us from applying the common sense and flexibility that should always be available in the situation. I await my noble friend's response to the noble Lord, Lord Roper. I hope that he is satisfied that the example I have seen in Rotherham in recent months is not an unusual one. We should ensure that local authorities are made aware of good practice in the whole area of local government.
I said to my noble friend Lord Bach when we were discussing the new chapter that he could come to see the practice in Rotherham. I hope that in their busy programmes Ministers can take time to carry out some visits in order to encourage the good and to be in a position to exhort more properly and effectively those who are not doing as well as they should be. There is no scope and there should be no place for failure. We must be well prepared. I am extremely pleased about the level of preparation I observed in my area.
5.55 p.m.
Baroness Harris of Richmond: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Roper for securing the debate. My contribution will be from the perspective of local authority involvement.
During the 1970s and in the 1980s—when I was a very new county councillor—greater public awareness and cynicism painted a picture of civil defence activities as futile and vaguely ridiculous. I remember some local authorities decided to protect their citizens by declaring that they were "nuclear-free zones". I believe someone in the other place described that as being as potentially effective as someone declaring that their home was a burglar-free territory. In planning and training for civil defence, the danger from chemical agents was recognised, but then, to a large extent. treated with silence. The threat of biological agents was hardly even whispered.
1190
As a new county councillor in North Yorkshire, I was invited to attend a training course at what was then called the Civil Defence College—in Easingwold. It is still there today, just renamed. I had heard muttered remarks about the college; how secret Nfe the place was and how we should not talk about the information that we gleaned there. What utter rubbish! It was, indeed, a difficult place to get into—and almost as difficult to get out of. After one particularly difficult day of unremitting lectures and exercises I was deputed as a local to lead the escape committee to the nearest hostelry, where we ruminated on what we had learnt.
One exercise in particular stays in my memory. We were a disparate group of councillors and planners from all over the country. We were placed into roles and teams to deal with particular scenarios following a nuclear attack on a town—"Anytown", I think it was called. The reality of dealing with problem heaped on problem was immense and most of us realised pretty quickly that we were woefully inadequately prepared to shoulder any sort of responsibility during and after an attack.
That was 20 years ago. But at least there was some training for local authority members, and there was an implicit recognition—or at least, hope—that many of us would become community advisers. I became so fascinated by this that I got hold of the county manual which set out the duties and responsibilities on such an adviser in times of disaster. I rapidly came to the conclusion that, in fact, I had better keep out of the way; there was a clear line of responsibility and it did not include meddling councillors.
Today we face a different set of problems, where chemical or biological agents might be the weapon of choice of terrorists, but where the most sinister weapon is already amongst us. That weapon, I would suggest, is fear. We cannot use simplistic shelters like the fortified cupboard under the stairs that we used to advocate. We should, however, use common sense in recognising likely scenarios, some of which can be easily identified, but others need co-ordinated and structured examination by those who deal with emergencies on a day-to-day basis. They need to identify potential risks and also the effects arising from risk.
Our communities need to know that government departments, local authorities, voluntary organisations, emergency services and relevant sections of the armed services are not only meeting together and creating coordinated plans, but are training together and are being given the resources they need to protect the public.
Look as I might in the Government's new proposals for a civil contingencies Bill, I see no reference to elected representation and so I must assume that we will have to trust our lives to chief executives, chief constables, chief fire officers and such people—just as we have always done.
I am indebted to my local county council, North Yorkshire, which has sent me a copy of the proposals in the Bill. I note that it is at a very early stage of development, as we have already heard. However, I

1191
also know how magnificently the county leaders of the local authorities, police—and I declare an interest as I used to chair the North Yorkshire Police Authority—ambulance service and hospital trusts have worked tirelessly together to organise appropriate responses to emergencies.
In the past few years we have had our fair share of emergencies in North Yorkshire—terrible floods, a disastrous rail crash and an air crash. I was particularly involved in the aftermath of the air crash, in visiting the major incident room and watching the co-ordination of help, undertaken on this occasion by the police.
During the Great Heck train disaster, excellent multi-agency ties and arrangements were in place, involving seven police forces, four ambulance services and four fire services. That could only have been achieved by everyone working to the same national standards of multi-agency resolution, underpinned by regular talking and exercising together locally.
A concern expressed at the time of that disaster, however, was that the role of regional government was an irritation and was not really a helpful channel of advice or support. Duplicate information to that given centrally was required. One participant told me:
"It was as though they [regional government] wanted a role but didn't know what it was".
That is clearly stated in the Government's consultative document, which states:
"The role of the regions, either through Government Offices or any future regional assemblies, has not been clearly established".
Can the Minister enlighten me as to what he thinks that role might be in the new structure? Can he further assure me that it will not simply be another layer of bureaucracy getting in the way of local determination of emergencies?
The website provided with national guidance documents—www.ukresilience.org—also has a useful icon link to "terrorism" and appears to have helpful advice to terrorists, such as outlining our response to an attack and offering safety advice. Will the proposed community risk register reiterate these helpful suggestions and will the Minister undertake to look at that website and review it if necessary?
If we faced a major chemical or biological threat, could we, as a nation, cope? Is anyone checking whether emergency supplies, communications facilities, evacuation procedures or emergency accommodation would be available in the event of a national emergency?
My final query is about the adequate resources that will be provided to enable those responsible to undertake their duties. My noble friend Lord Roper referred in depth to this concern, although, those resources must do more than create glossy plans, distribute newsletters and organise committee meetings.
It will take some very expensive, sophisticated equipment to "join up" those who will be in charge of the emergency and who will be formulating and
1192
working to the new plans. I know how much it cost our police authority simply to purchase new radios for police officers. Presumably an issue resolution team is looking at this? A lead in time however would be lengthy, and that, too, needs to be taken into account. Also, how will emergency services be compensated for dealing with disproportionate calls on their resources?
Perhaps the message that I should like to give, however, would be for the Government to get on with the completion of the review and re-issue Dealing with Disaster to reflect any new structure and significantly update its advice in the light of present knowledge of possible threats.
The management of incidents must be left to local people who are familiar with the geography, location, politics and sensitivities of their communities. By all means offer help and guidance from the centre, either nationally or regionally, but please do not inflict a "task force of experts" on what is already a well-tried and tested response to emergencies. As the Government's consultative document suggests:
"Where a duty to prepare plans currently exists, the object would be to ensure greater coherence and complementarity between the planning arrangements of different responder organisations rather than to replace the current obligations".
I could not agree more.
6.6 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Chesterton: My Lords, I welcome the introduction of the noble Lord, Lord Roper, on this important debate. There are many interrelated aspects of civil emergencies—terrorism, war, accidents and natural disasters. The way that a government deal with these situations also involves many aspects—the operational, the administrative, the international, the technical, the financial and communication.
My experience of this was as chief executive of the Meteorological Office, which is involved in many of these issues. I was also chairman of the committee dealing with science and technology aspects of the UK National Co-ordination Committee for the International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction on science and technology aspects. Currently, there is a new committee involving many academic and governmental departments. There are also many aspects of research involved in these questions. I shall return to that in a moment. Finally, there is the role of the private sector. I am chairman of a small company that provides software to help government deal with some of these issues. That indicates the range and complexity of the issue.
The Government's administrative arrangements involve a complex set of plans encompassing central, regional and local government. Ministerial responsibility on committees is necessary to ensure that the arrangements are in place but not of course to act in an actual emergency. It is important to realise that an actual emergency requires an active cell of operational staff. It must be formed as appropriate to the particular emergency. There are arrangements in Whitehall and around the country to deal with that.

1193
The operation of these active units is based on clear agreements and contracts. Interestingly, there are financial arrangements between the different branches of government underlying these contracts. I can tell noble Lords that that focuses the mind considerably on ensuring that they are efficient.
Equally, as again noble Lords have pointed out, it is vital that these contractual arrangements are kept alive and operational by considerable exercises. As a recently retired senior official remarked to me before this debate, these exercises are extremely important in ensuring that everyone knows who will be at the end of a telephone during an emergency. The human side of it cannot be overemphasised.
However, there is a rather British aspect to all this, which was recently discussed on American television, as a friend of mine commented. In Britain we have these exercises but we do not tell everyone about them. Our American colleagues are much impressed by the fact that they are very effective, they are widespread and there is not much publicity. This is one example when British non-communication is much admired.
What is the record of the UK emergency services? We have heard about the area of Yorkshire and the East Midlands, but it is worth commenting that the emergency services during the IRA bombing campaign worked extraordinarily effectively. But we have been taken by surprise by natural and accidental disasters. The British way—quite rightly—is always to look at these individual events and to learn lessons from them. We had the example of Chernobyl in 1985; the King's Cross fire in 1988; so too were lessons learnt in the Channel Tunnel fire; we had the floods of 1998 and 2000, and lessons are being learnt from those disasters. In addition, a number of lessons learnt earlier have certainly averted potential UK shipping disasters in recent years.
The point is that technology and planning have played a great role in getting us to where we are and in taking us forward. Therefore, it is important to keep up to date with technology, especially for prediction and communication. A quantitive example is the hugely reduced number of deaths in countries which use technology and which are subject to large natural disasters; for example, hurricanes and tornadoes in the United States.
With scientific information becoming ever more available, it is even more necessary to have a coordinated network of prediction centres. In some countries there is a single centre, such as one sees in Japan. That is not practical in Britain, but a strong network should be part of the arrangements for emergencies.
Will the Minister reflect in the fact that under the new scheme we must have arrangements that make clearly visible how all the organisations in Britain which contribute to emergency response can do so? How will the Government ensure that all the relevant government agencies are involved? I am afraid to say that they are often ignored—if one is more than three miles from Whitehall, one can be ignored. In other countries, many emergency departments are involved. Some government
1194
departments are responsible for nuclear radiation leaving these shores; other departments are responsible for nuclear radiation corning into the country. There are reasons for that, but they must be understood. We need clear arrangements involving non-governmental organisations and the academic community.
The new role is that of the private sector. The mobile telephone is with us now. Many people—particularly young people—have mobile telephones. Imagine any kind of emergency event with the effect spreading out in a particular direction. What arrangements do the Government have to work with the mobile telephone companies to ensure that everybody can get the necessary information in the most convenient way possible? In the United States, there is a radio service especially for emergencies. In the UK, we have the BBC. All those are arrangements that are extremely important. There are clear targets for how warnings will be issued and in what timescale. In the past, we had an eight-minute warning for a tornado. Now we have a 15-minute warning. That is an example of what is needed. There is much deprecation in this House of targets. They are a painful process for civil servants. However, I believe that they are necessary and that we should have clear targets for a number of those emergencies.
Finally, it is important to educate the public. Now we ensure that weather forecasts—I was involved in this myself—include flood warnings, and there is a flood helpline. However, there was total confusion recently during an earthquake. I do not know whether we shall experience more earthquakes. Earthquake specialists can never tell whether there will be more. Nevertheless, there was great confusion as to what to do during an earthquake. That is a situation that people need to be told about.
A colleague at the University of Portsmouth commented to me that when one hears on a weather forecast that there will be winds that will cause structural damage, nobody is told what to do. Are people meant to rush outside and look at their roof tiles? Who do people consult? There is no helpline for that.
In the United States and a number of other countries schoolchildren are taught about natural disasters. My daughter, when she was in Colorado, was told to climb under the desk during an earthquake. In the UK we received effective door-to-door information during the AIDS campaigns. As other noble Lords have mentioned, I believe that we are in a situation where we need comparable levels of sustained campaigning—individually and through posters on the Underground and buses, and so forth. Those must be co-ordinated with local government, national government and, as I have mentioned already, perhaps with the private sector, such as insurance and communications companies.
The new dimension is the danger of bio-weapons and bio-terrorism. A clear and well structured warning should be worked out. The UK science in that area is extremely highly regarded. In the past two years there were meetings between the Royal Society and the

1195
American and French academies, working out exactly how those processes should happen. The Government can be sure that there is excellent advice available to them.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I thank most warmly the noble Lord, Lord Roper. This might be a short debate, but it is an extremely important one and very timely. The Prime Minister once said that everything changed after the September 11th attack in the United States. I think we would all agree with that. He was right. One area of activity that really should have changed is that of civil protection. We are now in a very different league from before September 11th.
I declare an interest. I have been approached to become president of the National Council for Civil Protection. No decision has yet been made. My point is that whether or not I do, I declare a personal interest in civil defence matters. Hansard is littered with Questions that I have asked on that subject.
I first became interested as a county councillor—rather like the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond—in Cambridgeshire back in the nuclear-free-zone days. At that time my county was not a nuclear-free zone but Cambridge city was. That made life very difficult when it came to co-ordinating civil defence and, at that time, wartime defence planning.
Therefore, I believe that we were one of the first authorities to develop an all-hazards approach. In emergency planning, an emergency is an emergency is an emergency; it does not matter whether it is a wartime or peacetime emergency. Many of the procedures followed and actions taken are the same—whether it is a massive chemical plant explosion, gas leaks, major train crashes, or terrorist or wartime attack.
As a councillor, and from 1981 leader of my council, together with other councillors and many civil servants—and, again, like the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond—I attended courses at Easingwold. Different councillors went frequently in those days because there was a constant raising of awareness in local government of the importance of emergency planning. Issues of preparedness for disasters were discussed with experts in the field. Initially, I was sceptical, but I found them extremely illuminating and very helpful when it came to working alongside our own emergency planning officers.
Does that level of training still take place? Do civil servants still go with the same frequency? Do local authorities go for training? I suspect that there is a resource issue there somewhere. During that time, and subsequently when I came to serve in this House, emergency plans were developed and, more importantly, they were physically validated by exercises. I know that in Whitehall there were cross-Whitehall departmental exercises as well to validate emergency plans. When was the last cross-Whitehall full emergency planning exercise undertaken? What lessons were learnt from it?
1196
Some publicity has been given to a memo that went from government offices to all emergency planning officers around the country. I found it unbelievable—as did many of the emergency planning officers—that they were asked only a matter of four or five weeks ago to tell the Government, through the government offices, whether they had plans in place to deal with large masses of debris or rubble, and so forth. There was no mention of whether it was radioactive debris or toxic debris, but just debris—they were merely asked whether they had plans. The emergency planning officers were also asked whether they had identified disposal routes—presumably landfill sites—that could take large masses of debris. Had they identified contractors that could move the debris? Were there plans in place for mass evacuation from major centres of population? What areas were covered by those plans? Had those plans been reviewed since September 11th last year?
They are asked only those questions, but those are fundamental basic data that the Government should know anyway. I understand the tailpiece of the memo was to the effect, "Please can we have this information quickly because there is going to be a meeting on 2nd December and the Government would like to know what it was?" I should like to know what were the responses to that memo. I have seen three responses and can say that the common view is that there is a lack of co-ordination, a lack of resources, and a clear lack of overall policy direction from the Government.
The noble Baroness raised an interesting point when she referred to the role of the regions and the government offices. I have a document. I shall not reveal the source of the document but it is very detailed about this matter. I read from the first paragraph:
"For this purpose, we [the Government Offices] are bidding for resources which would permit the recruitment of additional staff in the Regional Co-Ordination Unit and GOs and allow them to play an active role in contingency planning, regional preparedness, communications, training and manpower planning".
What is the role of county planning emergency departments in all this? I now read from another paragraph:
"The Emergency Planning Review"—
Which review?
"uncovered a gap in arrangements between local and central tiers of government. The consultation exercise undertaken as part of the Review pointed to a significant lack of clarity about central government planning as it impacted on the Regions and about roles and responsibilities at a regional level".
Many of the respondents to the consultation apparently decided that their should be more powers at regional level.
The final quotation from the document states,
"An enhanced regional capacity, as part of the national resilience framework, was one of the key recommendations of the Emergency Planning Review. This recommended significantly enhanced co-ordination, planning and responsiveness at regional level. In fulfilling this role we envisage that Government Offices would chair a regional group … manage those key relationships communicating between with regional partners … provide improved information gathering … develop improved

1197
contingency planning. We are planning for each GO to have a small team led by a Grade 5 with Grade 7 support, able to work authoritatively with key local partners, bring critical insight to bear in examining the roles and relationships of regional players, exert a strong influence in co-ordinating strategies and plans and represent the centre effectively in the regions".
We need some answers to that and certainly the county council planning officers will also want some answers. Since the Government came into office in 1997 I have asked endlessly as to who is in charge. We have heard that the Home Secretary, the Minister for London, the police and the Mayor of London each have a role. There are 33 separate emergency services in London.
I shall repeat one of the questions which was asked by my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith. He asked what was the role in London of the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority whose powers are set out in the Civil Defence Act 1948. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, said that the plans of all the emergency planning officers are being reviewed at the moment. He said that in 2001. Can we be told the outcome of the review, please?
I mentioned the National Council for Civil Protection. The noble Lord, Lord Roper, mentioned the issue of resources for local authorities. It is a really vexed issue. I believe that a figure of £19 million was mentioned. My understanding is that the Local Government Association believes that nearer £70 million is required. The NCCP said that it was concerned about the timing of information given to local authorities in order that they may plan.
At a time when the Government claim to recognise the need for effective emergency planning as vital, some local authorities are still going to receive smaller grants than last year. But more importantly, the grant is still being handed out without any clear idea as to what level of funding is necessary. There is so much difficulty at local level. How can one possibly work out what it costs to deliver a service if one does not know what it means? I support the NCCP and the local authorities in saying that there is urgency about revisiting the 1948 Act.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hardy of Wath, and the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond, as regards the role of our county planning departments. They are magnificent. In any local emergency they mobilise the voluntary and business communities. I have a great deal of time for them. But they are underresourced and are now very confused as to their role.
A man called Eric Alley spent 50 years as an emergency planning officer. He was an adviser to the Home Office for three years. He is President Emeritus of the Institute of Civil Defence and Disaster Studies. He says that inadequate preparation, training, coordination and direction is evident now. He speaks about inertia in the Cabinet Office. He questions why it is that the United Kingdom is spending less per head of population on civil protection.
1198
While on this subject I ask this question out of interest. Does the Home Office disaster planning advisory post, which was filled in a most excellent way by Admiral Bawtree, still exist? If it does, who now holds that post?
Is the National Attack Warning System now in place? We were told in July 1999 by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, in answer to a question from me:
"We remain committed to the implementation of the final elements of the system in the current financial year".—[Official Report, 20/7/99: col. WA 97.]
It will be helpful to know whether that has been put in place.
The Government appear to be in denial about this. Local authorities, the National Council for Civil Protection and experts such as Eric Alley and Members of both Houses are concerned about what is happening. I make one plea. We do not want an emergency planning czar. That would really be a disaster.
6.26 p.m.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, we have had some very interesting and informative contributions to the debate today. We on these Benches are particularly glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Tradeston, here, given his important role in this matter. Although he is not speaking I am very pleased that he is here to listen to this debate which we believe is very important.
We have become very aware of concerns outside the House on this issue held by people throughout Britain. According to opinion polls, people in Britain are much more concerned about these kinds of issues. It is a very long time since the average Briton believed that he or she lived in a dangerous place despite the fact that we lived through IRA terrorism. Even immediately after 11th September it did not always hit home to people.
But now people are changing their patterns of behaviour. We can see that people are really concerned. There is quite a reduction in the number of tourists coming to Britain. People become a little twitchy about travelling on the Underground. We who live in London some of the time are perhaps not so nervous as people from outside. People become concerned when their children are away. It is important that we try to reassure people as much as we can that we are doing whatever we can.
There are also specialists. A defence Select Committee report showed a great deal of concern. Concern has been shown by those looking at how the National Health Service is preparing. The noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond, mentioned some of these matters. In recent weeks there have been further worries because of what has happened during the firefighters' strike. People are concerned as to whether we have enough troops to cover for the fire service. Anything might happen: the soldiers may be sent off to war.

1199
People also remember the worries that they had over Government strategies in the past, particularly when we were trying to deal with other national emergencies such as the foot-and-mouth epidemic. Then we found that trying to co-ordinate events across the country from the centre is very difficult. Many people did not have the right systems in place and certainly did not understand how to procure supplies in an emergency.
One of the other concerns of those who have a particular interest in this matter is in seeing reports on how we are going to deal with Army reserves and how many we have. They also want to know how we are going to train and equip those available. One of the reports suggested that we had about 500 per region and they receive five or six days' training a year. When people read things like that they are concerned.
As has been said, we have a problem with information. We do not want to alarm people unnecessarily, but we do want to make people aware of what is happening. In that respect, the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Chesterton, on non-communication were relevant. It is a difficult area, as the Prime Minister has recognised. We need to take preventive measures, but we do not want to destroy normal life. It is a feature of Britain that during the course of many disasters, during the war and the IRA terrorist problems, we have been very good at not letting them totally destroy our everyday lives.
Communication can go wrong, as we have seen. One unfortunate instance of that was the information about safety in the Underground that was given out and then changed. That is the kind of thing that does not inspire confidence. We on these Benches believe that the Government were right to put Sir David Omand in charge as senior co-ordinating officer, because we need someone to make effective links across departments. We also need someone to inspire a sense of urgency, given some of the issues that have been raised today. In addition, as many noble Lords have said, we need someone checking to see that we have the funds and the essential equipment.
We certainly need to co-ordinate levels of preparedness in local authorities. We have heard good contributions about the important role of local authorities. We were all pleased to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Hardy of Wath, that all is well in Rotherham. He also made the valid point, at which I saw many heads nodding, that Ministers should be going around the country and looking at what is happening.
We heard various comments about how civil defence used to be organised, especially from the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and my noble friend Lady Harris of Richmond. We all have our little stories on that subject. I remember an occasion in which I was involved not at local government level but when I was still at school aged 17. I wonder how many noble Lords remember the "one in 10 presentation" about what to do in the event of a nuclear war. It had something to do with brown paper and whitewash on windows, which it turns out would not have been a
1200
great deal of help if we had been near radiation. We all remember that and, although I am making fun of it, civil defence locally was much more of a priority than it is now. We have heard some good evidence on that subject today.
Some have called for a whole new bureaucracy to deal with the problem, but I do not think that we should follow along the lines of America. This country is organised in a different way from the United States, which has a much more disparate system. However, in calling for that kind of operation, an important question is raised. Much of the work that we are discussing takes place on the boundaries between the Home Office and the Ministry of Defence. As has been said, we need better lines of parliamentary accountability, because people feel that they do not quite have a handle on that. As my noble friend Lord Roper said, we were not sure who would respond to this debate today. That point needs consideration.
I hope that the Minister will be able to answer the many good questions that have been asked. I have one extra question, relating to the health service, to which few noble Lords referred. I have only just considered the matter, but people in the health service will he important in a major disaster. Particularly with regard to bioterrorism, have we ensured that workers in the health service have had the right inoculations and will still be able to serve as frontline workers in such an event?
Two key areas that noble Lords have mentioned are legislation and the very slow progress in that regard. It has been stop, start. That point was raised by my noble friends Lord Roper and Lady Harris. On the question of resources, the figure of £19 million was mentioned. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, referred to the sum that the regional offices were hoping they would receive, which seemed to be quite a lot more than £19 million. Will the Minister enlighten us on that matter? The level of support for local authorities is worrying, given what we perceive—rightly, I believe—to be the rundown of civil defence activities in local authorities.
I hope that the Minister will assure us that the Government have a sense of urgency in helping all the bodies to be prepared. We need reassurance on detailed points. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Chesterton, raised the issue that I wanted to end on, which is the importance of funds not only to local authorities but to ensure that we have the right equipment, that we can employ people with expertise and that we can carry out tasks effectively when required to do so. I thank everybody for their contribution and look forward to the Minister's reply.
6.36 p.m.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, the subject of the Motion rightly concerns us all, and we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Roper, for introducing the debate. The destruction of the twin towers in New York provoked shock in the world, and we were quickly aware that there was a new powerful and ruthless terrorist force with which people throughout

1201
the world had to contend. Preceding and subsequent events have shown that the A1'Qaeda network recognises no boundaries and can strike anywhere at any time without warning. We in this country would be foolish to exclude ourselves as a possible target, and we are not being unduly alarmist when we say so.
Such an attack would result in a dire emergency. That is the kind of emergency on which I shall concentrate. We can imagine that it might be on a large scale and of a kind that we have not experienced before, involving chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear weapons. Those are the very weapons or mass destruction that the United Nations is so anxious to ensure that Iraq does not have in its arsenal.
Planning against such eventualities is the prime duty of the state and a key line of defence. We are not without experience in this field, as various noble Baronesses have reminded us. We have dealt with terrorist acts and threats of serious destruction before. I recall that during my 15 years in government I attended meetings of the Civil Contingencies Unit on several occasions. They were small and compact meetings of relevant Ministers and civil servants, usually chaired by the Deputy Prime Minister, the late Lord Whitelaw. Decisions taken by the unit were quickly conveyed down the line and implemented by the various authorities concerned. The line of command was clear and effective.
After the previous election, the Cabinet Office briefing room and the Civil Contingencies Committee, headed by the Prime Minister or the Home Secretary, took over. I was not privy to that process, but that is what I understand happened. What surprises me is the sheer complexity of the new arrangements. The CCC operates at two levels—ministerial and official—and comprises 71 representatives from all interested departments and agencies. I should not have thought that the Whitehall bunker could hold them all.
Since November last year, three substantial subcommittees have been established—one dealing with the effects of a terrorist attack using weapons of mass destruction; another dealing specifically with London; and the third with the United Kingdom as a whole. The theme of the last two is resilience. The entire organisation is serviced by the Civil Contingencies Secretariat, which has other responsibilities as well.
The complexity of the new set-up does not end there, but this is an appropriate point at which to note the comment in the Defence Select Committee's report of July this year that the Government had:
"confused activity with achievement",
and that there was a lack of grip and direction. That was the verdict of the Select Committee and it is a Labourdomina ted committee. The verdict of Mr Ian Hoult, the general secretary of the Emergency Planning Society, writing in the Guardian, on 21st September, was more forthright still.
"Our emergency planning is a shambles",
he said.
1202
The Select Committee was particularly scathing about the Civil Contingencies Secretariat and reported:
"It is a matter of regret that the CCS was not able to respond more positively and energetically to the events of 11 September. Instead of using its unique position at the heart of Government to lead a strategic response it seems to have become bogged down in the details of the plans of individual departments".
In their response, the Government stated that the CCS had improved the country's state of readiness by. for example, creating a dedicated co-ordination centre so that there can be a seamless transition under the Home Secretary's chairmanship from the preventative phase of a potential terrorist threat to the management of the consequences of an actual event. Therefore, the Home Secretary will not even have to change chairs between one phase and the next.
Clearly, the whole business of preventing terrorism has become entwined in the business of dealing with the consequences. That is implicit in the emergency planning strategy, which is based on a logical sequence of assessment, prevention, preparedness, response and recovery. Of course that requires a high degree of coordination and co-operation—so much so, indeed, as to make one wonder whether it is achievable and whether it would not be wiser to have some degree of separation and concentration.
Curiously the Government have recognised that to some extent in the upper echelons of' the Civil Service. In June this year, the Prime Minister created a new post of Security and Intelligence Co-ordinator at Permanent Secretary level in the Cabinet Office—a post held by Sir David Omand. We were told that it was being created to enhance the capacity at the centre of government to co-ordinate security, intelligence and consequence management matters. But the interesting point to me is that Sir David takes over certain specific responsibilities from the Cabinet Secretary. That surely implies that a degree of separation and concentration is accepted as necessary within government. I am all for joined-up government but we must be careful to avoid confusion and ensure clarity.
That was part of the background that led my right honourable friend in the other place, the Shadow Home Secretary, Mr Oliver Letwin, to ask the Prime Minister to consider appointing a senior political figure in overall charge of preparations for any future terrorist attack. I know that my noble friend Lady Blatch fully supports his plea. The Defence Select Committee report had already called for,
"strong and dedicated political leadership".
It added:
"We are not convinced that the Home Secretary, given his many other responsibilities, is best placed to deliver it".
A separate, dedicated ministerial role was its keynote recommendation, and subsequent events have justified my right honourable friend's call.
The National Audit Office report on NHS emergency planning in England showed that the NHS was ill-prepared to cope with a terrorist attack or major disaster involving 500 or more casualties or chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. Few of us will

1203
forget the extreme concern expressed on 20th November by the Chief of the Defence Staff, Sir Michael Boyce, about the impact on military effectiveness of having 19,000 troops on stand-by for fire-fighting during the recent eight-day strike. We should face the fact that the possibility of war is sufficiently imminent for the Chancellor to have announced last week that he would borrow £1 billion pounds against that eventuality.
I am sorry that the Conservative Opposition did not receive the wholehearted support of the Liberal Democrats for Oliver Letwin's plea to the Prime Minister. I gather that Mr Simon Hughes dismissed it as a "back-of-an-envelope idea". Perhaps I may point out to the Liberal Democrat Benches in this House that that was surprising considering that the Liberal Party conference at Bournemouth last year passed a motion on defence and security which favoured giving a Cabinet Minister responsibility for all aspects of defence against international terrorism in the UK. Of course, that could be interpreted in different ways, but surely the thrust was towards a concentration of ministerial control and responsibility in line with the Defence Select Committee's unambiguous recommendation.
Finally, there is the American decision to appoint a heartland Minister. Of course, the United States is different; the federal government must galvanise the States to protect itself. But we, too, have devolved government: Scotland carries a great deal of responsibility in this area through its Parliament—so far as I know, anti-terrorism is not a reserved matter; and Wales has rather less responsibility through the Assembly.
But we must not forget that the impact of any terrorist attack is local in the first instance and that the local authorities and the three "blue light" services will bear the first brunt. In his reply, will the noble Lord confirm that the effect of the Civil Defence (Grant) Act has been to cut emergency planning resources by 5 per cent in cash terms and 7 per cent in real terms? What has been the cut to local authorities? The Local Government Association claims a 55 per cent cut in civil defence grant in real terms since 1990. No wonder it complains bitterly.
Reviews have taken place of local authorities' and other services' emergency plans. Various weaknesses have been identified. I am particularly concerned about the communication networks, which may be subject to disruption. Of course, it is vital that command and control centres continue to function. Again, assurances are required. The local authorities are deeply concerned. It is hoped that the Government have ensured that nuclear and other major installations have been secured against attack. The thought of an aerial attack on Sellafield, as outlined in evidence to the Defence Select Committee, would make the bravest of us blanch.
1204
After the emergency planning review, which I can tell my noble friend Lady Blatch was carried out by the CCS—
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I am very sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but he is four minutes over the agreed time for Front Bench speakers.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, I understood that I would be allowed 10 minutes at least, which was the amount allowed to Back Benchers. We have some time in hand.
I conclude by saying that the emergency planning review was held by the CCS, and the Defence Select Committee concluded that there was an urgent need to replace the Civil Defence Act 1948, but we have seen no sign of that.
We all fervently hope that the dreadful events that have been on our minds in this debate never occur, but we must be ever-watchful and fully prepared. I hazard a guess that we are not fully prepared as yet.
6.50 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Filkin): My Lords, I thank all those who have spoken, especially the noble Lord, Lord Roper, who proposed the debate, because it is such an important issue that it benefits from an opportunity for us to consider it. I shall try to speak rapidly to say as much as I can in my limited time.
First, the noble Lord, Lord Roper, was absolutely right to say that the nature of our perception of threat has gone through a scale shift in the past 12 months. This debate concerns not just terrorism but emergencies such as a cessation of fuel supplies or disasters, natural or otherwise. We are also discussing activities that may occur at a whole range of levels. They can be solely local, across a number of authorities at a regional level or national. In practice, they almost always have an impact locally and can therefore require planning at different levels, which is one of the challenges to the responsible authorities.
There is clearly an element of prevention involved as well—considering to what extent by improving intelligence one can reduce risk. That is crucial; the Government are putting more resources into it; but no one should be sanguine that that will automatically succeed. That is part of the picture, but I shall say no more on that.
I turn next to the key questions that I shall address: who is responsible; are they ready and prepared; and what more do we think we need to do? I shall try to keep to that plot as I wind up the debate.
First, on the question of who is responsible, all that we know about coping with emergencies tells us that clarity of command and responsibility is fundamental. The Government have spent some time considering that during the past 12 months, and the position is clear. At the local level, if there is a disaster or emergency, in the first instance the police are undoubtedly responsible. Let me give a clear, strong example of that. In London, if there is a major

1205
incident, the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police is in charge with a committee, a group, under him consisting of all the other bodies. We must have that clarity of command if we are to deal effectively with the first phase of problems.
Secondly, as one would expect, the Government have also looked across government to see whether there is clarity of command within government itself. We have considered the structures at the centre. The Home Secretary has the clear leadership role, accountable to the Prime Minister, and under that is a structure of relevant committees considering the issues. Effectively, there are three committees: one considering terrorism risk; one considering how we increase our resilience to cope; and one considering how in practice we would handle a problem as it occurred. I shall not bore your Lordships with the detail or their technical names.
The second aspect of considering the clarity of command is ensuring that there is a clear statement of which government department will lead on each type of situation. That is clear and precise, and there are also default operations for when there is any doubt. Over and above that, as no doubt noble Lords would tell me, there may be a range of incidents. In such situations, the centre will take clear command and where there is any doubt, the centre will act early and downscale afterwards, rather than acting late and upscaling. In other words, we have learnt from testing during the past few years that it is better, if anything, to go over the top rather than under in terms of pulling the response to the centre and responding powerfully.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way and shall be brief. If that is so clear and well understood across Whitehall, why, only one week ago, when I asked who was in charge for the Government as the health spokesman in this House, did I receive the response, "I do not know"?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath is the health spokesman in this House.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the Minister whom I asked was Lord Rooker, and he said that he did not know.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, be that as it may, I can only answer that the position is clear. The Government have made sure of that within government, as I sought to explain. That has been reinforced by the appointment of Sir David Omand. He has been given that responsibility by Andrew Turnbull for the best of reasons: to give someone with his weight of experience—of course, he is ultimately accountable within the Civil Service to Andrew Turnbull—the time and attention to focus on the matter as a priority, as he is doing. The reason there is a large number of people potentially on the Civil Contingencies Committee is that government is big. They do not all sit around the table at once but come in at various times as and when there is a need.
1206
The next issue that we have identified during the past few years is that we are now aware that a disaster could take place not just in the area of an individual local authority. It could easily occur in several local authorities at once or across several local authorities. The Government, through my right honourable friend Nick Raynsford, London local authorities, the Metropolitan Police and others, have expended much effort on considering the arrangements in London—the capital—which is obviously a potential prime target.
A considerable amount of detailed work has been done to consider how we need to strengthen our preparedness. That has led us to the conclusion that, above all, we need to reinforce the role of the commissioner of police, clarify the local government lead role at chief executive level and recognise that we need robust cross-local government arrangements to deal with potential incidents.
Our conclusion from that is that we need a strengthening of regional capacity across the country. That is why we are signalling that it is important that, in the first instance, the government offices for the region are strengthened with an additional team capable of giving leadership and testing that capacity.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, shakes her head. But in the first instance, we need capacity within the Civil Service to hold the ring and pull the issues together to ensure that the respective authorities are considering contingency planning and their preparedness to cope with a wide range of civil emergencies at a level wider than that of the individual local authority.
None of that takes away for a second from the importance of local authorities. The county emergency service is crucial in that respect, but it will not be able to deal with issues that span wider than an individual county, nor would we expect it to do so.
I turn to the question posed by the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, which is a good one, about the role of elected members. I think that we have all experienced a local emergency. The key role for elected members, both now and in future, will be to put pressure on the paid executive to ensure that proper preparation and planning are in place, that it is a significant issue on the authority's agenda—whether it is a police authority or a local authority—and that it has proper plans.
That is not always the case in every local authority. In a fair number, that does not sit on the agenda as a serious issue. That may be surprising—it surprises me—post-September 11th. It is crucial that elected members give leadership on that issue at local authority level and do not accept excuses from officers.
Let me leave aside the issue of who is responsible, the detailed structure of government and what is happening in London. Time will not allow me to go into more detail. I turn to an equally important question. If responsibilities are clear, as I believe that they are, recognising that such situations may be highly complex, are the authorities prepared? The short answer is: we can never be adequately prepared.

1207
But we have certainly raised our perception of the need for a deeper level of preparedness than would have been possible 15 months or so ago.
The problem is that we cannot predict everything that may happen. As part of horizon scanning and risk assessment, central government, local government and the Police Service must try to make an estimate and think the unthinkable. The big shift since September 11th is that we now know that we ought to prepare for things for which we would not previously have dreamt about preparing. The previously unthinkable is now much more thinkable. So, there is a need for a shift of scale in recognising the potential risks to which we could be exposed.
Central government is doing a range of things. First, it recognises that we need some form of performance management testing for central government itself, for the emergency services and for local government. In a sense, it is trying to identify the capabilities that ought to be in place in any organisation that has responsibilities in such a situation and test its preparedness by considering whether it has a strong capacity at the centre to respond; whether it has a supply of essential services; whether there is a local response capacity and the capacity to deal with decontamination and site clearance; whether it has vaccination and treatment facilities; whether it can deal with mass casualties and mass evacuation and identify and detect risks; and whether it has communication capabilities in place. That is the diagnostic against which any organisation should be tested.
The second stage is that we may need to develop national standards for what we might expect to have in place to test those capabilities. We are considering that. The third element is a process for auditing and testing—be it a central government department, a local authority or a police force—that those standards have been put in place and can be met. In other words, we cannot test for every eventuality, because we do not know every eventuality. We must consider what portfolio of capabilities we might require and seek to have clear standards for what should be there and test it.
The next element is to get as close to reality testing as possible. Exercises are a crucial part of that process. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, asked when the last cross-government exercise was undertaken: it was "Capital Response", which took place between 18th and 19th October 2002. In addition, the Home Office supports three full-scale live exercises each year. They are held over a weekend and test specific parts of the counter-terrorism plans. There has been a growing trend towards involving the whole range of responding agencies in the exercises to validate the arrangements. Between 600 and 1,000 people take part in those exercises. Over and above that, between 15 and 20 seminar-style exercises are held each year on elements of counter-terrorism.
In recent years, the following exercises have taken place: a test of a national gas supply shortage; a test of the availability of telecommunications in a crisis; a
1208
series of classified contingency plans for responding to a range of terrorist threats, including those that might involve threatened or actual use of CBRN weapons; and tests of command control and communications procedures in the event of a catastrophic incident in London, as I said in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. There will be further exercises, but I cannot, given the time, go into detail.
At one level, we might hope that we would not have to ask local authorities whether they had the capacity to remove rubble or to deal with mass evacuation. However, it was demonstrated that it was necessary to ask that question. There was a mixed response, which will he no surprise. Some such measures seemed to be in place; others did not. That is part of reality testing.
I was also asked about medical supplies. Time is tight, but I can say that noble Lords will have seen recently in the media that the Department of Health is taking a range of actions, as one of the departments with a lead role in many contingencies. A procurement exercise is under way, which will put in place digital radio communications for the police. That could roll on to the ambulance service, so that we would have intercommunication between the emergency services. The intention is to have a fully manned, equipped and trained reserve reaction force in place by the summer of next year.
I noted the comment about the Civil Contingencies Secretariat. An enormous amount of good work is being done by the secretariat; that is not a ground for complacency. My judgment—I have spent some time at weekends there—and that of others is that, after testing in the recent fire dispute, it has coped well. There has been the capacity to run things from the centre effectively and well.
Time is too tight to give all the figures for funding. No local authority has less than it had in the past. Part of the Bill will consider whether we need a new grant system for dealing with civil emergencies. We will consider that, but I cannot believe that any local authority would use the hoary old chestnut that it will not do anything because there is not enough central government grant. Unless a local authority has a guarantee from somewhere that it is in a disaster-free zone, that would be irresponsible.
What more and what next? In a sense, the civil contingencies Bill is important. We expect to publish it in draft form in the spring. Early in 2003, we will publish an update on Dealing with Disaster, about which the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond, asked. The Bill should be the culmination of a process that is already under way. All that it will do is to put in place for anybody who is in any doubt explicit statutory responsibilities for the relevant emergency services and a process for auditing whether they are meeting them. I would expect that any good local authority already does all those things. There is a leadership issue for local authority members and chief executives and the LGA itself. They should not wait for the Bill to tell them to prepare effective plans—by themselves and with others. They should be doing so. It is as plain as the nose on one's face that the world is

1209
different from what it was two years ago, and they should act in that context. I cannot cover more. My time is up.
On some issues, it is impossible to divulge information to Parliament on, for example, terrorist threats. I know that the House recognises that. However, we should not be so shy about whether government—national or local—is prepared to deal with the consequences of a disaster. In other words, there is nothing wrong with parliamentary testing and accountability on such issues; it is part of what we believe in. There may be some doubt about whom to ask. In this House, it is the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, and I, as the Home Office representatives. In the other place, people should, if in doubt, ask the Home Secretary. He has the overall responsibility. That is, I think, clear. We would not wish questions to be impeded by any doubt—
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Elton): My Lords, the time allotted to this debate has elapsed. Does the noble Lord wish to withdraw the Motion?
Lord Roper: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who took part in the debate, particularly the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Engineers
7.7 p.m.
Lord Oxburgh asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they consider that there will be sufficient well-trained engineers in the future.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, my purpose in asking this Question is to draw attention to the importance of engineering to the UK and to the difficulties of keeping the profession supplied with new blood at all levels. I should also declare an interest as chairman of SETNET—the Science, Engineering and Technology Network—the purpose of which is to support schools in the teaching of science, technology and mathematics, in particular by facilitating interactions between employers, professional institutions and schools.
It is to engineers that we owe much of what we regard as the essentials of modern life—our roads, our telephones our cars, our domestic appliances and our ability to capture, store, transmit and manipulate data on an unthinkable scale. Without the machines for imaging and analysis, many of the advances on which modern medicine depends would not have been possible. Moreover it has been said—not purely in jest—that civil engineers have done more for world health then medical profession, by providing clean water supplies, modern drains and sanitation.
Be that as it may, it is beyond dispute that such developments have massively reduced mortality and significantly contributed to the massive growth of the world population. The present population is imposing
1210
a massive burden on the planet. Even without growth, that burden would increase, as the developing world moved towards the living standards of the developed. But more than that, we can expect population growth of more than 50 per cent over the next 15 to 25 years. This population will need water, food, energy and natural resources. It will also generate wastes that have to be safely managed, the most significant of which arc the greenhouse gases. In coping with this we shall be totally dependent on wise policies, founded on scientific understanding and implemented through innovative engineering. That is why a shortage of well-qualified entrants to the engineering profession at all levels is a cause of serious concern.
This has been recognised anecdotally for years, but it has recently been quantified by Sir Gareth Roberts in his excellent report, SET for Success, on the country's future needs for scientific and educational manpower. Furthermore, a recent survey of SMEs in the UK revealed that for the first time skill shortages had overtaken shortage of finance as the main obstacle to growth.
Roberts also made a number of proposals as to how the problem might be tackled. It is most welcome that the Government have indicated that they intend to implement the Roberts proposals. This reinforces the continuing efforts of the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury of Turville, in his capacity as Minister for Science and Technology. He has been indefatigable in his support of initiatives to stimulate the interest of young people in science, technology, engineering and mathematics and to help the engineering profession, sometimes, I might say, in spite of itself.
Turning to recruitment to the engineering professions, it is important to recognise that the problem is not confined to the UK and is recognised in most parts of the developed world. In contrast, in the developing world engineering is seen as a rung on the ladder to prosperity. In consequence, engineering schools in North American universities and, to a lesser extent, in the UK, are richly populated by very able engineering students from South East Asia.
There are many sides to the UK problem but I shall confine my remarks today to engineers' preparation at school.
The disciplines on which engineering largely depends are mathematics and the physical sciences. Every engineer needs at least some knowledge of these and there are difficult concepts to be grasped. Moreover, because the subjects are largely incremental, difficulty with the earlier stages will, more than in many subjects, make later stages totally incomprehensible. Add to that the fact that it is possible to be totally and incontrovertibly wrong, and this amounts to a group of subjects that some may find daunting. These subjects are not easy to teach.
This underlines the seriousness of the situation described by Roberts—many of those teaching maths and science in our schools are having to teach far outside their areas of special expertise. For example, two-thirds of those teaching physics at key stage 4 do not have a physics degree, and a third of them do not

1211
even have an A-level in the subject. Academic qualifications do not guarantee good teaching, but they are certainly a good start.
Whatever general deterrent factors there may be, they seem to act more strongly on girls than on boys. Boys far outnumber girls in choosing physical sciences and mathematics at school, and even more so in choosing an engineering career after school. It may be that some of the aspects of engineering that are most appealing to young men are distinctly unattractive to young women. Some of the best recognised success stories of British engineering today are the aero-engine and aerospace industry, not to mention world leadership in the design and construction of racing cars. These are outstanding engineering achievements, but the testosterone-rich activities that they support may be a positive turn-off to young women. Showing them that there is more to engineering than this, and convincing them that it is a diverse, interesting and worthwhile profession, must be a priority.
Of course, whether teachers, career advisers, family or friends advise a pupil to think of a career in engineering science depends to a large extent on their view of engineering and of engineering employers. This is another area where things may go wrong. Schools are busy and under great pressure. This means that there is not much time for anything that does not directly fit the curriculum. Well intended offerings from potential employers and other external bodies that do not fit easily into the syllabus, or which simply appear at the wrong time, are put to one side or perhaps binned. This is a great pity because some of the material has been very carefully prepared and is potentially useful.
The other potential disaster area is work experience. If the employer plans work experience schemes properly and there is commitment at all levels, they can be a great success—and some are. In other cases, there is commitment at a management level but this is not carried through to the practical level, where the visitor from school is seen as an unwelcome extra burden and may be given little of interest to do or, worse still, nothing at all. Sadly there is clear evidence that some of these schemes are counter-productive.
That is the bad news. The good news is that all or nearly all of these difficulties can be remedied and, in some cases, action is already underway. On the fundamental problem of mathematics teaching, the Government have already announced an inquiry into post-14 mathematics. The dearth of properly qualified maths and science teachers can ultimately, however, he rectified only by increasing the number of good university graduates and by making the teaching of these subjects in schools a competitively attractive career. However, in the short term, the Roberts' proposal to bring part-time student helpers into classrooms on a regular basis to support teachers may offer some relief.
The problems of the interface between industry and schools are being tackled by SETNET, supported by charities, employers, professional and scientific institutions and the DTI. SETNET operates both
1212
through the web and through 53 regional SETPOINTS. It provides schools with a one-stop shop through which they can find topical and relevant material to support their teaching from local and national industrial sources. It provides news of STEM events and, as of this year, it operates the Science and Engineering Ambassadors scheme under which trained members of outside organisations can visit and work with schools.
A number of the Roberts recommendations related to the work of SETNET with schools. SETNET responded with implementation proposals that went to the Treasury, DTI and DfES four months ago. Positive replies were received from the Treasury and DTI, but from the DfES there has been, unfortunately, a deafening silence. In view of the department's interest in and responsibilities for STEM work in schools, I find this surprising. I should like to ask the Minister whether the DfES intends to reply and, if so, whether it is interested in implementing the Roberts proposals in so far as they bear on schools.
In conclusion, we are left with broader and traditional perceptions of engineering. In presenting themselves, I believe that more institutions and employers must consciously go beyond the macho image and give equal emphasis to the humanitarian and socially valuable sides of engineering. Overall, everyone must continue to drive home the message that not only has engineering a major contribution to make to the solution of the problems of both the developed and developing world, but, more important, that no solution is possible without it.
7.18 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Chesterton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, for introducing this important debate. I should declare an interest: I have a Bachelor and a PhD degree in engineering and I am now a professor of climate modelling. Giscard d'Estaing, who was the President of France, trained as an engineer; Wittgenstein became a philosopher. So the first important point to make is that an engineering education is a good basis for life as well as for the utilitarian factors outlined by the noble Lord.
I have had experience in research and teaching in the United States and on the Continent and have been engaged in the practical engineering and consulting industry in a small company, one of whose senior managers is a woman engineer who was very well educated at Cambridge.
The Question before us is whether enough well-trained engineers in the future. One can break this down into a question of supply and demand. What is the state of demand in the.UK? In this country, the demand for engineers is, less prescriptive than in some other countries. Many jobs that are done by engineers in Germany, for example, are done in the UK by people without formal engineering education such as physicists and mathematicians, in much the same way as some excellent people in the City do not have degrees in economics and management but have

1213
degrees in mathematics. This broad approach in Britain means that education is very important in the first instance.
However, we must consider the fact that there is a demand for engineers to deal with important practical problems. One of the most important questions of demand is the size of the engineering and manufacturing industry. Is this in relative decline? There seems to be some evidence that it is, despite some bright spots, from small high-tech companies to large aerospace companies.
There have been many calls in this House to sustain manufacturing. The Government are taking an intelligent approach, but I am sure that they could do a great deal more to use their purchasing power to help the UK. In my position as chief executive of the Met Office, it was galling to see the UK having considerable purchasing power as regards computers, satellites and so on, but that these were not being used as efficiently or effectively as they might have been.
Overseas commentators on the UK's engineering and manufacturing industry have referred to the fact that many of our big strengths have declined, and that in some large construction or satellite projects there are simply no UK engineering companies bidding for jobs.
A further important question in relation to demand is that of salaries. Starting salaries for engineers are much lower than those offered to economists in the City—they are only half or even a third of the amount. I do not know whether the Government can do much about that; but they can encourage companies that employ engineers. That is one of the ways in which the Government should be seeking to support engineering and high-tech industries. Certainly there are bright spots: some small companies pay salaries that people find attractive.
The next question relates to supply. What affects the supply of engineers? Is engineering fun? Is it challenging? Is it attractive to the best students? Well, of course it is. Students can gain remarkable satisfaction from engineering work early in their career. I worked on a building site in Cardiff and had the interesting experience of talking to a foreman who said to me: "Julian, what are we building here, a watch or a refinery?". So I had an early learning experience in approximation!
More seriously, there are doubts as to whether people entering the profession meet the correct standards of entry. This point was made strongly by the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh. I refer not only to standards in mathematics, but to people's curiosity and their physical intuition. Are these people the best and the brightest?
Teaching is very important—the Roberts report is important. But we have to recognise that we share this difficulty with other countries—with the Netherlands and Germany in particular. But by comparison with those countries we should recognise that considerably more women are entering engineering in the UK—not
1214
as many as in France or in the Latin countries, but we are doing somewhat better than a number of our competitor countries.
How can the supply of engineers be increased? One of the most important points is that we need to make engineering exciting. We need to be seen to be dealing with the greatest and most important problems. We should be encouraging the existing centres of engineering excellence, of which there are a number in the UK—for example, Surrey Satellite Technology is a remarkable institution. Based at the University of Surrey, it produces satellites and provides services all over the world. It is probably not well enough known.
It is notable that, when deciding on a university, students consider factors such as research and approbation. Therefore, we should make a strong connection between the idea of centres of excellence and recruitment into the profession. Perhaps the Government place more emphasis on scientific centres of excellence and not enough on engineering centres of excellence. The Royal Academy of Engineering is conscious of this and has helped with chairs in sustainable development and other areas. But there are a number of areas where the UK seems to be lagging behind and where some big centres would be appropriate.
Commentators from abroad have said that in some areas of engineering British universities are not as strong as, for example, the major research schools in the United States. What is being done about this? One interesting initiative is the grouping together of departments to form major centres—for example, Cardiff and Bristol in hydrology; the Yorkshire universities; there are some activities in London; and now we see Cambridge and MIT connecting together.
What else could the Government do to improve engineering in the universities and to make it more exciting and excellent? One of the most important requirements is to break down rigid departmental barriers, to ensure that courses are more imaginative and more inter-disciplinary, to ensure a more international aspect to education, with students spending time in foreign universities.
It is important for the Government to do more as regards the role of engineering. We have Chief Scientists in many departments; one government department has a chief mathematician. But we do not hear very much about chief engineers. The Ministry of Defence has a Chief Scientist—the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, held the post. I believe that there was a chief engineer in MAFF. We should see more appointments of that kind.
Furthermore, the Government need to emphasise engineering in their major policy areas. Clearly, when we are reducing pollution, attempting to deal with floods and developing transport, the role and importance of engineering need to be emphasised. That role also needs to be emphasised in bioengineering. I want to reinforce the point that health is now as much a matter of engineering as it is of medicine. Bio-engineering—for example. Micro-chips

1215
may even be used in the human body—will probably be the biggest area of engineering in future. We need to emphasise that point.
My final comments are possibly a departure from the Roberts report, despite a comment that I made to the writers of the report. I believe that universities could do a good deal more to involve the private sector in teaching and research, by means of secondments and so on. The arrangements are still quite stiff for that kind of university/private sector involvement. It would be another important way in which to make engineering seem more attractive.
7.26 p.m.
Baroness Platt of Writtle: My Lords, as an aeronautical engineer, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, for introducing this important debate. There is no doubt that we need more young people—girls as well as boys, as all speakers have said—to pursue a career in engineering. All the time one reads of skills shortages, emphasised by employers, and at all levels. That means encouraging the very able to go for chartered status. But chartered engineers need teams of incorporated and engineering technicians to work with them.
One reads in the financial columns of impending recession. If we are to export successfully in world markets, we need the innovation of world-class engineers to improve productivity and efficiency in manufacturing without destroying quality. We have to compete on price and build sustainability into the equation as well. It is not an easy task.
At the same time we need to improve our health service. That will need engineering innovation, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said, to use surgical and medical skills more efficiently to the benefit of patients—keyhole surgery, radiotherapy, prosthesis and aids for the handicapped. The IT system in hospitals and pathology labs needs to be compatible with that of GPs if endless time is not to be wasted in outdated communication. That is a challenge in itself.
All the goods that we buy or use—white goods, clothes, food, transport, bridges, roads—again depend on engineers for their production.
We need to encourage more young people to succeed in maths and science and see how exciting and rewarding it is to exercise those skills to overcome problems in their employment. Pay is reasonable. Every engineer can carry a chief executive's baton in his or her future knapsack. There are about as many engineers as accountants as chief executives in the FTSE 100 companies. And of 43,000 directors of manufacturing companies more than 10,000 are engineers. Unemployment is very low.
Why do not more young people choose engineering careers? It is partly because it is not a school subject. So there are precious few teachers to market it. At the same time, there is a shortage of good maths and physics teachers to make their subjects exciting, attractive and fun. That problem needs long-term emphasis for its solution. Lord Dainton told the
1216
House that 30 years ago. I wish SETNET well in tackling the problem. The Association for Science Education is doing a very good job.
On careers advice, the CRAC/NICEC report Choosing Science at 16, backed by the Engineering Employers Federation, EMTA and the Department for Education and Skills, states:
"The majority of the careers advisers were graduates with humanities and social science backgrounds. One in ten had science degrees, all in biological subjects—in the whole review there were two engineers, no graduates in maths or physical science".
That serious situation needs to be addressed urgently.
The Government's Ambassadors scheme is good. We need young and enthusiastic engineers who are prepared to go into schools to describe the excitement and rewards of their chosen profession. That will not happen by magic. The young engineers who would do that best are probably at the most demanding time in their careers and at home with young families needing their attention. There is no doubt that giving interesting presentations to schools helps to develop young engineers' marketing skills. Employers need to recognise that by making it easy for staff to have time off. In the longer term, the firm will benefit in this way and in recruitment from the next generation. I am patron of the WISE campaign, Women Into Science and Engineering. We have given the Ambassador scheme our database of young women engineers prepared to speak in schools.
It would also be a good idea to recruit careers advisers from suitably qualified young women who are bringing up their families but are prepared to work part time. All schoolteachers and careers advisers should value middle-ability children more highly, especially those with practical skills. In these days of league tables and targets, too often they are undervalued. Yet they will provide the skills base of the teams I referred to earlier, led by chartered engineers. Very often they will find more suitable education paths in post-16 further education, but clear encouragement needs to be given. Modern apprenticeships in engineering provide a good path. But, once again, far more encouragement needs to be given to girls. We have reached 15 per cent of women undergraduates in engineering, but only 2 per cent in modern apprenticeships, yet girls form over 50 per cent of the population. What a waste of potential skills.
WISE is held back from its excellent work by lack of money. The WISE buses are coming off the road next July having given literally hundreds of thousands of schoolgirls practical experience in using mechanical and electronic equipment on board the buses. We have been running WISE Outlook three-day programmes in FE colleges for 13 to 14 year-old girls, where, once again, they have hands-on experience of work in engineering and meeting women engineer role models to encourage them to enter the field at technician level. These have been financed by DTI until September when funding will be stopped. Such successful flagship projects backed by FE colleges and engineering employers need continuing finance. I hope that at the end of this debate we shall receive assurance that serious consideration will be given to their resumption.

1217
We are talking about small amounts of money—tens of thousands—compared with the Government's plans for spending millions in other fields.
Engineering skills, whether among males or females, are vital to UK Limited. I hope the Government will set their mind to a long, firm, practical campaign with money behind it for encouragement.
7.34 p. m.
Lord Methuen: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, for raising this very significant matter. The recent poll on great Britons shows that people are not unaware of the contributions made by British scientists and engineers. Brunel, Newton and Darwin all did well in the poll. But we must understand why young people are not coming forward to be trained as engineers and scientists.
I was lucky as a child because I knew I wished to be an engineer by the time I was eight or nine, and I had the support and encouragement of my parents to become one. People seem to think that engineering is dull and boring, but I seldom found that so during some 40 years of industrial experience. Perhaps I was lucky, because I had the privilege of working, among others, for two first-class companies, IBM and Rolls-Royce, in which engineers were valued and exploited.
There is a big cultural issue here. Engineers in this country simply do not have the status that they have, for instance, in Germany or France. Nor do we yet have some of the eye-catching successes such as the French TGV high-speed trains and other European achievements. Perhaps that is due to the status of the title "engineer" being degraded over the years. Anyone wielding a spanner, without any qualifications, seems to call himself an engineer. By contrast, on the Continent the title is always used in addressing people, thus emphasising the status of his profession. I was often told off by my Austrian in-laws if I did not address them as "Magister" in recognition of their qualifications.
There are also salary implications. Engineering is seen as a poorly paid profession, lacking in status compared with the medical, accountancy and legal professions. Why is this? I believe this begins at the earliest stages of our education in the toys we play with and in our earliest schooling. Most of my generation was brought up on Meccano, a brilliant method of training and inspiring any budding engineer in the creation of structures and machines. There is nothing in our shops today, I suggest, that encourages a child in such a creative manner.
How many of our teachers, at all stages, have any experience of the world of engineering or the practical skills that go with it? Previous speakers made that point also. It would be beneficial to recruit mature people into our schools, perhaps on a part-time basis, who have industrial experience and who can inspire our children with what can be achieved as an engineer. There are salary implications, but those should not be insuperable.
1218
The situation in our universities is also critical. Home student applications for civil engineering courses are down by some 50 per cent and there are some 30,000 vacancies on science and engineering courses. Many graduates choose not to take up engineering but become management consultants or enter other professions where they see better salaries and job prospects. Entry salaries in the engineering profession may be less than that of a police recruit, emphasising the low regard in which engineers are held.
Part of the problem is not only the undervaluing of teachers in general but the lack of mathematics and science schoolteachers, as pointed out earlier. Pupils opt for A-level courses in arts subjects, which they consider more interesting and less difficult. The Government should be encouraged to support the adjustment of salary scales to ensure adequate remuneration of teachers in those subjects.
At undergraduate level, we need to take more account of the benefits of vocational and sandwich courses and subsequent apprenticeships. I benefited personally from a sandwich course having always been a very practical person. The mixture of coursework and industrial experience is an invaluable part of any engineering training. The Government should also consider the implications of top-up fees for engineering and science university courses. Fees will be yet another disincentive to students contemplating those courses. Universities in turn need to train the next generation of research leaders and lecturers to fill existing gaps.
I await with interest the Minister's response. What Brunel achieved 150 years ago, we can still achieve in this era—from the civil engineering works on the Channel Tunnel rail link to the highly successful achievements of our trail-blazing microelectronic firms.
7.39 p.m.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, asks an important Question and I congratulate him on asking it. He also reminded us that small and medium-sized enterprises are now more concerned about skill shortages than about finance.
What is it about the way we run our businesses that has caused this shortage of well-trained engineers? In recent times, I have put it down, in a word, to subcontracting—"outsourcing", to use the current jargon. By outsourcing to smaller firms, one also subcontracts the need to train. There are of course great advantages to sub-contracting work to specialism: and skilled sub-contractors. It keeps costs and overheads down. British industry has become very skilled at that, and it is very highly valued. The financial markets sometimes value that skill more highly than ability to do the job itself, especially where the supply chain is well run.
Like all good ideas, however, it can be carried too far. The building and construction industry is a good example of where this has happened. Engineering

1219
work is now often sub-contracted down to individuals or to small groups of individuals that are so small or operate on such low overheads that they cannot undertake any training of new engineers—it is all they can do to keep up their own training. That is why there is such a shortage of plumbing engineers and electrical engineers. This is happening to small companies in many sectors of business and industry.
Let us consider the railways. We have been told that recent accidents have occurred because of poor engineering. The cause of this poor engineering is that Railtrack's sub-contractors and its sub-contractors' sub-contractors just did not have enough well-trained engineers. In an interview in today's Financial Times, the chairman of the Strategic Rail Authority implied that that was one reason why major projects for the railways are threatened.
So what can the Minister do about it? He certainly cannot change the culture of British industry. What he can do is encourage the organisations that fill the gap created by this outsourcing culture. These small subcontracting firms employ very few graduate engineers. Most of their engineers have to be trained within the business itself, and that is where the training and the professional organisations play such a crucial role.
I am speaking of organisations such as EMTA, the Engineering Marine and Training Authority. In its work on the new sector skills councils, it plays an important role in enabling and encouraging those firms to run engineering modern apprenticeship programmes. Other noble Lords have spoken of the need to attract young people. They do attract them. Thanks to EMTA, engineering is still top of the league for the number of people registering to do modern engineering programmes and has the highest completion rate. Yet there is a decline in the number of people starting engineering modern apprenticeships. That must be a cause for concern.
Is it because there is less status in vocational training than in academic training? Perhaps it is. So we must seek to draw well-trained engineers of the future by attracting able young people from all sectors of society. That is why I think that we must give equal esteem to academic and vocational training. NVQs, Higher National Certificates and Higher National Diplomas as well as academic qualifications should all be equal as part of the advanced modern apprenticeships.
Even in the smaller firms, well-trained engineers have to be up-to-date engineers. They have to develop with the job. It is in keeping their members up to date that the professional organisations have an important role. I know that the Society of Operations Engineers—I declare an interest as its patron; it is a professional organisation which is part of the Engineering and Technology Council—is addressing this issue by developing a professional development record for its members. Members will be required to show evidence of continuing professional development on an annual basis. The society provides
1220
a database of courses and seminars, both within and outside the society, which might count towards that requirement. It is a society of 25,000 members.
The culture of outsourcing seems to have been successful in terms of profitability, but less so in terms of productivity. It seems that we are as profitable as most other economies in the OECD but somewhat less productive, as the noble Baroness, Lady Platt, told us. However, increasing productivity is not only a matter of good engineering; it is also a matter of management. All employers, large and small, need engineers with these management skills. Good management is not just a matter of being nice to people; it means building up the human capital by measures such as sharing information, encouraging personal development, and—perhaps above all—introducing the five main lean techniques which are known to raise productivity. That is why successful organisations and companies provide their engineers with opportunities for personal development as well as training in new engineering.
It also seems to me that another new skill is emerging which well-trained engineers have to acquire, particularly in larger companies—the skill of exercising personal judgment on where to draw the line between loyalty to the company and loyalty to society. In recent months, we have had a number of corporate scandals, and from these we have learned that in some companies there is a savage peer review process. It is savage in order to instil fear into those who might otherwise have challenged the integrity of the business. That gives every incentive in a company to cover up bad news.
It seems to me that well-trained engineers in the future will have to be provided with the confidence to see things through their own eyes rather than through the eyes of their masters. Well-trained engineers will need to learn that ethical behaviour is economically productive, and that shedding your reputation may temporarily increase your bank balance but is bad for your career. I think that that is another important task for the engineers' professional organisations.
In time, the outsourcing culture will change; some say that the pendulum is already beginning to swing back. Meanwhile, however, in the vocational sector we are dependent on the training organisations for teaching engineering and management and on the professional organisations to continue this work by keeping engineering knowledge up to date and personal skills up to scratch. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will promise them his support in this work.
7.47 p.m.
Lord Freeman: My Lords, although I agree with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, said, I was not impressed by the argument that, on balance, the principle of outsourcing has had a detrimental effect on the quality of the training and skills of engineers. As the Scots would say, I think that his case is not proven.
I agree with much else of what the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, said, particularly his welcome for the decision of the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, to initiate

1221
this debate. I am sure that all noble Lords will welcome this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, may be interested to know that, on making inquiries on precedents, I was unable to find a previous debate on this subject within living memory. That may be a commentary on the importance placed on the subject.
I declare an interest. Although I am not an engineer, I am a chairman of an engineering company which employs 4,000 engineers. I therefore speak not only from my own limited practical experience but from the experience of my colleagues.
It is important to reflect on the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh: will there be enough well-trained engineers in this country in the future? The answer may be yes in terms of the total number of engineers. However, I do not think that we should be confident about the quality of engineers unless certain steps are taken not only by the Government but by the profession as a whole.
I agree with what the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Methuen, had to say in describing the fall in the status of the engineering profession. Perhaps since the second world war or the mid 1950s, it has gradually eroded, especially compared with Germany and France. There seems to be a growing failure to recruit the brightest and the best of our schoolchildren and even the university students who are studying engineering to stay in the profession. That is very sad.
I am told that in some cases, our universities are accepting even C and D grades at A-level to attract students into engineering, which cannot be good in terms of quality graduates. Media studies, law, in particular, and investment banking as careers seem to have been more attractive in the past two or three decades than engineering. It may be that the crisis in the investment banking industry is one of the best things that has happened to the structure of our economy in terms of shaking out some of the brightest and best who may have been attracted in the past to enter other, perhaps more productive, sectors of the economy.
I have four suggestions, which are all very brief, but before I turn to them, we should recognise that there has been a change in the demand for the type of engineers in our economy in the past 30 to 40 years. We have moved from a situation where the great need was for mechanical engineers and technicians through to the use of computer-aided design, to cite one example. Now the emphasis is on engineers who are skilled in computer sciences and electronics, as the noble Baroness, Lady Platt, mentioned in her contribution. Indeed, I was so enthused by it that I shall go straight home after the debate to encourage our teenage daughter to reconsider her future career prospects. There has been a change in the mix of skills required in the profession. There is now much greater emphasis on multi-disciplinary and commercial skills.
My first suggestion relates to university funding. This is a major problem across a number of disciplines, but particularly for engineering. It is a four-year course and is expensive in terms of qualified teaching staff. I was appalled to hear what the noble Lord,
1222
Lord Oxburgh, and others said about the lack of qualifications of some of our teaching staff, not only in universities but in schools. We should encourage our corporations and businesses in this country to support engineering students directly, perhaps through bursaries and scholarships. I use the example of the Armed Forces, which has excellent schemes, whereby it pays or supplements the pay of students in return for them agreeing to serve for a certain period in the Armed Forces. There is no reason why our great engineering companies should not provide specific additional support in return for service later.
I shall not repeat what the noble Baroness, Lady Platt, said about attracting more girls into the profession. Her words were full of wisdom. My second point relates to parents and teachers. It is often their lack of encouragement to schoolchildren about entering the engineering profession that is at fault. I suggest that the industry should make the specific effort of showing parents and teachers what engineering companies in our modern society are all about. I found it helpful in my constituency when I served in another place to show that they are not just about metal bashing, but are one of the most exciting parts of our economy. I pay tribute to the work of the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, at SETNET, and to the Arkwright scholarship scheme. We should have 10 times the number of Arkwright scholars in our schools rather than the limited number of 150.
Thirdly, we should be teaching our engineers more broadly at university. They need to know about risk management, financial planning control, marketing and project management. There have been some disasters for which previous Administrations and previous Ministers, including myself, must Lake some of the blame. Disasters such as the Jubilee line and the West Coast Main Line makes one wonder whether, had the engineers in charge had broader training, education and experience, some of the problems of cost overrun and engineering faults might not have occurred.
Finally, we need to bring more engineers into the heart of government, both national and local. If the Deputy Prime Minister reads this debate, he will see that I am suggesting that he should have a senior engineer in his department. We have lost city engineers from local government. They should be replicated. We need more engineers on advisory bodies, especially in the Civil Service. We must give our engineers a much higher status. By doing so, we shall meet our recruitment targets.
7.56 p.m.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I am happy to take part in this debate. As Members of your Lordships' House will know, I am a chartered engineer, a fellow of the Institution of Civil Engineers, and I have dabbled in a number of other engineering societies. I was an engineering journalist for a long time; I still am. I have published engineering books. I was a member of the Finniston committee into engineering 20 years ago.

1223
I shall say something about the living memory of the previous speaker. I raised this subject, or something like it, 10 or 12 years ago from the other side of the House. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, as he managed to attract more speakers than I did. The impact of my contribution of 10 or 12 years ago has not impinged on the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, as yet. We have said very much the same tonight as we said then. Very little has changed.
I shall be brief. We are supposed to have eight minutes, and I see that we have quite some time left. I shall say a little about higher education. I was pleased, in a way, at the tribulations regarding A-levels recently. I know that that is unkind, but I have never regarded A-levels as the golden whatever. The impetus that the problems with A-levels gave to considering taking up the international baccalaureate seemed to me quite a good idea. However, there is an easier way to go about the matter, which would be less chauvinistic, I suppose.
Some noble Lords may have heard of the Scottish higher leaving certificate, which is an excellent way into higher education. It has produced a substantial number of reasonably successful, though not always magnificent engineers. The English should take up something like the Scottish higher leaving certificate, tweak it in whatever way they feel appropriate and call it the English baccalaureate, or something of that nature. Honour would then be satisfied on all sides.
I scribbled down my next point while others were speaking, which I am now trying to read. There is a duty on the profession. I speak as someone who has had a career in consulting engineering in the construction industry, so I shall not bother too much with mechanical engineering, and so on, important though those things are. I shall stick to the area about which I know a little.
There is a tendency to expect things to be done for the profession. But the profession must do things for itself. The first and most important thing it must do is to pay engineers more. To do that employers should charge higher rates. Noble Lords will have noticed that in recent years a profession has grown up which is very popular. Its leading members—now that "my lads" are in power—are invited to Downing Street. I refer to the design profession, a new profession that charges a lot of money and achieves its purpose very well.
At this point I shall irritate the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. She will remember that some years ago she and I had lengthy conversations about compulsory competitive tendering—I forget who was the Prime Minister at the time but the Conservative Party was in power—whereby design engineers, that is, consulting engineers, were obliged to compete with each other for commissions. That was always wrong. The noble Baroness will remember that we had those entertaining discussions over several weeks. She won partly because of her superior debating powers and partly because she had more people on her side than I had on mine. However, competing for commissions was a grave error.
1224
The cost of design, particularly in construction, constitutes a tiny part of the whole life cost of the project. I do not know how "my chaps" have reacted to the matter of competing for commissions as I do not follow such matters terribly closely. The noble Lord, Lord Methuen, spoke of Brunel who has been in the news lately. When Isambard Kingdom Brunel was—I almost said "touting"—hoping to get the commission to design the Great Western railway and he came up against the directors of the board who were putting up the money, he told them, "I shall not give you the cheapest railway line. I shall give you the best railway line". That is exactly how the client should expect his consulting engineer and designer to approach a project. The client should not ask for the cheapest design but rather the best. The best design will be more expensive but the engineers involved will be paid an appropriate sum.
Finally, I agree with almost everything that has been said on all sides of the House, even as regards comments with which I do not normally agree. The status of engineers was mentioned. I have been involved with the Institution of Civil Engineers for more than 40 years. We babble on about status and so on. I have always advised engineers to do one thing—it was done by the members of the design profession whom I have mentioned—and that is to blow their own trumpets. Engineers should not expect to be recognised for what they produce or the marvels that they achieve or for the fact that they are the most important people on earth. They should blow their own trumpets and tell people what they achieve.
That brings me to my very last point which I shall recount as quickly as I can. I note that the Whip in the person of the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, is starting to squirm, as it were, but I shall let her squirm for a moment or two longer. One of the better things that the party opposite produced while in power was the copyright Act of 1988 which introduced the moral right for an architect to be recognised from the start as the designer of a building. In the course of our debates we decided that that right should belong to people other than the relevant architect as, especially in the case of modern buildings, the role of the engineer is at least as significant as that of the architect and sometimes more so. It was agreed that both architects and engineers should have the moral right to be recognised in the way that I have described. Unfortunately, Whitehall being what it is, it could not accept the notion that the then Bill should be amended to include the phrase "architect and/or engineer". However, it accepted a reference to the author of the building or structure. That, of course, confused the issue. Engineers have not really noticed that omission and have not blown their own trumpets in that regard.
I am aware that the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, who will reply to this debate is not in any way to blame for that situation. However, I believe that that matter should be clarified and that the copyright Act should be amended to make it clear that architects

1225
and engineers both have the moral right I have mentioned. There are two ways of doing that, either by the Government—
Baroness Andrews: My Lords—
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I am about to conclude. My noble friend should not get excited. If she will subside, I shall finish directly. All she has achieved is to prolong my remarks further. As I say, the measure can be amended either by the Government or by the Government assisting a parliamentarian to produce a Private Member's Bill.
8.6 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I have the feeling that I should provide duelling implements for the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, and the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon.
The main point that has emerged in the debate is that a cultural problem exists with regard to engineering. It is no longer considered a sexy subject. My education was solidly arts based. When choosing subjects in which to specialise the brilliant and confident students made their choices confidently. The rest tned to pick subjects that they considered safe and secure. Engineering does not have an attractive image and is not considered a vitally important subject.
The noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, started with a historical fact. Civil engineers have certainly saved far more lives than the medical profession. Prevention is better than cure. When we gave ourselves clean water and clean air we stopped many of the great Victorian killers and the killers of the industrialised world. That is an unequivocal fact; one of the few that history provides.
So why do engineers have such a bad image? The short answer is that I do not know. It might be to do with the fact that we seem to worship the nice, safe professions such as law and medicine. There is definitely a cultural gap that we are not addressing.
The practical problems of recruiting maths and physics graduates to teach, especially at GCSE level, have been pointed out. As my noble friend, Lord Methuen, said, we should look at the people who have worked in this subject, who are in the present types of industrial practice—on which there has been much comment—and who may find themselves not regularly employed and getting by as consultants when they hit their mid-forties to early fifties. We should ask those people whether they would like to teach again.
There was a precedent after the Second World War, when we encouraged many people rapidly back into teaching by providing access courses. Some attention has been paid to this matter over the past few years, but we should drive hard into that area to get people back into the subject.
If we are worried about engineers, I would suggest that someone who enthuses about the practical benefit of a subject, which seemed to me as someone who did not like it a series of incomprehensible squiggles on the blackboard, might be a way of making the subject
1226
more real. Recruiting maths teachers who have been engineers first and who will say that you can do something worthwhile and practical with the subject might be a way of crossing the cultural divide. We must draw attention to that strategy.
It has been said on several occasions that the problem does not exist only at the higher levels of engineering. We must also consider plumbing engineers. Such professions suffer from the fact that the skills involved are not seen as status qualifications. I suggest that we look at our universities and the nature of degrees and try to bring the HND level qualifications more into the university structure. Possibly we should re-market and repackage them. Their "sandwich" nature often gives people a better chance of subsidising their income through university. In the current environment that is a bonus. We should put them into the degree structure as a stopping-off point; a point at which you can leave if you decide you are of a more practical bent. The qualifications could then be topped-up to degree or post-degree level; that is a more practical way forward.
Undergraduate life is changing: there is less funding and the old A-level system seems to be grinding to a halt, as is the idea of banging students through an intensive three-year course. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Howie. I thought that I would be the first person to mention the higher system. I came across it at university in Aberdeen. It struck me that under it people had a much wider choice. The degree is longer, but it was good that we did not have the great god of A-levels to prime students for three years rapidly through their degrees.
If the A-level system is coming to the end of its natural life—as I suggest it may be—then the noble Lord, Lord Howie, is right: it would be easy to go towards a baccalaureate-type system. If we cannot go towards a baccalaureate-type system it would certainly be a staging post towards it. If it shows us the way towards that ultimate goal, I hope that we will consider it carefully.
I have come to the conclusion, especially during the debate, that we have a cultural problem. The industry can deal with it to an extent, as has been said, but the Government will have to try to market these courses aggressively. Ultimately we need them; if you are dealing with the physical world in a practical way, surely you will have better employment prospects than by studying laws that may change or business practices that may become out of date almost as soon as the textbook is printed. Therefore, I suggest that when dealing with the physical world one's future might be on a slightly safer foundation if one did not consider these subjects according to the latest fashion, but rather in terms of business management or indeed the arts-based approach.
8.14 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, this has been another short but equally important debate this afternoon. I am pleased to be taking part in it. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, most warmly for giving us the opportunity to discuss this issue.

1227
I make a confession: while growing up I have said to a number of people that if ever I am reincarnated I want to come back as an engineer. I have always thought—yes, I missed my opportunity—that the excitement of thinking about something, designing, making and using it attracts me very much. If someone such as my noble friend Lady Platt had been around when I was a little girl, it is just possible that I might have actually become one.
The noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, reminded us of how important the engineer is to our well-being as a nation and indeed to the world. We have the problems of success because we live longer, are healthier and have every kind of aid to help us through life. We now look to the engineer to resolve the other problem—the problem of population growth. It will be the engineer who will find some of the answers to those questions.
There is a concern among engineers—mentioned by a number of noble Lords—about the casual use of the word "engineer". We have the man who mends the washing machine, fixes the lift or mends the electric kettle being called an engineer alongside the great professional engineers. That is a real issue. Some progress has been made on that. Some form of registration scheme through the professional bodies is another way forward.
The noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, and others have mentioned the difficulty of the subjects that are key to engineering—maths and physical sciences. The truth is that, in commonly used jargon, they are known as the "hard" subjects. Not everyone makes the hard choices. The noble Lord said that they are not easy to teach. For students and pupils they are not easy to learn. So there is an issue here. That is why my noble friend Lady Platt is absolutely right: there needs to be a great deal of encouragement at every level of education in order to persuade children to think about the subject.
One problem is the quality of the teachers. That is not to denigrate teachers, but the truth is that we have many teachers teaching science, and in particular teaching maths, who do not have a science or a maths qualification. Others do not have a very good maths or science qualification; and we have an unprecedentedly large number of teachers teaching subjects for which they were not trained. That is bound to have an effect on the quality of the teaching—and of the learning.
Much has been said about boys versus girls. I take the opportunity to pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Platt. She has done more than anyone I know to promote engineering as a profession—but to promote it for women. Her work with WISE is legendary. I also want to join with her in her campaign to have WISE's grant reinstated. It has been incredibly valuable as a service that persuades young girls into engineering. My noble friend has an aeronautical engineering degree. She achieved that when not all that many women went to university, let alone managed a degree in aeronautical engineering. So many congratulations to my noble friend.
1228
The noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, mentioned Monty Finiston. I happen also to be a fan of his. It was Monty Finiston who introduced an educational movement called Education for Capability. His idea was that every schoolchild, from whatever level of ability and at whatever age, should have the experience of thinking about a problem, trying to decide what to do about it and making something—by making and doing—using and evaluating it, thereby going through all the processes that one would go through in engineering. I think that we have rather forgotten that very practical applied approach to learning. Certainly he is much remembered for it.
Concern has been raised about standards. That is a problem. We have heard and seen the statistics produced today that at key stage 2 standards in science have fallen. In 95 local education authorities they have fallen. They rose in only 25 local education authorities. The noble Lord, Lord Haskel, mentioned the disappointing news that the uptake of modern apprenticeships, particularly in engineering, has fallen by 20 per cent. The take-up of modern apprenticeships has fallen in every single part of the country except in the North East, where there was a small rise.
I should like to add a word about careers advice. I believe that we make a terrible mistake with careers advice. People go into schools when the pupils are 14, 15 or 16 and talk to them about careers and what they should be doing. Effective careers advice should start in infant schools. Engineers and people in the professions should go into schools and talk to very young children. It is at that stage that children would be enthused. They will then understand the importance of particular subjects and the importance of working hard.
That should be reinforced as the child goes through school. Careers advice should start very early and be reinforced before the child leaves junior school and arrives in secondary school. It should not be left until the child is 14 or 15 to tell him that it would he exciting to be an engineer if, frankly, he was awful at maths and had not tried very hard. I believe that much more could be done; namely, starting earlier with careers advice.
More people from industry should visit schools and schools should take pupils out into industry. That should be encouraged more. I agree with my noble friend Lord Freeman on his point about parents. There should be an interaction with parents. Why should not professionals also come to parents' evenings to talk about the kind of careers open to their children if only they studied particular subjects?
The noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, said that nothing has changed since the time he introduced this very debate on this side of the House making the very same point. What has changed, which is welcome and is being built on by the Government, is that science is taught now at a very early age. It is part of the national curriculum for infant and junior schools, and that has helped. Maths, science and technology are now part of the national curriculum for all children.
I make one plea to the Government: there is an enormous amount of top-slicing of budget, which I am afraid supports many centrally controlled fanciful

1229
projects, and the core funding into schools is being depleted all the time. We need more of the core funding put back into schools so that they can do something about improving the services given to our children. The key is obvious: better qualified maths and science teachers.
Another point I feel particularly strongly about is that there should be more teaching of subjects in primary schools by subject specialist teachers. It is too much to expect one teacher to teach one class for a whole year, covering eight, nine or even 10 subjects. I believe that for subjects such as maths, science and technology there should be much more moving about of the children and the strength of each teacher used to teach across the age range. There should also be a better transfer of children from junior to secondary schools. I know of too many bright children who leave junior school and coast during their first year in secondary school. Often, they are lost for ever.
I have said that careers advice could be better and more effective. Unless some of those changes take place—we have heard suggestions from all sides of the I-louse today—sadly, the answer to the Question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, will be no. We all hope that that is not the case, but the point I take from my noble friend Lord Freeman is that it is more important to consider the quality of the engineers than the number.
8.23 p.m.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I begin by declaring an interest. I am the father of two engineers. I therefore counsel the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, that he will do a good job if he succeeds in inculcating such values in his daughter. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, that perhaps I did not start too early. My incompetence with the screwdriver was noticeable to my children at the age of five and that may have been the reason why they began to take a keen interest in engineering skills.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, for introducing a most significant topic for debate. I, too, want to put on record his significant work as chairman of SETN ET, the Science, Engineering and Technology Network. Its activities are a key part of the strategy for meeting our future engineering requirements. They are especially welcome in their contribution to improving the links between industry and our education institutions and in helping to enhance teaching capacity.
I recognise the anxieties expressed about the position confronting engineering. Complaints about engineering and the problems of our culture go back at least 150 years. Even in the great days of Brunel and the 19th century engineers, there was still a great anxiety about the fact that a true education cultivated the arts rather than the sciences. There were great worries about our manufacturing base at that time. Therefore, I believe that at times we can overstress the extent to which cultural factors operate against the successful development of engineering skills. We play
1230
our part as a significant economy in the world and as a significant manufacturing economy of the world over a long period of time.
We recognise that certain aspects as regards culture and education can take hold. It is necessary that we adopt strategies which counteract the perspective that certain subjects are easier to conquer intellectually and in which subsequently it is easier to make one's living in our uncertain society.
None of us underestimates the sensitivity of young students and potential undergraduates to the market. One of the things that broader and certainly higher education and the students whom they educate is noted for is the quite significant responses to market sensitivity—where the jobs are, where the courses are created, and where the students graduate. Therefore, if we are going to change the position as regards engineering we need to make a very significant contribution in terms of the perspective of our education institutions.
I seek to establish as best I can today the extent to which the Government take this issue on board and recognise the useful ways in which government policy in education and in support for industry and co-operation with industry can help to improve the engineering base of our country and sustain and advance its skills.
Perhaps I may emphasise in this connection that all is not gloom. For example, it is the case that the numbers of students going into certain areas of education are increasing quite significantly. The particular area in which the noble Baroness, Lady Platt, has such high renown is aeronautical engineering. It has seen a substantial increase in the number of students in recent years. The numbers have increased by 49 per cent. The number of students in electronic engineering has also increased by 32 per cent.
There are declines in certain areas. Reference was made in the debate to civil engineering where there has been a significant decline. We know that is one of the areas which is most sensitive to the economy, not least because a great deal of its work relates to the public economy, with investment in major projects. Therefore, civil engineering often shows fluctuations as acute as any. That is not to say that I am taking lightly the issues which confront civil engineering. I am merely seeking to indicate that there are areas of engineering about which we can be slightly more optimistic than perhaps the general tenor of comments this evening has suggested.
The absolute numbers of students entering universities to study science, engineering and technology have increased by 8.5 per cent over the past five years despite an overall fall in employment in the engineering sector. So we need to strike a balance about the issues that confront us. That is not to say that we do not need to find ways in which we can strengthen engineering interest and provision.
As a government, we have made good progress in the sector in developing a vocation-based progression route from the new engineering GCSE. through modern apprenticeships and centres of vocational

1231
excellence to foundation degrees and higher education participation. That is to seek to develop an aspect that was dealt with by a number of speakers in the debate—that the vocational deserves a place in equal status with the academic; that the ability of people to do as well as to think intellectually and conceive issues must be in rather better balance than has perhaps been the case in our culture hitherto. That is a challenging dimension, but we have no doubt that education has a part to play in changing that perspective, and we are doing something about it.
We are also strengthening the links between employers and the education system, widening participation in engineering and science and enhancing our delivery of high level engineering skills. The industry is one of the first for which a vocationally based GCSE has been developed, and it is expected to be the first for which a fully licensed sector skills council will be approved. I say that in response to the comments of my noble friend Lord Howie on that aspect of education.
As for schools, we believe, as the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said, that it is important to catch future engineers, scientists and technologists as early as possible in their careers. She may be right that we could do more at junior school level. It is certainly the case that we need to do more with regard to career formation and ambition at secondary school level. We are all aware of the great problem that teachers are expert only in the subjects that they teach and through the experience that they have had. That is a disadvantage in respect of those areas of external work in which teachers are not directly qualified. Engineering suffers from that problem, which is why we are introducing specialist schools alongside the engineering GCSE. We regard that as a major step forward.
I am glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, paid tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Platt, for her work with WISE. We recognise the importance of that work and the ambassador's role it plays with regard to schools. We recognise how important it is to have a much better mix of men and women who are competent in the sciences and who can go on to be engineers. That would correct what, historically, has always been an extraordinary—
Baroness Platt of Writtle: My Lords, I hope that that will be translated into more money for WISE.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I feared that money might be at the back of the noble Baroness's thoughts somewhere; I cannot make any promises from my humble position here this evening. Nevertheless, the case has been made well and I endorse that.
I also emphasise the point made by my noble friend Lord Haskel about EMTA's work. It is important to co-operate with employers and to recognise their role in relation to such work. The noble Lord, Lord Freeman, emphasised that industry could perhaps play a more proactive part with regard to
1232
support in higher education. That is not to underestimate the current links, although more can clearly be done. Against the background of the well-recognised financial constraints in higher education, the support that industry can offer is obviously welcome and we encourage it. We also want to see the development of vocational skills in higher education. The concept behind the foundation degree is that students should be able to engage for two years in degree-level studies that have a strong vocational dimension—which relate to the world of work—and they should subsequently choose whether to go on to a full honours degree in their subject; alternatively, we may have established, through the foundation degree, a higher skill level in terms of vocational skills at a level that enjoys repute and which will be supported.
We are committed to ensuring an adequate supply of science, engineering and technology graduates with the right skills to meet the economy's needs. The noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, referred to the Roberts inquiry; Sir Gareth's report in April was of tremendous importance. It acknowledged that overall the UK has a relatively large and growing number of students studying for scientific and technical qualifications. We should recognise that more young people in the UK have science and engineering degrees than in most other OECD countries. Of the G7 nations, only France has more qualified graduates than we do. We responded to Sir Gareth's report as positively as we could.
With regard to the Government's concern about science and the amount of expenditure that is necessary for it, Investing in Innovation announced the largest sustained growth in science, engineering and technology expenditure for a decade.
Therefore, this evening I am seeking to recognise the concerns of all those who have an interest in engineering. I appreciate that we are dealing with a difficult subject in educational terms because it is a breadth of disciplines rather than a single one. It is not a subject that is taught directly in schools. Therefore, the joys and opportunities of acquiring the skills and embarking on a career associated with engineering must be communicated more successfully to students. I believe that the House will recognise that an important part of the Government's whole educational perspective is to increase and improve careers advice to young people so that they may be set on the best course as early as possible.
Against that background, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, will feel that, in promoting the debate this evening, he has brought to the attention of the nation the difficulties facing engineering. At the same time, I hope that he will recognise that the Government are with him entirely in responding to his call for a proactive response to the needs of engineering.
House adjourned at twenty-four minutes before nine o'clock.

  Alami and Botmeh
  Alami and Botmeh
  Zimbabwe
  Zimbabwe
  Israel: Security Fence
  Israel: Security Fence
  Capita: Criminal Record Checks
  Capita: Criminal Record Checks
  Criminal Justice System: Consultation
  Criminal Justice System: Consultation
  Courts Administration
  Courts Administration
  Local Tax Default: Committal to Prison
  Local Tax Default: Committal to Prison
  Euro-Mediterranean Area
  Euro-Mediterranean Area
  Community Development Venture Fund
  Community Development Venture Fund
  Solar Water Heating
  Solar Water Heating
  End-of-Life Vehicles Directive
  End-of-Life Vehicles Directive
  Local Tax Default: Committal to Prison
  Local Tax Default: Committal to Prison
  Starter Home Initiative
  Starter Home Initiative
  Disabled Children
  Disabled Children
  State Pension Uprating for British Subjects Resident in former Yugoslavia
  State Pension Uprating for British Subjects Resident in former Yugoslavia
  Transfusion-related Acute Lung Injury
  Transfusion-related Acute Lung Injury
  Passive Smoking
  Passive Smoking
  Human Fertilisation and Embroyology Authority
  Human Fertilisation and Embroyology Authority
  Assisted Reproductive Technologies
  Assisted Reproductive Technologies
  Tourism Related Industries: Employment
  Tourism Related Industries: Employment
  Licensing Authorities
  Licensing Authorities
  Radio Ownership Scheme
  Radio Ownership Scheme
  Contaminated Land Remediation: Tax Relief
  Contaminated Land Remediation: Tax Relief
  Property in Disadvantaged Areas: Stamp Duty Relief
  Property in Disadvantaged Areas: Stamp Duty Relief
  Public Service Agreement Targets
  Public Service Agreement Targets